Solar Cycle Mystery Solved ?

Guest essay by David Archibald

In the time before the current period of faith-based science, much good work was done on the role of the Sun in controlling climate. One of the best monographs from that time of innocence is Hoyt and Schatten’s The Role of the Sun in Climate Change, published by Oxford University Press in 1997. That book starts with this paragraph:

About 400 years before the birth of Christ, near Mt. Lyscabettus in ancient Greece, the pale orb of the sun rose through the mists. According to habit, Meton recorded the sun’s location on the horizon. In this era when much remained to be discovered, Meton hoped to find predictable changes in the locations of sunrise and moonrise. Although rainy weather had limited his recent observations, this foggy morning he discerned specks on the face of the sun, the culmination of many such blemishes in recent years. On a hunch, Meton began examining his more than 20 years of solar records. These seemed to confirm his belief: when the sun has spots, the weather tends to be wetter and rainier.

On our star, the Sun, the sunspots are seen in a belt around the equator. Sunspots are cool areas caused by the strong magnetic fields where the flow of heat is slowed. Credit: NASA

On our star, the Sun, the sunspots are seen in a belt around the equator. Sunspots are cool areas caused by the strong magnetic fields where the flow of heat is slowed. Credit: NASA

So the idea that sunspots and the solar cycle control climate is at least 2,400 years old. In the modern era, the appreciation of sunspots started again in 1610 with telescopic observations by Galileo, Thomas Harriot and others. The solar cycle was discovered by Samual Schwabe in 1843 after 17 years of observations, though William Herschel’s correlation of sunspots and the wheat price in England dates from 1801. A 2003 paper by Pustilnik and Din entitled Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England confirmed Herschel’s observation.

The idea that the Sun controls climate is easy enough to understand. In fact the Earth’s climate is exquisitively sensitive to changes in solar output, as shown in Nir Shaviv’s 2009 paper Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing. Professor Shaviv found that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations.

We know what causes individual sunspots – something to do with magnetic flux tubes rising to the solar surface due to bouyancy. But the cause of the solar cycle itself had remained a mystery until the recent publication of the second edition of Evidence-Based Climate Science, edited by the indefatigable Don Easterbrook. The first edition, published in 2011, contained a paper by Ed Fix, retired B-52 pilot from Ohio, entitled The Relationship of Sunspot Cycles to Gravitational Stresses on the Sun: Results of a Proof-of-Concept Simulation, which demonstrated the modulation of the solar cycle by the gas planets. The second edition expands on that with a co-authored paper (Ed and myself) entitled Aspects of Solar Variability and Climate Response which details the relative contribution of those planets.

It has long been suspected that the solar cycle is largely influenced by Jupiter due to the closeness of the average length of the solar cycle of 11 years and the orbital period of Jupiter of 11.86 years. In 1984, Schwentek and Elling noted that “the clearly dominant spectral band in sunspot number, the solar cycle of 10.8 years, is given by the configuration period of Jupiter and Saturn (19.859 yr) times the ratio of their distances from the Sun (0.545).” Just over a decade later, Attila Grandpierre confirmed that whatever was causing the solar cycle must be extrinsic to the Sun – which leaves the planets as the causative agent.

Ed Fix’s 2011 paper was important because it provided a physical explanation for solar cycle behaviour. Many of the then observation-derived rules for explaining the fundamental properties of the sunspot cycle had not been quantified until that paper. To a large extent, existing solar science is based on non-mathematical observation, evidenced by Dikpati’s and Hathaway’s various predictions of solar cycle amplitude. The 2011 paper’s treatment of the sunspot cycle as an ideal spring driven by changes in radial acceleration provided a new paradigm. At the same time, this new model is consistent with the solar dynamo theory.

Ed Fix’s model explains why, for extended periods, successive increases in solar cycle amplitude are seen before the system gets out of phase and phase destruction occurs. Individual Hale cycles are not discrete magnetic events. The quantum of flux preserved in the system is the basis for the amplitude of the following cycle. Thus the sunspot cycle memory effect is explained.

The model also explains the Waldemeir effect – that strong cycles reach a maximum of amplitude in the shortest period of time. It also explains the amplitude-period effect (the anti-correlation between the peak amplitude of a cycle and the length of the preceding cycle) and the amplitude-minimum effect (the correlation between cycle amplitude and the activity level at the previous minimum). Ed Fix’s model hindcasts almost perfectly and that very close match, despite the model’s simplicity, suggests that a lot of confidence could be placed in what it is predicting.

Some have doubted the planetary basis of the solar cycle due to the weak effects of the individual planets on the Sun. That is certainly borne out by the work done for the 2016 paper. Figure 1, from that paper, shows that by itself Jupiter has little effect on solar variability:

clip_image002

Figure 1: Simulation model with Jupiter only compared to the full model

Similarly, Figure 2 running the model with only Saturn shows a similarly low amplitude response though with Saturn’s 29 year orbital period instead of Jupiter’s 12 years:

clip_image004

Figure 2: Simulation model with Saturn only compared to the full model

So, if Jupiter and Saturn have little effect on the Sun by themselves, as predicted by many, what does cause the solar cycle? This is the mystery that has not been explained until now.

It turns out that the interaction of Jupiter and Saturn causes most of the solar cycle. The effect on the Sun of these two planets is synergistic rather than additive as shown by Figure 3. It has been said that mathematics is the language of physics. What has been elucidated by this paper is the mathematical basis of the solar cycle.

clip_image006

Figure 3: Simulation model with Jupiter and Saturn compared to the full model

The red line shows the full model which includes Uranus and Neptune as well as Jupiter and Saturn. The difference between the red and blue lines is the effect of Uranus and Neptune. This can be additive or subtractive. In Solar Cycles 18 and 22, Uranus and Neptune increased the amplitude of the solar cycles relative to the model output of Jupiter and Saturn alone. In Solar Cycles 20 and 24, Uranus and Neptune had the effect of reducing the size of those solar cycles. Thus the cold period of the 1970s cooling period associated with Solar Cycle 20 may have been due to the influence of Uranus and Neptune.

Where to from here? Well, there is another big mystery remaining about the Sun. The hemispheres have different activities that are preserved on a multi-cycle basis. That is shown in the following figure:

clip_image008

Figure 4: Sunspot area by solar hemisphere

For the last three cycle, the southern hemisphere has had more sunspot area than the northern hemisphere. Its peak has also been later than that of the northern hemisphere. What could be causing that? It is likely to be the inclination of the orbits of the gas giant planets to the Sun’s equator. Those inclination are:

Jupiter 6.09%

Saturn 5.51%

Uranus 6.48%

Neptune 6.43%

It seems that the next step will be to make a 3D version of Ed Fix’s model.


David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery).

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Griff

Well, of course the sun has an impact on climate…
It is just that the main driver of current climate changes – i.e. warming – is human CO2.

(heavy sigh) The AGW religion of the IPCC is well known, Griff. It’s just that most of us stick to real science.

Bryan A

One thing is for certain though, If you remove either one from the equation, the Earth gets Cold and Dead.
Even if you lower either one the earth gets colder and death begins to take hold. Just look at the LIA and the famine in Europe

RH

Griff did a nice job of hijacking this thread. I’d like to see this article reposted and let people comment on the actual content.

Marcus

..And some day you may actually be able to prove it !!

Harry Passfield

Griff be able to prove it? C’mon, he probably has Velcro fasteners on his shoes as laces are still a challenge!

Marcus

…ROTFLMAO…

nigelf

Hey, go easy on the Velcro fasteners, I’m 57 and love them! Why should I spend my time lacing and tying when Velcro will do a faster job?

Griff

Harry I really want some of those sneakers with the flashing LED lights, but my wife refuses to be seen with me if I buy any… 🙁

james king

That doesn’t sound like cancer to me Swanson

Alan the Brit

If you truly believe that, kindly explain the lack of any significant warming for the last 19 years!

Griff

If you use only RSS type data, from a certain start date, that’s what you would get, if you left out 2016…

Bryan A

and if you remove all the adjustments that have been made to the raw data for the purpose of Karl et. al. the climate stability would still be indicated
Welcome to the Adjustocene

Griff

The RSS and UAH data sets also have had multiple adjustments, so they fit right in that epoch

Chimp

The adjustments to satellite data are warranted scientifically. The manipulation of so-called “surface data” sets are not. They’re tendentious and anti-scientific to promote advocacy.

MarkW

Speaking of faith based science, up jumps the chief acolyte.
To bad the science has shown that CO2 is only a bit player in this drama.

Pop Piasa

Well Griff, you were the first to comment and the first to disappear without defending your claim. Will you also claim that the CO2 humanity produces is responsible for the next planetary cooling cycle? Reality has debunked the models already, so all you possess is blind faith in the agenda behind those models and their claimed forecasts. The reradiation of infrared by CO2 is dwarfed by that of H2O, and my nursery rhyme still stands:
Mother Goose on Climate Prediction
As record winds blow
Unprecedented snow,
Oh, where is our globe a’ warming?
That depends on the sun
And the ways oceans run,
Plus clouds (with complexity) forming!
Now, and for quite long,
Climate models are wrong.
So, what caused the pause in the warming?
Yes, look to the sun,
The ways oceans run,
And the clouds, in complexity forming.
CO2 is “too small”
To stop temperature’s fall
When the sun, clouds and oceans together,
Begin to cause cold
in a cycle so old…
That no one alive can remember!
So if I do some harm
By just keeping warm,
You’ll have to kindly forgive me!
I find my solution
Is carbon pollution…
Ere this planet will quickly outlive me!

Griff

I don’t have infinite time to post comments, like some lucky folk… you’ll have to wait till I can get back.
For certain CO2 has increased, isotopically that CO2 came from human activity, global temperatures continue to climb, arctic sea ice and glaciers continue to decline. The sun is in a cooler phase recently. The only realistic cause of the warming is that CO2, a known greenhouse gas.
Unless you exclude, ignore or claim as fake the surface temp record, there’s evidence of rising temps.
I note also the results of the skeptic funded Berkley Earth programme.
Really, I’d have to go far off the beaten track of science to find evidence otherwise.

RWturner

You seem to have more time to waste than anyone else posting here, considering all of your comments are meaningless trolling. It must be all the time you save from not reading the articles.

Eugene WR Gallun

Pop Piasa —
Nice little poem. You are more deserving of the Noble Prize in Literature than Bod Dylan.
Eugene WR Gallun

Bryan A

Sorry Griff,
Not meaning to burst your Climate Alarm Bubble
but your statement is a bit oxy moronic

Unless you exclude, ignore or claim as fake the surface temp record, there’s evidence of rising temps.,/blockquote>
The bolded portion of your statement is exactly the issue. The surface temperature records have been adjusted to read warmer in the presant and cooler in the past. In essence they have been adjusted so much that they do no longer represent the actual data and thus can be viewed as faked

Bryan A

Sorry Griff,
Not meaning to burst your Climate Alarm Bubble
but your statement is a bit oxy moronic

Unless you exclude, ignore or claim as fake the surface temp record, there’s evidence of rising temps.

The bolded portion of your statement is exactly the issue. The surface temperature records have been adjusted to read warmer in the present and cooler in the past. In essence they have been adjusted so much that they do no longer represent the actual data and thus can be viewed as faked

MarkW

The surface temperature record in the modern error has error bars of somewhere around 5C. These get greater as you go back in time.
The idea that you can tease a signal of a few hundredths of a degree from that record is so ridiculous that only the terminally clueless could accept it.

MRW

Griff, and how do you figure in the activity of the most prevalent greenhouse gas: water vapor? Or is that portion of infrared map immaterial?
Also, how are you able to distinguish the difference between human-induced CO2 and natural CO2, the latter of which is 40X larger by volume, and considering that they are intermixed?

Griff

Well Bryan if the data is faked, by agencies such as NASA, on such a wide scale, with such a scale of acceptance (‘cover up’) by world scientists, then we’re not talking science but conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy of a level the world has never seen the like… and in 25 years and more, no one has broken the silence, the evidence of faking has not been presented.
Berkley Earth took skeptic money to look at it and found nothing.
If there was that level of conspiracy, this website wouldn’t exist…
MRW – it only matters that we can tell the origin of the increase in CO2 and pin it to human activity…

It is faked Griff, just in the last year NOAA has changed the yearly co2 emmisions ppm/v and the temperature per year. There is absolutely no reason, none whatsoever. I submit a paper with the wrong info on it, I’m ignored as an idiot. I become the one changing the data…

gnomish

he griff-
“NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center uses satellite data to provide precise weather updates to NORAD as it begins tracking Santa’s progress after sundown every Christmas Eve. One NASA satellite traces the infrared signal from the red nose of lead reindeer Rudolph.
From its base at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, NORAD posts real-time updates of Santa’s progress on its website, NoradSanta.org. Updates are provided in eight languages. NORAD also updates Santa’s journey on social media such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.”
there’s a google app for that, too.
this is not a conspiracy. everybody truly believes.
and i’m sure you’d be the last one to deny the science.
omniscient distributors of unearned wealth are the backbone of a progressive social order.

Chimp

Griff,
It’s not a conspiracy theory but a fact, which can be easily demonstrated by comparing previous data sets to those post-adjustment. Also, once formerly secret algorithms were forced into the daylight, the extent of the manipulation became clear.

PWhiteside

Griff: “It is just that the main driver of current climate changes – i.e. warming – is human CO2.”
Spoken with such conviction, Griff. Almost as much conviction as you showed last week in your “belief” that hurricanes in Oct are “unusual” and definitely caused by human CO2. Until you were shown the facts. Apparently facts, for you, have a half life of somewhere under a week.

stock

Griff, that is sarcasm, right?

Alan the Brit

I think Griff is a visiting alien from another planet. No warming for 19 years other than in puter models!

BallBounces

Can we just compromise and agree that the main driver of current climate data changes – i.e. warming – is human?

brians356

If by climate data “changes” you mean climate data manipulation or “adjustments”, then sure, we all agree those are human induced. 😉

catweazle666

Yes, let’s call it “Mann Made Global Warming”!

Trebla

It is just that the main driver of current climate changes – i.e. warming – is human CO2.
Griff, this statement is a conjecture (polite word for wild-assed guess). It is not even a hypothesis, because it is untestable. There is no way of differentiating the signal (presumed AGW) from the noise (what is happening to the climate without the presence of human CO2).
The mathematical models based on this conjecture have no skill in forecasting or hindcasting. They have been “parameterized” (polite word for fudge-factored) to fit the data over a short time period. Any mathematician worth his salt can conjure up an equation that purports to show that an independent variable can predict a dependent variable.

Griff

It is warming… things like the sun and milankovitch cycles are not producing additional warming effects.

Griff,the weak warming trend is well within historical trends. There is nothing unusual going on.
Plus there have been many failures of the CAGW conjecture already known,that indicate that CO2 doesn’t drive temperature changes anyway.
Stop hanging onto a trace gas,with a minuscule IR absorption capability.

Joel Snider

But, like Goebbels, he’ll keep saying it. Similar psychologies. Similar methods.

Chimp

Griff,
Whatever warming has actually occurred since the end of the LIA is natural. Earth’s climate warms and cools without any help from humanity, and has always done so.
What has happened since c. AD 1850 is entirely within normal bounds. Much bigger warming cycles have occurred during the Holocene and all prior interglacials. Even bigger swings happened during the glacial intervals.
There is no “human fingerprint” on any warming since the end of the LIA or during the post-war period.

MRW

things like the sun and milankovitch cycles are not producing additional warming effects.

Oh, wow. Sun doesn’t warm the tropical Pacific? I’d like to hear your rationale for ENSO, or is that a toss-away too?

Alan Ranger

I did it myself once for fun. A simple polynomial with 120 degrees of freedom gave a perfect hindcast fit to the past 120 years of climate. I “proved” that the Earth’s climate follows a polynomial law! 🙂

John Harmsworth

Fantastic Griff! All these people working night and day and spending billions on this problem and you figured it all out at a glance using only the power of preconceived notions!

Griff

Hey, I go to my MD and I don’t figure I have to work out the basics of human physiology before I let her treat me… I take the biological science as fact.

Chimp

Griff,
Biological science and physiology aren’t settled, either. No science is.
Nutritionists can’t decide on fats, refined sugars, carbs or whatever as the control knob on cholesterol and health.

Where is real world evidence,Griff?

MarkW

If you don’t like what he’s shown so far, give him a minute and he’ll manufacture some more.

Joel Snider

To be fair, I don’t think he’s manufactured anything – he said himself, he doesn’t have time – so he’s just simply repeating every last BS piece of hackwork propaganda/spin that’s fed to him by his puppet-masters. That’s why he always cites some third party.
Manufacturing is an act of creation. Modern Progressivism – particularly where it is most corrupted by eco-fascism – is a philosophy of destruction – incompatible with actual progress and outside the realm of understanding of greenie-types.

Chimp

That man-made CO2 is the main driver of current climate changes is an evidence-free assertion, not a scientific fact, ie observation. It doesn’t even qualify as an hypothesis, since it’s easily shown false. There is not even a correlation, let alone causation. The null hypothesis, ie that nothing out of the ordinary has happened with climate during the monotonous rise in CO2 since the end of WWII.
For the first 30 to 35 years after the war, earth’s climate cooled dramatically despite steadily increasing CO2, so all that extra beneficial plant food in the air could not possibly have been the main driver of global temperature. Then, for about 20 years, rising CO2 happened accidentally to coincide with apparently rising GASTA. Then, for the 18 years after the 1998 super El Nino, global temperature was flat to falling. Since this year’s El Nino was slightly warmer than the 1998 event, we’re, probably temporarily, back to a slight increase since then, but far below the GIGO climate models’ predictions. And the downtrend is liable to return with a likely La Nina event.
So, while CO2 is a GHG weaker than H2O, increasing its concentration from three to four molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules over a century has had a negligible effect on global temperature and other climatic phenomena. Net feedback effects are probably negative, as indicated by the pronounced cooling for nearly half of the post-war interval.

Chimp

Null hypothesis has not been rejected. Left off the last phrase.

Eugene WR Gallun

Griff —
You go ahead and continue to believe your silly little myth about human CO2. The White Queen claimed to be able to believe six impossible things before breakfast. Maybe if you breakfasted on the science you would give up such a silly claim.
Eugene WR Gallun

Ronald Reagan quipped that it was not what his opponents did not know that bothered him: it was all the things they Know that is NOT TRUE that did.
The “Climate Change” theologists knows so much that is not true they have no attention left for evidence and logic.
True or false the collected observations by the Weather Service are the largest and best documented data we have for historic US temps. We literally cannot “adjust” it since we DO NOT have the evidence to improve the raw numbers. Any changes are exactly as likely to be wrong as right.

Griff

Its not a myth is it?
There’s a known effect of greenhouse gasses in an atmosphere: we have more CO2: surface temp records and secondary indicators like glaciers show warming. Other climate drivers like Milankovitch cycles can be shown to not be having a warming effect.
I can read any amount of peer reviewed science backing up the theory behind the real world observations.
As Bryan has set out above it would likely involve massive fakery for the science to be wrong.
Or relying on partial data from only RSS type temp data.
Or ignoring the plain evidence of melting arctic sea ice.
what is the contrary evidence?
Its not warming?
Only warming naturally/a bit?
Only the temp evidence from satellites is OK?
The evidence is faked?
Its a UN plot under Agenda 21?
They are only doing it for the grant money?
there is no solid body of evidence against warming: only partial use of evidence and political opinion and, sadly, conspiracy theory.

Leo Smith

Poor ole Griff. Still banging in a drum that’s been discarded by real science years ago.
A minutes silence for Griff, and CO2 induced climate change.

seaice1

I wonder what this real science is? Where can we read it?

Chimp

WUWT is a good place to start.

Cube

Once again a troll jumps in and derails the conversation. Nothing useful to say about the article, just a diversion into nonsense. @Griff, are you paid to do this? Do you also go by the name emsnews? How many other user names do you have?

The best thing to do is ignore trolls, don’t react and they will go away. Trolls get a mental rush out of raising your reaction against them ( self flagellation).

bit chilly

i will second both these comments . one alarmist goon turns up and the discussion thread turns to crap. note how often the goon has one of the first comments on certain threads. either a trust fund overweight greenie permanantly glued to his computer screen or a troll bot. saddest thing is “it” gets the desired response every single time.

Paul Penrose

Griff,
That’s like saying that hanging your hand out the car window is the main driver in your fuel mileage.

I strongly disagree with that Griff. Man made warming could or has been linked to a number of things; urban heat islands, attic spaces were the volume of heat is actually retained and is dependent on the power formula for raising the temperature ( for example the amount of energy it takes for a car traveling 40 to go to 60 mph), road construction, and actual heat release. Co2 is not a contributor to warming. In fact co2 follows temperature. The IPCC s graphs are not congruent showing the relationship of co2 and temperature.

Joel Snider

Grift really enjoys being a pain in the a$$ and getting a reaction. Probably got beat up a lot growing up.

Chimp

The goon d@nies the scientific fact that CO2 is plant food, apparently just for the sake of having something about which to argue to fill up an empty, meaningless existence.
Never mind that the C in C12H22O11 (sugar made by photosynthesis in plants) comes from carbon dioxide in the air.
Hence, more such plant food has visibly greened the earth and twice or thrice as much as now would be even better for our planet.

The paper is about the effect of the planets on the sun.
Your first sentence is trivial, everyone accepts that as fact.

M Seward

No Griff, the main driver of the obsession with CO2 as the main driver of current climate change is humans like you. The CO2 thesis has more basis in the notion of original sin than in science. You lot would have lynched Charles Darwin if you got the chance or at least vilified him and everyone who gave any credence to his creation denial. All funding would be diverted to the examination of ‘intelligent design’ and how clever God was.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

In my study of cycles in precipitation data few decades back [published in an article], I noticed 60-year cycle. I also found this in astrological calendar used in India and as well in China. In Chinese astrological cycle relates to 12 animal signs and 5 panchabhootas. All these are related to 9 planets which form the basis for Indian astrology. Following this I tried to look at the cycle length of the plants to 60 year cycle in rainfall. All these I made qualitatively.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

catweazle666

No it isn’t.
Stop making stuff up.

Johann Wundersamer

Lacks the Turing test:
a Griff is
a) human
b) a directed fast responding answere machine

Neil

Nice theory.
So now consider Proxima Centauri, with an observable cycle and no known planets. Key to this theory is the presence of gas giants, so colour me skeptical that this is a done-and-dusted theory.

Phil B

Proxima Centauri is, firstly, part of a trinary star system. Secondly, you’re a bit behind the times. In August this year we found a planet orbiting it.

Neil

Thanks for the update!

jorgekafkazar

Nice, Phil. Still, it should be possible to study the system’s TSI variation relative to the positions of the two “hot planets,” assuming we can determine their orbits.

Civil Engineer planning for 500 year flood pattern for four dams in South America https://anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/2982-journal-of-civ-eng-vol-49-no-2.pdf

Beware the ongoing approx 1.4% per decade increase in total precipitable water (TPW) ftp://ftp.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201609.time_series.txt

Pop Piasa

Dan, is this a trend or a positive oscillation?

Phil B

This is an awesome paper. Saw it yesterday and bookmarked it for more a more in depth reading when I have time over Christmas.
The one I’m really looking forward to is what is causing the Earth-facing Solar quiet. We can see from Stereo A and B that the far side of the sun is as active as ever. But for at least the last year there has been some forcing on the Earth-facing disk which causes sun spots to rapidly decay or fail to grow into complexity, reduce flaring and even keep filaments stable until they’re not in geoeffective longitudes.
What is causing that is something I’d love to find out.

Jjs

I agree, great paper. I’m 57, an engineer and hope to live long enough to see this all play out. In my career I’ve been involved in debunking quite a few held “beliefs” on why things are happening using science. I can see the c02 “belief” concept going down the same path as some of the fervently held ideas my teams and I have unraveled.

BallBounces

Such as??

Just as a note, nobody knowledgeable says that anthropogenic CO2 has no effect, it’s just that the effect is negligible when compared to all of the natural forces involved.
if CO2 was a major forcing function, the Chixalub impact – which set most of the Earth’s forests on fire – should have put us into a Venus-like state long ago.

MarkW

Chixalub also vaporized quite a bit of limestone.

Bryan A

And created huge ammounts of Water Vapor
It also vaporized a portion of Crust material as well as aquatic lifeforms in the region

Jay Hope

‘What is causing the Earth-facing Solar quiet’, good question, Phil. Has any solar physicist bothered to do any research into it?

justathought

Neil, just a random thought. What if the plane of PC’s planetary orbit(s) is approximately perpendicular to our line of sight? Might we rather be able to go from solar cycle to planetary deduction?

higley7

Okay, so the gas giants affect the solar cycle. It was not mentioned here, but is there any correlation regarding the position or movement of the solar barycenter as it moves around inside and sometimes outside the Sun?

http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf
I suspect that the reality is some combination of all of the above.

Allen63

Agree with this one. For fun, I did a “solar system model” (a few years back) that allowed free movement of everything. It indicated the sun oscillated due to planetary motion in a pattern that correlated with sunspots. I did not take it to the depth of the authors — I like the track they are on.

Nylo

Does this predict a SC25 as big as SC23? It seems to, from what I see in the graphics. As nice as the theory could be, if it doesn’t succeed in making predictions about the future, it is useless.

TRM

I was going to ask the same thing. Predictions please. Maybe that will be next. I hope so because so far it is very fascinating.

Kasuha

What a coincidence. This recent article comes with similar conclusion, except it blames Jupiter, Earth and Venus for it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161004113753.htm
It has something to it. Venus applies second strongest tidal forces on Sun after Jupiter (about 13% of Jupiter), Saturn and Earth come only after that (both 9% of Jupiter force). Uranus and Neptune are negligible at 0.3% and 0.1%, even Mercury (3%) has more effect than them.
But with all that, even Jupiter’s tidal effect on Sun is very, very weak. Some time ago I read somewhere that on a completely quiet and perfectly spherical Sun, Jupiter would create a tidal wave 6 cm high. Compared that to Sun’s diameter and size of its surface features … no, I’m not really inclined to believing it has any effect.

If you read carefully, it’s not the absolute effect that counts. Rather, it’s a resonance effect where the planets “pump” a regular waveform and reinforce it or diminish it.
Planetary orbits in stable systems are determined in large part by resonance effects anyways.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~renu/malhotra_preprints/unesco_malhotra_rev.pdf
http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf

lower case fred

And resonance depends on the frequency match between the resonator and forcing function.

Kasuha

Planets have tendency to fall into resonant orbits over millions of years because it’s a stable state of the system and impulses needed to achieve that are comparatively very small. But that has nothing to do with sun cycle. The sun resonating at 11 year period would require a “sound” wave propagating through the Sun at 2 m/s speed – I seriously doubt there’s physical principle that could possibly support that.

ulric lyons

“It turns out that the interaction of Jupiter and Saturn causes most of the solar cycle.”
The solution does not involve Saturn:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/04/new-study-suggests-a-link-between-the-11-year-solar-cycle-and-the-tidal-effects-of-venus-the-earth-and-jupiter/#comment-2313731

Not correct. See papers sited in response to Kasuha above.

ulric lyons

Yes it is the correct solution, and it accounts for everything that the Ju-Ea-Ve triplet cannot possibly account for on their own.

ren

When solar activity decreases in the stratosphere show up two centers of low pressure, one over Canada, the other on the eastern Siberia. This is due to the fact that the Earth’s magnetic field in the north has two centers.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.png
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/data_service/models_compass/polarnorth.html
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_200_nh_f00.png

From a simple point of view this correlates with the basic physics of the moon and tides.

Daryl Ritchie

Fascinating, so the Old Gods still exert their influence, just not the thunderbolts of the passing planets of yore.

Greg

Well, if the roman Jupiter, greek Zeus, has an influence on the solar and that influences climate, there may be thunderbolts and lightening:
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/j/jupiter.html
Other titles of Jupiter include: Caelestis (heavenly), Lucetius (of the light), Totans (thunderer), Fulgurator (of the lightning).
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/z/zeus.html
Zeus was a celestial god, and originally worshipped as a weather god by the Greek tribes.
While I’m not saying I buy the “if” as being established, it does seems to be the historical belief that Jupiter / Zeus controlled the weather.

ulric lyons

“Thus the cold period of the 1970s cooling period associated with Solar Cycle 20 may have been due to the influence of Uranus and Neptune.”
This is where most come unstuck. The global mean surface cooling in the mid 1970’s is literally because of stronger solar wind driving a positive NAO/AO regime, forcing a cold AMO and Arctic, and a multi-year La Nina.

Greg

I really don’t see the point in stating ( asserting ) such stuff as fact without any link to an explanation which can be looked into. Not saying you’re wrong, but it’s meaningless to pop up here and on C.E. and spout oddball hypotheses as fact without any proof.

kim

Hypothesizing is hardly meaningless. Mechanism of causation, if it exists, is, so far, beyond our ken.
==========

ulric lyons

“Not saying you’re wrong…. and spout oddball hypotheses”
You sound confused, and the hearsay is likely a self confession.

Ulric lyons:
You wrote: The global mean surface cooling in the mid 1970’s is literally because of stronger solar wind driving a positive NAO/AO regime, forcing a cold AMO and Arctic, and a Multi-year La Nina”
No, the cooling in the mid 1970’s was due to the large increase in strongly dimming anthropogenic sulfur dioxide aerosol emissions into the atmosphere, which peaked at 131 Megatonnes in 1972.
From large volcanic eruptions we know that emissions of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere will cause global cooling, so cooling HAD to occur in the 1970’s because of the SO2 build-up.
Subsequent reductions in the amount of those emissions due to Clean Air efforts is solely responsible for the rising global temperatures since circa 1972

ulric lyons

Stratospheric volcanic aerosol cooling of the surface promotes El Nino conditions.

ulric lyons:
You stated “stratospheric volcanic cooling promotes El Ninos”
??There were no El ninos associated with either the El Chichon or the Mount Pinatubo eruptions.

John Finn

No, the cooling in the mid 1970’s was due to the large increase in strongly dimming anthropogenic sulfur dioxide aerosol emissions into the atmosphere, which peaked at 131 Megatonnes in 1972.

Wrong on 2 counts
1 There wasn’t any cooling in the 1970’s The cooling began in the 1940s and ended in the 1970s.
2. Aerosols are short-lived in the atmosphere. Most are washed out within a few days – or weeks at the most. They are (or were), therefore, most heavily concentrated in the industrialised regions of the NH. If there were a noticeable effect on climate it would have been in those regions. However from GISS data it’s clear it was the high latitude regions (above 64N) which experienced – by far – the largest cooling trend.
While some aerosols will find their way to the arctic, the effect of aerosols in the arctic is WARMING.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_haze
According to Tim Garrett, an assistant professor of meteorology at the University of Utah involved in the study of Arctic haze at the university, mid-latitude cities contribute pollution to the Arctic, and it mixes with thin clouds, allowing them to trap heat more easily. Garret’s study found that during the dark Arctic winter, when there is no precipitation to wash out pollution, the effects are strongest, because pollutants can warm the environment up to three degrees Fahrenheit.

John Finn:
To reply to your comments:
1. There was cooling in the mid-1960’s – early 1970’s. Recall that there was much talk about the possible return of an ice age because of the unusually cold temperatures.at that time.
2. Your comments about aerosols applies ONLY to intermittent or interrupted events.
Most all emissions are from relatively constant sources such as power plants, factories, foundries, vehicle exhausts, and the like, where they are constantly being renewed. As a result, their effective lifetime lasts until they are either modified to reduce emissions, or are shut down.
Average global temperatures ALWAYS rise during a business recession, due to reduced industrial activity, and the consequent fewer SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere.
This could not happen unless there were a “reservoir”of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere. When plants shut down, the aerosols can then be washed out, as you said, causing temporary warming due to the cleaner, more transparent air.

mark - Helsinki

John GISS “data” is not data, stop calling it data, it is artifact.

ulric lyons
John Finn

Burl Henry:

1. There was cooling in the mid-1960’s – early 1970’s. Recall that there was much talk about the possible return of an ice age because of the unusually cold temperatures.at that time.

Check the GISS data. The 1950-75 trend is flat (slightly positive). Any post-1940 cooling happened in the first 5 -10 years. Unless you’re saying GISS have manipulated the data then I’m afraid you have to accept it. The 1970s were warmer than the 1960s. (and 1950s)

2. Your comments about aerosols applies ONLY to intermittent or interrupted events. /blockquote>
No. Many studies involving the role of industrial aerosols on rainfall pattern were carried out in the UK during the 1960s. Aerosols built up in the week but cleared over the weekend – particularly if it had rained. It’s thought the aerosols increased the likelihood of rain at the week-ends.
Don’t take my word for this. Many relatively recent climate research papers have discussed the regional concentration of industrial aerosols. For example
5.1.4. Sulphate Aerosol Forcing
[88] Sulphate aerosol forcing is not considered important prior to the 20th century but must be included in modelingclimate changes over the past century. Sulphate aerosol forcing tends to cool the climate, particularly so on regional scales. Compared to greenhouse gas forcing, sulphate aerosol forcing is far more uncertain, principally because of limited understanding of the radiative properties of the aerosols and their effects on clouds. This forcing is also regionally specific and must be estimated from past fossil fuel use (see, e.g., Crowley [2000, and references therein] for further discussion).

http://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EESC_W4400/CC/jones_mann_2004.pdf
If Michael Mann and Phil Jones say aerosols from fossil fuel use are regionally specific who am I to argue.

Average global temperatures ALWAYS rise during a business recession, due to reduced industrial activity, and the consequent fewer SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere.

I think you take too much notice of mythology. There is a modest secular trend in global temperatures other than that there are sharper short term fluctuations which are caused by ENSO (El Nino & La Nina)

John Finn:
You wrote:
“There are sharper short-term functions which are caused by ENSO (El Nino & La Nina)”
This is somewhat true, but the MAJORITY of the increases are coincident with business recessions.
Log on to: WoodForTrees.org. Select “interactive”.
The graph that appears is for temperature anomalies.
Adjust it to span 1870-present.
You should print it out, and enlarge it.
Get list of recessions from nber.org/cycles.html
Between 1870 and the present there were 2 depressions and 28 recessions. You will find that all of them are coincident with a temporary increase in average global temperatures.(the one exception, Sept. 02 to Aug. 04 was because of an unusually strong La Nina offset the recession-induced warming)
(Note that the graph does show a steep drop in temperatures mid-1960’s-early 1970’s)

John Finn:
With respect to Sulfate Aerosol forcing, you say that its main effect is to cause cooling.
This is true, as long as it is present in the atmosphere. However, when it settles OUT of the atmosphere, it causes warming due to the cleaner, more transparent air, as is proven after every large volcanic eruption..
(This scientific fact is ignored by the IPCC in its diagram of radiative forcings, making it useless, since the warming due to aerosol removals is so large)
Clean Air efforts have reduced anthropogenic aerosol emissions by more than 30 Megatonnes since 1975, and the warming resulting from their reduction accounts for ALL of the surface warming that has occurred.

Chimp

John Finn
October 14, 2016 at 12:08 pm
GISS has beyond any shadow of doubt manipulated the data. And that’s putting it mildly.
The ’60s and ’70s were colder than the ’40s and ’50s, plus of course the hot ’20s and ’30s. Compare GISS’ cooked books with the temperature data used by NCAR in the late ’70s to support the global cooling scare.

ren

Jupiter takes 11.90 years to complete one revolution of its orbit Saturn and puts 29,50 years. These two planets is a cycle 19,86. Years of their conjunctions (Sun-Jupiter-Saturn) to the next through an opposition (Jupiter-Saturn-Sun) 9.93. Years after the first conjunction. This cycle is very close to double the Schwabe solar cycle with a duration of 8 to 13 years ie one Hales of the cycle of 22 years. The two other Jovian planets (Uranus and Neptune) pouraient be the cause of the variation in the length of these cycles.
http://system.solaire.free.fr/soleilactivite.htm

ren

Currently, Jupiter and Saturn are close to each other. The activity of the Sun magnetic quite high.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00829/5vgqw5v7t5w4.gif
In 2020 they begin to recede. Magnetic activity will decline.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00829/s9c4o5uzfr3m.gif
In 2010, Jupiter and Saturn were in opposition.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00829/5lp6994kpytz.gif
Magnetic activity the sun was low.

mark - Helsinki

Weather Action use planetary alignment and magnetics for forecasting and they have a damn good success rate, well ahead of the curve

Willis Eschenbach

Thanks for the comment, Mark. Unfortunately, Weather Action is Piers Corbyn. I’ll tell you why they have what you call a “damn good success rate”—Piers will claim anything as a damn good success, even if it is a flat-out failure.
For example, Piers predicted forest fires in Colorado and rated it a total success when there were forest fires in Arizona. He also famously also claimed success when he predicted a 50/50 chance of a cyclone and the cyclone didn’t form … hey, he did predict a 50% chance of it not forming, and in Corbynville that seems to be a big win …
Heck, he challenged people to bet with him regarding rain on the Olympics opening in London, but when I accepted the challenge he chickened out …
See here and here for further details, dates, times, and predictions. From everything I’ve seen (most of his forecasts are private pay-to-play and therefore unavailable) Piers is no better than throwing darts …
w.

mark - Helsinki

Food for thought.

mark - Helsinki

If your predictions are correct, then your science is correct, isn’t that how it works?

MarkW

Interesting theory. The correlation is strong, but until they can come up with a mechanism, it will have to remain an interesting theory.

Greg

What correlation? I do not see anything here except a few pretty graphs about “the full model” without any comparison of what it is supposed to be modelling and how well it works.
There’s a teaser to follow the links but the total absence of anything concrete in this presentation does not lead me to expect much more when I dig. If there was I think it would be here as figure #1.

stock

Indeed Greg, it looks very weak to me, and would fall flat on it’s face in address the Maunder or Dalton minimals

It is a HYPOTHESIS, not a theory.
There is a big difference between the two words.

seaice1

“Interesting theory. The correlation is strong, but until they can come up with a mechanism, it will have to remain an interesting theory.”
Rather like the “it is natural” hypothesis. Until they can come up with a mechanism it will have to remain an interesting theory

Chimp

Many causes of natural climate fluctuations are well understood. Others aren’t.
But the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made climate change has been repeatedly shown false, and the models upon which it is based demonstrated to lack skill, to put it mildly.

MarkW

I would be interested to know how this theory handles things like the Dalton and Maunder minimums.

Greg

yep, strange we don’t see how it handles…. well anything.

MarkW,
it is NOT a theory, since it remains to be tested, achieve a level of validation, that allows it to be called a theory. That has not happened at this time, even Davids own post here shows that.

AndyG55

since it remains to be tested, achieve a level of validation, that allows it to be called a theory”
Just like that CO2 warming thought-bubble.

kim

Ruzmaikin, Feynman and Yung. There is more than just one paper from this school of thought.
===========

kim

Correlating Nile River levels and aurorae. There are long series of data.
================================

kim

There is correlation without causation, but speculation about causation inevitably leads to other paths than merely Total Solar Insolation, which is remarkably stable.
=======================================

with one sun and millions of rivers are you amazed that you think you found something?
have a chat with bonferroni

kim

Only one river with long and reliable records. Only one sun with long and reliable records.
=================

ThinkingScientist

Your answer to Mosher below at 11:56 am is absolutely spot on. Classic Mosher misdirect. Only one long comparison made, so normal rules about spurious correlation apply.
PS have always loved you work, especially at BH (alas, now dormant)

Willis Eschenbach

kim October 13, 2016 at 7:00 am

Correlating Nile River levels and aurorae. There are long series of data.

As I’ve said more than once, if you’ll provide links to the study and the data I’ll be glad to look at it.
In any case, I looked at the nile data and the aurora data that I could find. Correlation of the two datasets during the period of the ovelap (625 to 1285) is 0.37 but is NOT statistically significant (p-value = 0.20). Bizarrely, the fit is better (0.47 vs 0.37) with the Nile LEADING the aurora by ten years … go figure.
In any case, I fear that a decadal count of observations of the aurora in the years e.g. 710 to 720 has an uncertainty running from the floor to the ceiling …
My rule of thumb is that if you have to go into paleo and proxy data to support your hypothesis, you are in deep trouble. After all, if the correlation between aurora records and nile river level records was so good back in the year 856, imagine how good it is now … so why are they not demonstrating the effect using recent records?
w.

kim

What hypothesis, pray tell?
The Nile River series doesn’t run to today, as you would know if you have bothered to read the paper. Also, I suspect that if you read the paper you would be more capable than I am of finding the necessary data.
===============

kim

But thanks for the cursory analysis you have done. It is helpful.
=================

kim

Also, that the river levels precede the aurorae is only odd if you are considering that the something about aurorae causes the river levels. If you banish the bias caused by that presumption of causation, you might get curious about what is causative, if anything.
Nonetheless, you’ve been helpful. It may be that despite the length and the reliability of the data, it still may not suffice to be helpful to prove or disprove any hypothesis.
Hmmm, there is about a single half cycle difference in timing between the river levels and the aurorae. Curious, if that is a reliable measure.
====================

kim

Also, during the Maunder Minimum, sunspots were ‘large, sparse, and primarily southern hemispheric’. I’ve long thought that the asymmetry was a huge clue, the size a smaller clue and the sparsity the smallest clue of the three. Yet most of the focus of the inquiry is upon sparsity.
====================

Roger Clague

Fig.4 above shows the asymmetry of sunspots is increasing

May I remember to Dr. Theodor Landscheidt ?

Fortunately, I have shown for decades that the sun’s varying activity is linked to cycles in its irregular oscillation about the centre of mass of the solar system. As these cycles are connected with climate phenomena and can be computed for centuries, they offer a means to forecast consecutive minima and maxima in the Gleissberg cycle and covarying phases of cool and warm climate.
[…]
Figure 8 shows this fundamental motion, described by Newton three centuries ago. It is regulated by the distribution of the masses of the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune in space. The plot shows the relative ecliptic positions of the centre of mass (small circles) and the sun’s centre (cross) for the years 1945 to 1995 in a heliocentric coordinate system.

I do wonder how this model relates to longer term climate effects like the LIA, not just shorter term solar cycles.

kim

Ignore the millennial at your perennial.
================

Two thoughts:
1) You could use this model to predict possible locations for any “Planet X”. For instance the polar hemisphere differences could be explained by “Planet X” having a highly inclined orbit. Not that one has to exist, of course, but the possibility cannot be ignored.
2) Sunspots have been observed on other stars.
http://www.solarweek.org/CS/t/1452.aspx
It would be interesting to see if similar cycles can be verified for other stars that have both spots and known planets.

jorgekafkazar

You’re right to assume a gravitational forcing related to a planet with a high orbital angle. The inclinations of the outer planets are rather tiny. Unfortunately, if Planet X were close enough to have much effect, it would PROBABLY have been observed by now.
I’m not sure we have sufficient resolution to do sunspot (starspot?) studies at that distance. Nice, if so.
The post is interesting, but all I see, other than Figure 4, is model outputs and model outputs compared with other model outputs. I was afraid the post would degenerate into wiggle-matching, which is, again, merely interesting. The talk of being “out of phase” disturbs me. Sounds like “epicycles,” again. But more will be revealed, no doubt.

stock

Just to throw this out, a decade ago I did an in depth look at sunspots, magnetism, and planetary orbits, and came to a strong opinion that the 11 year orbital period of Jupiter was a complete coincidence to the 11 year solar cycle.
Noted that the author here presents some graphs, but no basis for what makes the graphs. That is very suspect in my opinion, along side my prior detailed look at the 11 year cycles. The chart of Jupiter or Saturn alone, with nearly no effect, and then amazingly together, a huge effect….just saying, I think it’s plain wrong.

Tom in Florida

““the clearly dominant spectral band in sunspot number, the solar cycle of 10.8 years, is given by the configuration period of Jupiter and Saturn (19.859 yr) times the ratio of their distances from the Sun (0.545).”
Please explain the significance of using these numbers. And what is the 10.8 year solar cycle? There are actually no cycles of 10.8 years length. Perhaps it is all just self justifying numerology.

Bad Apple

So the position of the planets influence the sun, which then influences our climate, which can then influence our lives and perhaps even our happiness. Does this mean Astrology may be onto something?

Hmm. Reading more carefully a paper that I posted a link to above:
Orbital resonance and Solar cycles by P.A.Semi

We show resonance cycles between most planets in Solar System, of differing quality. The most precise resonance – between Earth and Venus, which not only stabilizes orbits of both planets, locks planet Venus rotation in tidal locking, but also affects the Sun:
This resonance group (E+V) also influences Sunspot cycles – the position of syzygy between Earth and
Venus, when the barycenter of the resonance group most closely approaches the Sun and stops for some
time, relative to Jupiter planet, well matches the Sunspot cycle of 11 years, not only for the last 400 years of
measured Sunspot cycles, but also in 1000 years of historical record of “severe winters”.
We show, how
cycles in angular momentum of Earth and Venus planets match with the Sunspot cycle and how the main
cycle in angular momentum of the whole Solar system (934*-year cycle of Jupiter/Saturn) matches with
climatologic data, assumed to show connection with Solar output power and insolation. We show the possible connections between E+V events and Solar global p-Mode frequency changes.
We futher show angular momentum tables and charts for individual planets, as encoded in DE405 and
DE406 ephemerides. We show, that inner planets orbit on heliocentric trajectories whereas outer planets
orbit on barycentric trajectories.

Emphasis added.

Mike Lewis

Correlation does not imply causation. I can’t buy this without there being an explanation of the physics involved. The forces are just too small to have any effect, IMHO.

True, and that’s the next part of the effort – to find the causation. A good amount of correlation does imply a relationship of some kind, wither one of the observed is a cause or there is a third party. Given the situation, however, it’s hard to think of any kind of third party that could cause both orbital resonance and sunspot cycles.
Don’t be fooled by the size of the effect. It is quite common for very small forces to have very large effects, if they occur at just the right time. The whole thesis here is about resonance conditions, where cyclical behavior reinforces like a child pumping a swing.

bit chilly

would plankton levels alter the amount of energy being stored by the oceans ? if this mechanism was affecting the level of uv output from the sun (it does vary by a huge amount) it could be responsible for huge fluctuations in plankton levels. when plankton levels are high would the sunlight that would normally go to warming the oceans be absorbed by the plankton and used for growth/population increase when uv levels were low ?
uv light kills/damages plankton, so fluctuation of uv light output from the sun must have a huge effect on the plankton levels. in turn with plankton being the largest individual biomass on the planet could this have an effect on the climate. pure speculation on my part ,but something i have been pondering for a while.

@bit chilly.. that is an interesting idea since UV is filtered by the atmosphere. When they did the drilling a few years back, along with pollen, ( some plants like it warm and some don’t) they were able to tell whether the ocean water in various places had warmed or cooled by type.

pochas94

Well then, what does prove causation?

John Harmsworth

Granted the effect is small but it is a regular, “pulsing” influence and it has had billions of cycles to reinforce itself. Not proof but worthy of some study.

Paul Penrose

Actually, strong correlation DOES IMPLY causation. It just does NOT PROVE it. And small forces can have large effects if they are cyclic. For example, I can get a large suspended weight to swing in big arcs by tapping it lightly – if I tap at the right frequency – the resonant frequency of the system.

ShrNfr

There is a hypothesis here, and it makes predictions. Let us see if the predictions pan out. If not, there is something further to learn.

Pouncer

A picture may be worth a thousand words but it’s no substitute for a formula accompanied by tables of data.

stephana

Back in my youth I had an old German physics professor. Once he wandered about the room talking to the students, and while they were not looking would change the signal generator driving the experiment. It was a lesson hard learned by most, that when you are measuring an effect, you must also monitor the INPUT.

Greg

My father invented a little game where we would fall backwards and he’d catch us. Then once, he’d just let you fall and smack yourself on the floor and then say : “that’ll teach you not to trust ANYBODY!”
Same principal I guess.

Javier

The claim that a model completely explains something, backed only with model output figures that cover only a portion of the period for which there is data and no direct comparison between model output and real data should make everybody here at WUWT very suspicious.
Are we skeptics or believers?
The influence of solar variability on climate change is not what it is being discussed, but the claim that this particular model based on planetary movements can completely account for solar variability when no evidence is shown to support such claim.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Paul Penrose

I’m treating this as an introduction to a possible new and interesting hypothesis. There’s really not enough information to evaluate it right now. I expect more details to follow. If that does not happen, then I’ll ignore it.

There is also the possibility that if the larger planets are effecting the sun, that this planet could be affected as well. I can understand that it is very complex. Quantifying it is a different matter.
I thought that maybe we might never solve this problem. … I’m always reminded of the first computer simulation of weather. Things were going along fairly well, then by chance the electricity went out. When they restarted it, the results were different because of the rounding and number of decimal places. … but then ” never say never”… I can see where we might… ripples in a pond sort of…

Predict solar cycles and you can predict earth’s climate.
Sunspot number anomaly time-integral plus net of the effect of all ocean cycles plus effect of water vapor increase provides a 98% match to measurements 1895-2015. Analysis and graphs are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com Water vapor increase is countering the temperature decline that would otherwise be occurring and might also be contributing to recent widespread flooding.

bit chilly

is the increase in water vapour responsible for the “missing heat ” ? a more humid atmosphere at the same temperature obviously contains more energy .

In the 28 yr 1988.5-1016.5 TPW increased about 1 kg/m^2
Heat of vaporization of WV = 2.465E6 J/kg
Earth area = 510.1E12 m^2
Energy to increase TPW = 1*510.1E12*2.465E6 = 1.257E21 J in 28 yr
1.257E21/28 = 0.49E20 J/yr
This isn’t much compared to Trenberth’s estimate of about 65E20 J/yr missing,

bit chilly

thanks for the informative reply.

Jimmy Haigh

On one of my first ever posts on WUWT – back in around 2008/2009? – I – a mere geologist and amateur astronomer – postulated that the interplay of Jupiter and Saturn must have an influence on the solar cycle. I was immediately shot down in flames by none less that Dr. Svaalgaard. To me it wasn’t rocket science: The 29.5 yr cycle of Saturn coupled with the 11.9 year cycle of Jupiter would cause a more ‘chaotic’ cycle of roughly 22 years. Or two ’11 year’ solar cycles. Throw into the mix Uranus and Neptune and we might get something predictable. As the chap on “The Layman’s Sunspot Count” website has been trying to get people interested in for a while…
Who knows, eh? The late Jack Eddy certainly didn’t. And I remember the humble quote which was posted here as a tribute on his untimely death.

Jimmy Haigh

My observation back then was that Jupiter and Saturn are either in opposition or conjunction every roughly 22 years.

Greg

Jimmy, could you explain how you get 22 from 11.86 and 29.5 ? Thx.

ShrNfr

I suspect he meant that the period between conjunctions or between oppositions is 22 years. If you start with Jupiter, Saturn, and the Sun in a line (a conjunction), it takes ~22 years for them to line up again. Jupiter is back where it started in 11.86 years, but saturn has moved along ~144 degrees in its orbit. Jupiter needs to rotate through that and then more to catch up. In general, the time is Jp*(sum((Jp/Sp)^n,n,0,inf)) which is [1/(1-Jp/Sp)]*Jp whereJ p is the length of Jupiter’s orbit and Sp is te length of Saturn’s orbit.

Greg

That is the equation for an alignment of Sol J and S from a viewpoint on earth.
If you want to use that as a period of sun spot cycles it implies that the Earth is part of the cause too .

NeedleFactory

ShrNfr said: In general, the time is Jp*(sum((Jp/Sp)^n,n,0,inf)) which is [1/(1-Jp/Sp)]*Jp whereJ p is the length of Jupiter’s orbit and Sp is te length of Saturn’s orbit.
Show your work please. Both equations yield a distance (in terms of “the length of Jupiter’s orbit”), which is definitely NOT a time.

ShrNfr

Jp is the length of the orbit in TIME. Sp is the length of the orbit in TIME. If Jupiter, Saturn, and the Sun are in a line, after a Jp of time, Jupiter will have gone through 360 degrees of rotation and Saturn will have gone through Jp/Sp * 360 degrees of rotation. Jupiter now needs to rotate through that to “catch up with” Saturn. It does that in Jp*(Jp/Sp) in time. Of course, Saturn has not stayed still. It has rotated an additional Jp*(Jp/Sp)^2 * 360 degrees. Recurse and you get the formula for time. The earth has nothing to do with it. If he meant conjunctions as viewed from the earth, there are additional meaningless terms. Meaningless because the postulated effect depends on the gravity of Jupiter & Saturn and not on the gravity of Earth.

ShrNfr

Again, a hypothesis that makes predictions. Certainly, it would not be outrageous for something to “pump” an oscillator that amplifies the pumping. Still, I am concerned about why there were few sunspots during middle of the last millennium. If all it does is to modulate another deeper process, the deeper process should be of interest.
Color me agnostic and awaiting the results of comparing the predictions versus the observations.

Predictions and observations are compared at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com 2015 trend predicted from 1990 differs less than 0.07 K from measured trend in 2015.

Greg

comment image
Is that the prediction you are talking about Dan?

ShrNfr

You will pardon me, but predictions involve unknown but measurable values in the future. I can overfit a model ten ways to sunday to agree well with noise.
I have no problem involving the sun as the major driver of the earth’s climate. I consider it much more so than the cause espoused by the Escathological Cargo Cult of the CAGW.

AndyG55

Greg’s temperature graph bears ZERO correlation with reality…
GISS or HadCrud?
It shows steep nearly linear warming from 1980 – 2010…
no 1998 El Nino peak.
Its a load of fabricated garbage.

Greg – Yes, that was the prediction from 25+ years ago before the sudden sharp increase in water vapor as shown on Figure 3. The prediction from 2015, as shown on Figure 11 reflects the ongoing comparatively steep WV increase and predicts a 2020 trend about 0.06 K higher than the prediction from 1990.
Compare this to the 0.5 K or so error for the GCMs as shown at https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/

The stated skepticism HERE is good to read,but don’t slam the door shut yet, since it is not specifically shown by anyone that this is a poorly written working hypothesis.
I am glad Anthony Watts,chose to expose this line of thought,to allow debate on the merits of the Hypothesis.It needs more support before it can be considered worth following as time is limited in research.

stock

Sure, but it would be great to present some data and formulas and tables, and not just some charts with no backup

For the last three cycle, the southern hemisphere has had more sunspot area than the northern hemisphere. Its peak has also been later than that of the northern hemisphere. What could be causing that? It is likely to be the inclination of the orbits of the gas giant planets to the Sun’s equator. Those inclination are:
Jupiter 6.09%
Saturn 5.51%
Uranus 6.48%
Neptune 6.43%
It seems that the next step will be to make a 3D version of Ed Fix’s model.

I didn’t read all the prior posts, but I know the answer to your question here.
Dr Leif says the Sun’s dynamo at minimum is “primed” by the residual magnetic field when the Sun’s field drops to zero.
Well there are 5 other dynamo’s and one great big chunk of iron in orbit around the Sun.
Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune are all North, Earth and Uranus are South.
And of course the Sun flips. And there was a paper showing the Sun and Earth’s magnetic filed will connect, so we know that is possible.
So, magnetic field lines can bundle up, and connect to the opposite pole between all of these moving magnets, and while the distances are far, they are big magnets.
But if you can picture the field lines bundling up and interconnecting between all the planets, the resultant field during the all important zero solar crossing point, would be susceptible (I’m supposing) to the planetary fields, and whether the magnets strongly add, or weakly add, or are blocked or shielded by another planet.

Jean Meeus

You are going back to the nonsense of “The Jupiter Effect” that John Gribbin wrote about 40 years ago.

Greg

Hi, is that “the” Jean Meeus , the astronomer?

Jean Meeus

Yes, that’s me.

Greg

How fortunate. Welcome aboard.
I tried to find a means of contacting you last year and drew a blank. I need someone with a deep understanding of the subtleties of lunar motion to help me explain an odd relationship I have noticed.
I did quite a bit of research to get the best values for various lunar periods and your work seems to be central to a lot high precision values that are used.
I’ll try to dig out the details.

Greg

OK, these may not be the most accurate figures I found but they serve to demonstrate the question:
pApsides=8.85058058889194 # polynomial @ y2k
pSaros= 17 + (365 +(11+1/3.))/days_per_year = 18.0303665436874
mean frequency of these two periods :
pApSaros=2/(1/pApsides+1/pSaros)
11.8730348309697
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html
pJ= 4332.589 / days_per_year = 11.862236 year
These two periods will align something like every 25771y. Which I think is due to a mix of referential frames. In short it seems like there is a resonance between the saro period and lunar apsides which matches the mean orbit of Jupiter.
So my first question is : is this something which has already been noted or has an obvious explanation?
I would be most appreciative if you could comment. Thanks for any help you can give.

Greg

PS. can you suggest a means of determining a better figure for the mean saros period ? That one with 1/3 day in it seems to be based on the near repetition of alignment over three cycles. Is there a more accurate figure?

Yeah,I remember that silliness from John Gribbin, who should have known better as he has a Physics,Astronomy and Astrophysics degrees in his back pocket.
He sold a lot of books to push it:
Predictions
(1974) The Jupiter Effect: The Planets As Triggers of Devastating Earthquakes (coauthor Stephen H. Plageman), Random House ISBN 0-394-72221-3; revised edition published as The Jupiter Effect Reconsidered, Vintage Books (New York, NY), 1982 ISBN 0-394-70827-X
(February 1982) The Jupiter Effect Reconsidered
(1983) Beyond the Jupiter Effect, Macdonald ISBN 0-356-08686-0
He also published books on Global warming, like the good alarmist he is. He has no credibility for me at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin

could this be supported by the fact that a 7 year cycle has been found on proxima centauri, where none was expected … would it point to existence of large planets? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161012155933.htm

Chimp

There would also be gravitational effects on Proxima Centauri from α Centauri (a system of two Sun-like stars) and β Centauri (two big stars and a dwarf).
Alpha Centauri A (α Cen A) has 110 percent of the mass and 151.9 percent of the luminosity of the Sun. Alpha Centauri B (α Cen B) is smaller and cooler, at 90.7 percent of the Sun’s mass and 44.5 percent of its visual luminosity.
Beta Centauri’s components are called β Centauri Aa, Ab and B (a B1 dwarf). Aa is 12.02 ± 0.13 times as massive as the Sun, while Ab is 10.58 ± 0.18 times as massive.

whiten

I am a bit confused about this article, or blog post,
and the relation of the following comments mostly.
The base of the article is about the assumed solving of the Sun spots “mystery” of its activity and its causation, very little actually how that offers a better support to the assumption that the Sun’s variation causes climate change.
Probably the author of this post can clarify it better.
In mean time my only criticism about the the sun variability and its its impact in climate can be related to this:
“The second edition expands on that with a co-authored paper (Ed and myself) entitled Aspects of Solar Variability and Climate Response which details the relative contribution of those planets.”
Where I think the appropriate tittle of the named co-author paper should have been :
” Aspects of Solar Variability and Weather Response” instead of what it actually is.
As far as I can tell there is no any data or evidence suggesting or supporting any kind of assumed climate response to any Solar variation, let alone the short term Solar variation.
All atmospheric response to Solar variation consist as only a short term one, a weather response, which actually can show how able the short term atmospheric processes can be and respond to Solar variation and nullify any possible long term effect from such variations of Sol. Aka no any climate response to Sun’s variation possible, as there no such effect existing in first place.
No matter how good the assumed understanding or the science of the solar spots and their causation could be, still this can’t change the fact that in climate terms such variation of Sun do not have even the slightest correlation with climate and climate change, for not saying that at times the data show actually that even in the case of a link found that is in the terms of negative relation instead of positive.
From my point of view the “old” fallacy still persist, the basic fallacy of “climate considered as long term weather”……
cheers .

The base of the article is about the assumed solving of the Sun spots “mystery” of its activity and its causation,

Not exactly. The paper is concerned with a resonance relationship between the planetary motion and sun spot activity. The relationship between sunspots and climate is a separate issue which has been discussed elsewhere. However, if you accept that relationship than this does explain certain observed timings.

The tidal effects of orbiting planets affecting the fusion cores of stars should be intuitively obvious. Most of the stars we observe are variable with random, but mostly fixed, periods and amplitude. Only the effects of gravity are powerful and variable enough to result this much random, yet predictably periodic, behavior.

LurkingQuietlyListeningLoudly

I am reminded of the works of Scafetta, not only with respect to orbital cycles, but also with respect to effects of angular momentum on solar dynamo activity. I note that this site has been critical of Scafetta’s work as mere ‘curve fitting’. This work would seem little different.

brians356

Rather dramatic Red Alert solar event in progress, Boyle Index just spiked to 255, and that ain’t nothing to sneeze at:
http://mms.rice.edu/realtime/forecast.html

brians356

ISSUED AT 0350 UT ON 13 Oct 2016 by Space Weather Services
FROM THE AUSTRALIAN SPACE FORECAST CENTRE
A coronal Hole is expected to become geoeffective tomorrow, 14 Oct. A minor geomagnetic storm (Kp=5) is possible during 14-15 Oct, possibly resulting in significant space weather activity and visible auroras during local nighttime hours.

Toneb

“In fact the Earth’s climate is exquisitively sensitive to changes in solar output, as shown in Nir Shaviv’s 2009 paper Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing. Professor Shaviv found that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations.”
Leif Svalgaard didn’t think much of the Shaviv’s 2009 paper ….
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/the-oceans-as-a-calorimeter/

“Leif Svalgaard didn’t think much of the Shaviv’s 2009 paper…”
And, I am sure, prof. Shaviv doesn’t think much about Leif.
As long as Sun’s effect on Earth’s climate is of any concern, Leif and Willis are done for.
I never read their rubbish any more.

Willis Eschenbach

David, I’ve posted this analysis of Herschel’s early and incorrect claims about sunspots several times. Perhaps you haven’t seen it. Here’s the abstract:

We examine William Herschel’s hypothesis that solar- cycle variation of the Sun’s irradiance has a modulating effect on the Earth’s climate and that this is, specifically, manifested as an anticorrelation between sunspot number and the market price of wheat. Since Herschel first proposed his hypothesis in 1801, it has been regarded with both interest and skepticism. Recently, reports have been published that either support Herschel’s hypothesis or rely on its validity. As a test of Herschel’s hypothesis, we seek to reject a null hypothesis of a statistically random correlation between historical sunspot numbers, wheat prices in London and the United States, and wheat farm yields in the United States. We employ binary-correlation, Pearson- correlation, and frequency-domain methods. We test our methods using a historical geomagnetic activity index, well known to be causally correlated with sunspot number. As expected, the measured correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity would be an unlikely realization of random data; the correlation is “statistically significant.” On the other hand, measured correlations between sunspot number and wheat price and wheat yield data would be very likely realizations of random data; these correlations are “insignificant.” Therefore, Herschel’s hypothesis must be regarded with skepticism. We compare and contrast our results with those of other researchers. We discuss procedures for evaluating hypotheses that are formulated from historical data.

In other words, Herschel was way wrong, and you are foolishly following in Herschel’s footsteps.
w.

Chimp

Did you actually read that paper?
It’s absurd to use, as the authors do, wheat prices not only from London in the 17th, 18th and early 19th century (when climatic effects were pronounced), but from the late 19th century, and from America in the late 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, plus yield here during that period. Modern agriculture in the UK and USA is largely freed from solar-influenced climatic variations. Wet and dry years do indeed still affect yield for dryland crops, but not irrigated, while price is set by worldwide markets.
You can download the whole study from this site, after proving you’re not a robot:
http://thirdworld.nl/order/7d8adf4b8b690e80261677fa12778b672a96c12f

Willis Eschenbach

I’m sorry, Chimp, but a claim that a paper is “absurd” is meaningless. This is particularly true when you say it is absurd to use all available data … really? Should we restrict ourselves to the paltry short dataset available to Herschel?
Also, I don’t understand how modern crops would be magically insulated from “solar-influenced climatic variations”. Yes, irrigated crops are somewhat insulated from vagaries of climate, but they are still subject to frosts and extreme temperatures. But irrigated crops are only a small part of world agriculture.
w.

Chimp

Talk about foolish! I guess you still haven’t read the paper.
The price and yield data should be restricted only to times and places in which weather and climate fluctuations play a decisive role, which is not the case in the 21st century USA.
Irrigated cropland produces over 40% of the world’s food. You really ought not to comment on topics about which you know so little.
Moreover, the price and yield data since 1880 in the study are all from the USA, not from the UK or the world overall. In 2012, irrigated farms accounted for roughly half of the total value of crop sales in America. The relevant crop for this study is wheat. In the 17 “Western” states (11 Western contiguous states, plus six Great Plains states from TX to ND) which produce most US wheat, about nine percent of acreage but a much higher share of production is irrigated, thanks to much higher and more consistent yield.
Besides which, as I noted, the fact that wheat prices are now set globally means that the effect of weather in any one country or region has much less impact on price than it did in London in 1801.
So it is indeed absurd to use 20th and 21st century wheat price and yield data from the US to try to falsify Herschel’s hypothesis, since they are so much less affected by the natural variations he studied.

Chimp

To quantify the effects of modern farming practices, from mechanization, fertilizer, pesticides, new seed strains, etc, consider that land which yielded at best 15 bushels of per acre in the soft white winter wheat region of the Pacific NW in the 1890s yielded 80 in the 2010s. This area practices summer fallow, so for an annual yield, you have to halve those numbers.
To quantify the effect of irrigation, compare the above 40 bu/A yield with that on much worse land in southern Idaho, where irrigation is universal. There, every year, regardless of rainfall, typical yields are over 120 bu/A.
The same tripling would show up in the irrigated regions of the Great Plains, which don’t summer fallow.
Can you now see why the authors needed to look only at dryland wheat from the era before the modern practices mentioned above, and preferably only on the same land? And why it was so absurd of them to compare, as it were, wild apples with an intensive commercial orchard of Fujis?

Chimp

Further, when prices are high, more marginal land is planted to wheat, so yield falls, unless also more irrigated land is sowed to it rather than corn, potatoes, beans or some other crop.

Willis Eschenbach

Chimp, regarding wheat, there’s data here. It turns out that about 15% of the total US wheat crop is produced on irrigated lands. This includes the increased yield on irrigated vs rainfed lands (71 bushels/acre on irrigated vs 33 bushels/acre on rainfed).
This means that about 85% of the US wheat is rainfed and thus subject to all the vagaries of the weather.
Finally, that figure is for the US, which is likely the largest user of irrigation on the planet. Much less wheat in most other major wheat producing countries is irrigated. So irrigation of a tenth of the crop or so doesn’t mean that wheat is magically spared from the vagaries of the weather.
And despite the fact that as you point out the world wheat market is unified, that only affects the price. It does not affect the yields. And if the sun is affecting the wheat crop as you claim, surely it is doing so all over the planet. So if such an effect exists, we should be able to detect it in wheat yields.
But that detection of the purported solar signal,, of course, is something neither you nor anyone else has been able to do …
So if you’d like to make your case, you might consider giving up making excuses for the inability to find the elusive signal in the wheat yields, and instead provide some evidence that said signal actually exists.
w.

mark - Helsinki

Using crops is useless and not reliable. More allthingsbeingequalism

Willis Eschenbach

Chimp October 13, 2016 at 12:04 pm

The price and yield data should be restricted only to times and places in which weather and climate fluctuations play a decisive role, which is not the case in the 21st century USA.

If you think that the weather doesn’t affect price and yield of cereal grain crops, you’ve never been a farmer …

Irrigated cropland produces over 40% of the world’s food. You really ought not to comment on topics about which you know so little.

According to the FAO, irrigated lands are only about 6.5% of the total agricultural area. More to the point, they are generally used for high-value crops, and NOT for wheat … which is what we are talking about.

Moreover, the price and yield data since 1880 in the study are all from the USA, not from the UK or the world overall. In 2012, irrigated farms accounted for roughly half of the total value of crop sales in America. The relevant crop for this study is wheat. In the 17 “Western” states (11 Western contiguous states, plus six Great Plains states from TX to ND) which produce most US wheat, about nine percent of acreage but a much higher share of production is irrigated, thanks to much higher and more consistent yield.

So your claim is now not 40% but 9% … in other words, the overwhelming majority of wheat in the study is NOT from irrigated lands.

Besides which, as I noted, the fact that wheat prices are now set globally means that the effect of weather in any one country or region has much less impact on price than it did in London in 1801.
So it is indeed absurd to use 20th and 21st century wheat price and yield data from the US to try to falsify Herschel’s hypothesis, since they are so much less affected by the natural variations he studied.

Here are the ugly facts. We can find NO EVIDENCE that the minor ~ 11-year solar variations in the sun has had any affect on wheat prices. This is true for BOTH old and new prices, as you yourself have pointed out when you said:

It’s absurd to use, as the authors do, wheat prices not only from London in the 17th, 18th and early 19th century (when climatic effects were pronounced), but …

TLDR version? There is no evidence for Herschel’s claims, neither modern nor historical. If you have such evidence, now would be the time to bring it forward …
w.

Chimp

I have been a farmer and I know that local WX affects yield, but much less so price for wheat, which is set globally, although local markets can be affected by WX to some extent. They don’t stray far from the world market, however.
You failed to grasp the essential point that nine percent of land produces a far higher share of the total crop than that, thanks to much higher yield, ie triple even the best dryland yield and up to six times lower quality land.
You seem to struggle with elementary arithmetic.

Chimp

If, as I keep urging you, you had read the paper, you’d know of previous studies confirming Herschel’s results, such as Jevons’ 1875 paper. Of course it is now not possible to confirm his and Herschel’s findings because modern agriculture is so much freer of dependence on the weather, as I’ve showed. The study you cite relies far too heavily on 20th and 21st century data.
Since you refuse actually to read the paper you cited, this contains a link to Jevons:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-11-13/that-sunspot-could-make-you-a-killing

BobG

“William Herschel’s hypothesis that solar- cycle variation of the Sun’s irradiance has a modulating effect on the Earth’s climate and that this is, specifically, manifested as an anticorrelation between sunspot number and the market price of wheat.”

“As a test of Herschel’s hypothesis, we seek to reject a null hypothesis of a statistically random correlation between historical sunspot numbers, wheat prices in London and the United States, and wheat farm yields in the United States.
The analysis above is so terribly flawed that it is almost laughable. A little knowledge applied in a way that is wrong is a terrible thing. “William Herschel’s correlation of sunspots and the wheat price in England dates from 1801”
In 1801, assuming that the demand for wheat was fairly stable, the price of wheat would be very dependent on the volume of wheat and other grains supplied to the market. Wheat prices would go up if there were a shortage of other grains then. But now, this would not be so apparent given the size of the markets and inventories.
I’ll skip the analysis of the substitution effect I mentioned above and skip to just talking about one crop – wheat. Let me put it in a way that is more mathematical. In 1802, wheat yield was dependent on several variables that were not very controllable. Later, those variables were controlled.
For example, there are a number of “variables” diseases and insects that impact wheat yield that are now controlled by chemicals, a better understanding of the disease process and better wheat varieties. Due to the changes, diseases and insects have a lower impact on wheat yield. Farmers have access to better weather forecasts than they did in 1801. This can have a very large impact on yield. Chemical fertilizers and better seed varieties also reduce variability in wheat yield due to changes in weather. Farming has become more predictable and less dependent on having perfect growing conditions.
In 1801, variables such as small changes in humidity or timing of rainfall, when the crop is planted, changes in ultraviolet radiation have an impact on crop diseases. Length and depth of winter weather have an impact on insect survival that has a large impact on wheat yield. These variables are now much better controlled and have a much smaller impact on wheat. This is apparent to gardeners and farmers who use totally organic methods.
Next, types of weather that might have a large impact on wheat yields in England might correspond to conditions or weather that causes better wheat yields in other parts of the world. In 1801, the wheat yield in Argentina would have a low impact on wheat price in London. Now, this is not true. A poor wheat yield in England combined with a good wheat yield in London may leave the wheat market unmoved. In 1801, that is not true.

Chimp

Correct.
It is laughable, not just almost. And absurd.
But this is what passes for statistical analysis in the post-scientific world of “climate science”. So anathema are solar influences on climate that even Sir William, one of the greatest scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries must be attacked and falsely laid low. Instead, we have lowlifes like Mann.

Bartemis

It’s totally on the wrong track. The solar cycle of 11 years is the time it takes for the magnetic field to flip direction from North to South. But, a full cycle is North, to South, back to North again, and that’s 22 years. That’s where the resonance is, and where a coherent driver would have to be.
But, a resonance does not need a coherent external driver to produce quasi-periodic behavior. Random forcing will do it, as the resonance concentrates energy storage and release at its natural frequency. Hold a pot of water while driving down a bumpy road. You will see the water slosh at the same frequency regardless of the fact that the bumps are randomly distributed. But, occasionally, the slosh will dissipate (did someone mention the Maunder minimum above?) before ramping up again, and its phase will vary over time. That is the nature of randomly driven resonances. That is what we see with the Sun.
And, the random forcing from chaotic dynamics within the Sun’s core is well beyond the level that would totally dominate the teeny, tiny, infinitesimal effect of planetary tidal forcing. Trying to fit the plethora of astronomical cycles to solar observations, and pronouncing it the driving force, is numerology.

Greg

That’s where the resonance is, and where a coherent driver would have to be.
I agree, The visual variability witnessed by SSN is just the magnitude of a signed quantity. The noise pattern also suggests that the driver may be related to the sqrt of SSN.

Willis Eschenbach

David, I also did a complete analysis of Nir Shaviv’s paper about using the ocean as a calorimeter. I have shown that his claims are statistically not significant. No one found any flaws in my analysis. But that’s not uncommon in the “It’s the sun!” wing of climate science, false claims of significance abound.
You have cited Nir’s paper, saying:

In fact the Earth’s climate is exquisitively sensitive to changes in solar output, as shown in Nir Shaviv’s 2009 paper Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing. Professor Shaviv found that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations.

… but you haven’t shown any problems with my math, my logic, my statistics, or any part of my work.
Nice try. Until you can show that my analysis of Shaviv’s statistically non-significant claims is flawed, Shaviv’s paper remains in the circular file along with the rest of the usual solar nonsense written about Hershel and the like.
w.

mark - Helsinki

or you are putting too much faith in SST :p

Willis Eschenbach

mark – Helsinki October 13, 2016 at 1:48 pm

or you are putting too much faith in SST :p

Professor Shaviv is the one with faith in SST, not I …
w.

mark - Helsinki

Just a grenade W, I never expected a reply mate, carry on.

mark - Helsinki

and thanks for the correction.

bit chilly

“using the oceans as a calorimeter ” does this take into account what the solar energy is turned into in the oceans willis ? stored heat or increased biomass beginning with plankton and ending with increased stocks of fish species ,similar to the gadoid outburst ?
i have no opinion on the claims made in this particular guest post. it does however prompt a bit of thought provoking , for me anyway.

At perihelion, closest, solar irradiance arriving at the earth is 1,415 W/m^2. At aphelion, farthest, solar irradiance arriving at earth is 1,323 W/m^2. The total variation is 92 W/m^2.
Because of the tilted axis and the oblique incidence of sunlight, TSI on a horizontal surface at ToA 40 N latitude is 630.5 W/m^2 at winter solstice and 1,268.5 W/m^2 at summer solstice, a total fluctuation of 638.0 W/m^2. These values also account for winter solstice currently occurring at perihelion.
The total impact of 261 years of additional atmospheric CO2 is a radiative forcing of 2 W/m^2 (Figure SPM.5). IPCC’s worst, worst, worst, worst case scenario is RCP 8.5 (W/m^2). How are we supposed to take these relatively trivial amounts seriously?
BTW an ISR of 342 W/m^2 +/- so often cited in assorted power flux balances, e.g. Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10, is the consequence of a thought exercise supposing the solar irradiance is spread evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. Interesting approach for conceptual conversation and theoretical purposes, but absolutely nothing to do with reality.
And then there is the upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation fiasco.
The GHG/GHE theory displayed on the power flux balance referenced above shows 396 W/m^2 upwelling from the surface. This upwelling power flux is calculated by inserting an alleged average surface temperature of 59 F, 15 C, 288 K in the S-B BB equation with an ideal emissivity of 1.0. I consider this an invalid application of S-B. Can you explain why this S-B BB calculation is appropriate?
The 396 W/m^2 is 55 W/m^2 more than the 341 W/m^2 incoming solar energy at the ToA, 155 W/m^2 more than the 239 W/m^2 net of albedo passing through the atmosphere, and 235 W/m^2 more than the 161 W/m^2 power flux arriving at and absorbed by the surface. After accounting for all of the known upwelling power fluxes there is an unexplained and unsourced net 333 W/m^2 power flux loop with no apparent origin. Per the laws of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Where do all of these spontaneous power fluxes originate?
The 333 W/m^2 upwelling/downwelling loop is 100% efficient, a perpetual energy loop and violation of thermodynamics.
The 333 W/m^2 upwelling is absorbed by GHGs distributed throughout the troposphere which has an average temperature of about -40 C, 233 K. The S-B BB power flux for this temperature is about 150 W/m^2 or about half of the downwelling power flux claimed by the theory.
Per thermodynamics energy cannot flow, i.e. downwell, from low energy, 233 K, to high energy, 288 K, without the addition of work, e.g. a refrigerator. There is no outside work indicated.
The GHGs in the troposphere reradiate in all directions, there is no preference for radiating back to the earth. Let’s say 30% radiates back to the earth. GHGs are mostly transparent and CO2 has an emissivity of about 0.1. (Dr Nasif Nahle) Including these coefficients reduces the “back” radiation to about 4.5 W/m^2. Nowhere close to the theory’s 333 W/m^2.
Not that it matters. There is no apparent connection between the figure’s GHG/GHE loop and the radiative balance at ToA which NASA defines as 100 km. If this GHG/GHE loop is simply erased from the graphic there is no change in the ToA radiative balance and no difference in the temperature of the atmosphere.

Greg

“These values also account for winter solstice currently occurring at perihelion.”
Oh, yeah? Check your dates.
“Per thermodynamics energy cannot flow, i.e. downwell, from low energy, 233 K, to high energy, 288 K, without the addition of work”
OMG , here we go. A photon does not know where it’s going to land when it gets emitted. The 2nd law only indicated net flow which is still out from the warmer earth even if there is some back radiation.

99% of the atmosphere’s mass is below 32 km. Above this level concepts like heat, temperature, conduction, convection get a lot fuzzy and S-B BB radiation rules. Below this level S-B loses out to conduction, convection, latent, etc. i.e. a large helping of emissivity.
“A photon does not know where it’s going to land when it gets emitted.”
So random re-radiation can’t deliver 333 W/m^2 both ways, as much down welled as up welled, and the “loop” dies out. Any of the multiple ways you cut it this GHG/GHE loop cannot work as advertised.
I don’t recall an “net” flow theories in my thermo classes. Granted that was long time ago. Or any real actual examples in over 30 years of power generation experience. If this “net” were a real thing somebody would be making using of it.

January 4, 2017. Next perihelion.

Lenny

Agree on this point.
Anything above 0K will emit photons.
So a 250K object will emit photons to the 300K object, but the 300K object will emit more photon’s.
So the net flow is from the 300K object to the 250K object.

Nicholas,
True. The Second Law does not mention anything concerning “net flow”. That’s a modern pseudo-science invention. Heat transfer is a one-way proposition; hot to cold.
With this “net” flow invention, you get all kinds of silly notions, like the earth actually warming the sun a minute amount.

Greg

Thermodynamics is about statistical properties of matter, not ejection of photons. Use some statistical term if you don’t like ‘net flow’ , I was just trying make the point that thermodynamics does not treat individual emissions and there is no reason why atoms in the high atmosphere can not emit downwards. This is not contrary to the 2nd law.

Greg,
“….no reason why atoms in the high atmosphere cannot emit downwards…”
OK, but S-B including temperature, emissivity, and random percentage calculate an almost undetectable amount.

Nicholas Schroeder October 13, 2016 at 1:17 pm
“A photon does not know where it’s going to land when it gets emitted.”
So random re-radiation can’t deliver 333 W/m^2 both ways, as much down welled as up welled,

Really, why not?
I don’t recall an “net” flow theories in my thermo classes. Granted that was long time ago. Or any real actual examples in over 30 years of power generation experience. If this “net” were a real thing somebody would be making using of it.
Perhaps you should have taken a course on radiational heat transfer, it’s being made use of on a daily basis.
http://images.slideplayer.com/24/7362225/slides/slide_14.jpg

SkepticGoneWild

Phil,
Heat transfer “q” is only one way, from the high temperature to the cold per the heat transfer equation. There is no two way heat transfer, as per the Second Law as well.
http://www.thermopedia.com/content/4764/ParaPF1.gif

SkepticGoneWild October 15, 2016 at 10:38 am
Phil,
Heat transfer “q” is only one way, from the high temperature to the cold per the heat transfer equation. There is no two way heat transfer, as per the Second Law as well.

Photons are traveling in both directions, ‘q’ is the net heat transfer between the two plates.
Suggest you read Hottel and Sarofim
https://www.amazon.com/Radiative-Transfer-McGraw-Hill-Mechanical-Engineering/dp/B0006BOZ9K

Phil,
I already have physics and thermo texts from my university courses. “q”, or heat, transfers in one direction only. You are confusing “heat” with electromagnetic radiation. “Photons” are not heat. There is no “net” heat transfer. The heat transfer equation and the Second law specifically state which direction heat transfers; hot to cold.

skepticgonewild October 15, 2016 at 12:07 pm
Phil,
I already have physics and thermo texts from my university courses. “q”, or heat, transfers in one direction only. You are confusing “heat” with electromagnetic radiation. “Photons” are not heat. There is no “net” heat transfer.

But apparently not Radiative Heat Transfer!
The T2^4 term is the heat transfer from plate 2 (flux of photons*h𝞶) to plate 1, whereas the T1^4 term is the heat transfer from plate 1. ‘q’ is the net heat transfer from plate 2 to plate 1.

Only “q” is the heat transferred in that equation. Heat does not get transferred from cold bodies to hot bodies. That would be a violation of the Second Law as well. Plus if the low temperature plate in the diagram you posted would cause the warmer plate to warm up further still, then the new warmer plate would then warm up the colder plate more…..with the self heating cycle continuing on and on. You would also be violating the First Law, since your two parallel plates would be warmer than original. That’s creating energy out of nothing.
Maybe we are saying the same thing, but maybe not. You stated:
“The T2^4 term is the heat transfer from plate 2 (flux of photons*h𝞶) to plate 1, whereas the T1^4 term is the heat transfer from plate 1. ‘q’ is the net heat transfer from plate 2 to plate 1.”
I would state the above as follows:
“The T2^4 term is the energy transfer from plate 2 (flux of photons*h𝞶) to plate 1, whereas the T1^4 term is the energy transfer from plate 1. ‘q’ is the heat transfer from plate 2 to plate 1.”
I think you are conflating “energy” and “heat”. Stand next to a huge block of ice. The ice is emitting infrared energy towards you, but it will not cause you to heat up.

Nicholas Schroeder, why are humid nights *warmer* than nights with low humidity?

_Jim
Why are casual anecdotes as good as data?

geran

Nicholas already answered that: “Below this level S-B loses out to conduction, convection, latent, etc. i.e. a large helping of emissivity”.

why are humid nights *warmer* than nights with low humidity?

When air temps near dew points, the rate of cooling at night drops to a quarter or less the cooling rate earlier the same night when rel humidity was less than 80% or so. More water vapor, the higher the dew points.

Ross King

As to ‘Griff’, we shd have an Appreciation Week for Griff” to recognize what he brings to the debate:
1. A Court Jester’s ability to reduce us to rib-aching laughter;
2. A constant reminder that there really are people out there who still think like him;
3. Living evidence of the power of propagandists and mannipulators to convert the gullible to zombie-like adherence to the Cause, regardless of any contradictory evidence.
I always watch out for his postings as I know I’m going to be entertained. I often wonder if he is an invention of Anthony’s to crank things up a notch on a ‘slow-day’?
Let’s hear if for Griff!

Griff

I’d like to thank the many dedicated scientists of the world, without whom all this would not have been possible…

Richard G.

Edward Rowland Sill. 1841–1887
The Fool’s Prayer
THE ROYAL feast was done; the King
Sought some new sport to banish care,
And to his jester cried: “Sir Fool,
Kneel now, and make for us a prayer!”
The jester doffed his cap and bells, 5
And stood the mocking court before;
They could not see the bitter smile
Behind the painted grin he wore.
He bowed his head, and bent his knee
Upon the monarch’s silken stool; 10
His pleading voice arose: “O Lord,
Be merciful to me, a fool!
“No pity, Lord, could change the heart
From red with wrong to white as wool;
The rod must heal the sin: but, Lord, 15
Be merciful to me, a fool!
“‘T is not by guilt the onward sweep
Of truth and right, O Lord, we stay;
‘T is by our follies that so long
We hold the earth from heaven away. 20
“These clumsy feet, still in the mire,
Go crushing blossoms without end;
These hard, well-meaning hands we thrust
Among the heart-strings of a friend.
“The ill-timed truth we might have kept— 25
Who knows how sharp it pierced and stung?
The word we had not sense to say—
Who knows how grandly it had rung?
“Our faults no tenderness should ask,
The chastening stripes must cleanse them all; 30
But for our blunders—oh, in shame
Before the eyes of heaven we fall.
“Earth bears no balsam for mistakes;
Men crown the knave, and scourge the tool
That did his will; but Thou, O Lord, 35
Be merciful to me, a fool!”
The room was hushed; in silence rose
The King, and sought his gardens cool,
And walked apart, and murmured low,
“Be merciful to me, a fool!” 40

Off topic
There was hoopla that September was the strongest Arctic sea ice growth in recorded history for September ( I wont mention that the start dates for each year vary, call it a handicap race) however October looks like it may well be the slowest growth. 5.04 msqkm on the 1st and only 5.37 by the 12th. Thats almost a flat liner.
Now back to solar / sunspots and the great post above.

Greg

There’s a lot of variability on the fortnighly scale, so looking at any such periods and trying claim a record this or that is meaningless. Suzanne Goldberg who sometime manages to sell here dross to the Guardian tried this on during the spring this year, claiming that some cherry picked period was the steepest whatever in “recorded history”.
The next two weeks went the other way and the spring melting was generally slower than average.

Griff

Yes, with very low concentrations across the remaining ice and much dispersed ice there was a quick freeze up after minimum, but now it has slowed right down… We are pretty near a lowest ever for this date.
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/amsr2/index.html
also the volume figures are low…
take a look at this:

Greg

I don’t base my scientific knowledge on youtube vids. Apparently, you do. That may explain a lot.
The only DATA we have on ice volume is from Cryosat2. Go look at that.
“We are pretty near a lowest ever for this date.” So what does one day tell us? That’s even less informative than a two week “trend”.
Yes ice area/extent is about a slow as it was in 2007 : a decade ago. It now higher than is was in 2012 five years ago. Hardly OMG run away melting.

Patrick MJD

Griff bases his “science” on Garniad articles, and then goes from there, he has stated that, but he has never posted where that article leads. So, one can safely extrapolate that he knows nothing other than what is in the media, ie, nothing in scientific reality!

Griff

Hey, I don’t base my science on any type of article – I base it on the science.
but if I want to refer to that science on the internet, I need somewhere to refer to – a newspaper article linking to the research paper is a good way to communicate a summary of the science before people get into the detail.
and strangely, UK papers like the Daily Mail (for example) don’t refer to science much and the likes of the Times is paywallled.
Greg – you want to dispute the data represented in that video? any evidence the volume figures are not as shown?
And here’s another Guardian article for you all – links to research which examines the satellite temp data.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/oct/14/climate-scientists-published-a-paper-debunking-ted-cruz
Ignore the Ted Cruz clumsy link, look at what it says about the ‘pause’, satellite temp data
(worth a post of its on here admins????)

stevekeohane

The lowest Ever in 37 years?… Get a grip Griff.

Chimp

Griffter,
Apparently you haven’t noticed that Arctic sea ice has stabilized since stormy 2007, with the low of stormier 2012 holding in the even stormier 2016.
Antarctic sea ice of course has grown all during the interval since 1979. How is that possible, if a global air temperature rise due to man-made CO2 increase be the alleged cause of Arctic decline?

Patrick MJD

“Griff October 14, 2016 at 3:53 am
The recent paper just published looked at these two claims. The authors found errors in the analysis that, when corrected, debunked the contrarian claims. Let me explain some of the science.
First, these atmospheric temperatures are measured by satellites which can “see” the temperature of gases in the atmosphere.”
From the linked article, it is flawed right off the bat with that statement. If you knew what you were talking about you’d know why the last sentence is totally wrong and misleading.

glen martin

If the giant planets are affecting the solar cycles how about the alleged Planet Nine. Would that produce an additional long period cycle?

Ian H

Only when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.

Ian H

How is the orbit of Jupiter supposed to cause sunspot cycles. Remember that the Sun is rotating on its axis with a period of 24.47 days at the equator and Jupiter’s orbit is almost circular and aligned with the equator of the sun. That means the only thing that changes over a Jovian year from the Sun’s point of view is that Jupiter is “overhead” at a slight different point in the rotation cycle, which unless there is something else up there to compare to is going to be completely unnoticeable. Given the symmetry of the situation there is absolutely nothing on the sun in relation to Jupiter which varies over an 11.6 year cycle apart from perhaps the relationship of Jupiter to the background stars; and good luck trying to even detect that from the surface of the sun.

Ian H

Without a mechanism this is just astrology.

tony mcleod

Uh huh.

Greg

If there was a convincing correlation, preferably one that made testable predictions, one could search for a mechanism later. This article does not even attempt to show a correlation.
I’m not even sure why Anthony posted it.