Have you been keeping an eye on Sol lately? One of the top astronomy stories for 2018 may be what’s not happening, and how inactive our host star has become.
The strange tale of Solar Cycle #24 is ending with an expected whimper: as of May 8th, the Earthward face of the Sun had been spotless for 73 out of 128 days thus far for 2018, or more than 57% of the time. This wasn’t entirely unexpected, as the solar minimum between solar cycle #23 and #24 saw 260 spotless days in 2009 – the most recorded in a single year since 1913.
Cycle #24 got off to a late and sputtering start, and though it produced some whopper sunspots reminiscent of the Sol we knew and loved on 20th century cycles past, it was a chronic under-performer overall. Mid-2018 may see the end of cycle #24 and the start of Cycle #25… or will it?
The story thus far… and the curious drama that is solar cycle #24. Credit: David Hathaway/NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center.
One nice surprise during Cycle #24 was the appearance of massive sunspot AR 2192, which popped up just in time for the partial solar eclipse of October 23rd, 2014. Several times the size of the Earth, the spot complex was actually the largest seen in a quarter century. But just as “one swallow does not a Summer make,” one large sunspot group couldn’t save Solar Cycle #24.
The partial eclipse of the Sun, October 23, 2014, as seen from Jasper, Alberta, shot under clear skies through a mylar filter, on the front of a 66mm f/6 apo refractor using the Canon 60Da for 1/8000 (!) sec exposure at ISO 100. The colors are natural, with the mylar filter providing a neutral “white light” image. The big sunspot on the Sun that day is just beginning to disappear behind the Moon’s limb. The mylar filter gave a white Sun, its natural colour, but I have tinted the Sun’s disk yellow for a more pleasing view that is not just white Sun/black sky. Image credit and copyright: Alan Dyer/Amazing Sky.net
The Sun goes through an 11-year sunspot cycle, marked by the appearance of new spots at mid- solar latitudes, which then slowly progress to make subsequent appearances closer towards the solar equator, in a pattern governed by what’s known as Spörer’s Law. The hallmark of a new solar cycle is the appearance of those high latitude spots. The Sun actually flips overall polarity every cycle, so a proper Hale Cycle for the Sun is actually 11 x 2 = 22 years long.
A big gaseous fusion bomb, the Sun actually rotates once every 25 days near its equator, and 34 days at the poles. The Sun’s rotational axis is also tipped 7.25 degrees relative to the ecliptic, with the northern rotational pole tipped towards us in early September, while the southern pole nods towards us in early March.
An animation of massive susnpot AR 2192 crossing the Earthward face of Sol from October 17th to October 29th, 2014. Credit: NASA/SDO.
What’s is store for Cycle #25? One thing’s for certain: if the current trend continues, with spotless days more the rule than the exception, we could be in for a deep profound solar minimum through the 2018 to 2020 season, the likes of which would be unprecedented in modern astronomy.
Fun fact: a similar dearth of sunspots was documented during the 1645-1715 period referred to as the Maunder Minimum. During this time, crops failed and the Thames River in London froze, making “frost fairs” along its frozen shores possible. Ironically, the Maunder Minimum also began just a few decades after the dawn of the age of telescopic astronomy. During this time, the idea of “spots on the Sun” was regulated to a controversial, and almost mythical status in mainstream astronomy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Let me add solar irradiance plays a role in the sun’s ability to cool the climate but it is the secondary effects which are much more important.
Those secondary effects being in increase in global cloud/snow coverage(due to a decrease is EUV light which in turn leads to a more meridional atmospheric circulation) , an uptick in major explosive volcanic activity( due to an increase in galactic cosmic rays, low AP INDEX /SOLARWIND),overall ocean cooling (due to a decrease in UV/NEAR UV LIGHT), and again a more meridional atmospheric circulation (due to a decrease in EUV light).
All of this will result in cooling like it has each and every time in the past, and this time will be no different in my opinion.
The additional factor is the weakening geo magnetic field which at the very least is going to compound given solar effects.
QUICK NOTER ON AGW THEROY
AGW theory which is based on a house of cards.
Not one of the basic premises this theory was based on seeing the light of day from a more zonal atmospheric circulation, to a lower tropospheric hot spot , to a distinct lessening of OLR radiation, to the climate in no way being even close to being unique, to CO2 following the temperature, to CO2’S climatic effects lessening as concentrations increase.
Just some of the more notable problems with this theory among many others.
“AGW theory which is based on a house of cards” drawn from a pack of lies.
The next minimum (Leif’s artificial minimum) is not that close. Probably not before 2020.
I just hope we are collecting enough of the right kind of data that our descendants in 500 years can use it effectively. Somewhat pessimistic the scientific method will survive that long …
At the “full story” 1 very relevant comment on Stradivarius who must have known Maunder Minimum was not funny.
“Stradivarius II” futures anyone?
Spot on Anthony, spot on.
Re: The disparity between sunspots and Earthly surface climate; – an attempt to assess the factors involved are to be seen here :-
https://howtheatmosphereworks.wordpress.com/solar-activity-and-surface-climate/
The problem arises from the variation in output activity from the sun, as the article explains; the existence of a sunspot does not imply the existence of a geo-effective impact, more importantly the absence of a spot does not imply the absence of impact. That from non-spot related solar activity can be just as important to the response of earthly atmospheric profiles as a significant CME impact.
The article is rather ‘Euro –Centric’ principally because of available data.
Dr. Svalgaard: “…solar cycles do, in fact overlap. Each lasting some 16-17 years.”
(let’s assume it averages around 16.5 years)
We also know that there is about 22 years long solar magnetic (Hale) cycle.
Both sunspot and Hale cycles lengths vary by year or two from the above assumed ‘nominal’ values.
These cycles influence on the global temperatures may be independent but the result because of the periodicity proximities is more likely to show as a cross-modulation.
Using above (nominal) values, by applying principle of periodic cross-modulation
(22 x 16.5) / (22 + 16.5) = 9.4 years
(22 x 16.5) / (22 – 16.5) = 66 years
result gives values that are well known and widely acknowledged properties of the AMO, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the fundamental component of the global temperature natural variability.
Since no other source of the AMO’s periodicities has been unambiguously identified the above hypothesis clearly shows that the solar activity is primary cause of the global temperature’s natural variability.
We also know that there is about 22 years long solar magnetic (Hale) cycle.
No, we don’t know that. That 'cycle' is composed of two overlapping individual eruptions of solar activity lasting some 29 years in total [and overlapping with other cycles at both ends].
Your last argument from ignorance is a well-known fallacy.
[Formatting fixed – w.]
NASA: ” Because the solar magnetic fields reverse at the peak of each 11-year cycle, solar activity cycle actually spans a 22-year “Hale cycle.” ”
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast19oct98_1
(ad finem)
You shouldn’t blindly believe everything you find on the internet. Especially not what is simplified too much.
I am with Vuk on Hale. I can even predict rainfall patterns with Hale. Anyway. I have not even seen a graph here of the solar polar fieldstrengths.
I thought we all agreed last time that 2014 was the beginning of a new GB cycle. Meaning cycle 25 = like cycle 17.
I doubt that there will be a grand minimum. That would depend on the solar polar magnetic field strengths.
Leif,
Here is some speculation that is presented as a bit of fun. Please do not take it too seriously.
1) Sunspot pairs with a certain parity last of a period of roughly 17 years.
2) These sunspot pairs are identified as belonging to a given sunspot cycle.
3) The maxima of two consecutive sunspot cycles are separated by roughly 11 years.
[I know that this varies between about 9 and 13, however, its long-term average is close to 11.1 years]
4)This means that the typical time between when a sunspot pair of a given polarity first appears on one cycle and when a sunspot pair of the same polarity first appears two cycles later is: 17 + 11 = 28 years
One of the original reasons that people proposed that the planets might be responsible for the sunspot cycle on the Sun was the near coincidence of the orbital period of Jupiter (11.86 years) with the mean long-term length of the sunspot cycle (11.1 years). Interestingly, the four dot points above can be used to extend that analogy a bit further.
The average time between solar cycle maxima = 11.1 years
The orbital period of Jupiter_______________ = 11.86 years
Sunspot pair polarity cycle________________ = 28 years
Orbital period of of Saturn________________ = 29.46 years
It would be interesting to see what happens when the two planetary periods realign (i.e. synodic period or half period of Jupiter and Saturn – call the Syzygies of Jupiter and Saturn in the diagram below).
Do you think that there might be a connection?
4)This means that the typical time between when a sunspot pair of a given polarity first appears on one cycle and when a sunspot pair of the same polarity first appears two cycles later is: 17 + 11 = 28 years
This is incorrect. The duration in time would be 2*11 = 22 years. So I don’t think much of your idea.
Ian
I also find correlation for the Gleissberg cycle with certain planets’ positions after determining in various ways the turning points for the radiance caused by the GB cycle.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/5yxjyu.jpg
Just remember that correlation does not yet mean causation. However, knowing the correlations of the planets with the sun[spots/ magnetic field strengths] might be useful in predicting what will happen on the sun next. I don’t see a grand minimum coming. Next on the list would be a grand maximum in the middle of the GB cycle. That would be a long time from now.
Unless he changed his mind since we last argued, Leif is not going to like us and our arguments. He just thinks we are ‘cyclomaniacs’
Sorry Leif,
Point 4 should read:
4)This means that the typical time between when a sunspot pair of a given polarity first appears on one cycle and when the last sunspot pair of the opposite polarity disappears two cycles later is: 17 + 11 = 28 years
My bad.
Still just numerology.
Leif,
You didn’t read the correction to point 4) of my post. It is indeed correct as it is just a restatement of what you said in a previous post. Are saying that you are wrong? That would be a first!
Regardless, it was just [desperate] numerology. When making a claim, you should always address the question of ‘why?’. What is the mechanism behind the correlation [if any]?
Leif
Basic stats/
You don’t have to know the reason for correlation.Just that it exists will help you plotting a plausible course for the future.
HenryP said
Isn’t that the same argument that we hear from CAGW advocates who see a correlation between global temperature rise and CO2 concentration, and therefore say that our plausible course for the future is that we must act to reduce CO2?
It seems to me that Leif is right that we should be interested in the mechanism. We would want to establish causation before talking about plausible courses for the future, regardless of what correlation we may be discussing. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by a plausible course for the future?
Rich
In the case of the relationship between CO2 and warming, we actually know what causes the correlation. It is the first smoke from the water in the kettle that you put to boiling that causes CO2 to be released:
HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-
[remember there are giga tons of bi carbonates in the oceans.]
By my results, there is no global warming. It already started cooling.Only fools who see the snow heaping up at later times in the year will still believe in the ‘data’ that are given//….
You’re deflecting. Obviously, I’m not making a case that CAGW sentiment (not theory) is correct. I’m agreeing with Leif that the interesting thing is to have a theory for the mechanism or how it really works. Just as you point out about the fact that CO2 correlates with temperature (with a lag) because CO2 solubility in sea water is a function of temperature.
Rich
I only concentrated on the position of two planets and found correlation with the GB cycle related to my other results.
Others have found correlations of other cycles with other planets, which I found astonishing.
I cannot explain this. I don’t know if originally the sun put the planets in their place or if it is the balance of weight in the SS that has an influence on the sun.
If somebody here does know I would be terribly interested in hearing their comments?
Numerology? The journal Solar Physics does not seem to think so!
Frank Stefani, André Giesecke, Norbert Weber, Tom Weier
On the Synchronizability of Tayler–Spruit and Babcock–Leighton Type Dynamos
June 2017Solar Physics 293(1)
DOI: 10.1007/s11207-017-1232-y
ABSTRACT
The solar cycle appears to be remarkably synchronized with the gravitational torques exerted by the tidally dominant planets Venus, Earth and Jupiter. Recently, a possible synchronization mechanism was proposed that relies on the intrinsic helicity oscillation of the current-driven Tayler instability which can be stoked by tidal-like perturbations with a period of 11.07 years. Inserted into a simple alpha-Omega dynamo model these resonantly excited helicity oscillations lead to a 22.14 years dynamo cycle. Here, we assess various alternative mechanisms of synchronization. Specifically, we study a simple time-delay model of Babcock-Leighton type dynamos and ask whether periodic changes of either the minimal amplitude for rising toroidal flux tubes or the Omega effect could eventually lead to synchronization. In contrast to the easy and robust synchronizability of Tayler-Spruit dynamo models, our answer for those Babcock-Leighton type models is less propitious.
Regardless of this speculation, the specific ‘theory’ that was peddled is still numerology.
Let’s have another look at a possible Sun-Earth connection.
Using Svalgaard’s sunspot cycle length of 16 years and the more accurate value for the Hale cycle of 21.4 years (based on the sunspot cycles peaks since 1850), the graphic version of the Sun-Earth link reaffirms the above stated hypothesis that ‘the solar activity is the primary cause of the global temperature’s natural variability’
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/Sun-Earth.gif
I like it!
The idea of AGW will probably never be dead until the last Zombie Alarmist has gone to his maker.
The day when everyone sees the light isn’t comng, the future is now. Ecohippies are permanant, they are the ever growing lawn, full of hidden dog droppings, that must be perpetually mowed.
We just didn’t mow enough.
We know some stuff about the past, but not nearly as much as we’d like to. We know some stuff about the present, but again, we’re well short of what we need to really get to grips with most problems, in large part because the present is the product of the past, and therefore I think that it’s safe to say that we really don’t know very much about what the future holds, given that the future is a product of the present and the past. . . . I suspect! But speculating is fun sometimes and often our egos just sweep us away on a tide of guesses built on assumptions and hopes. . . . I believe that what we do actually know is dwarfed by what we don’t. The sun and the earth have a lot of secrets I reckon and I don’t think we’ll be cracking too many of their codes anytime soon . . .
Heliospheric current sheet hasn’t flattened yet:http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif
Cycle’s not over till it’s flattened. Also from the Wilcox Solar Observatory:
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
The amplitude of that in 24 is the same as in 23. From that the amplitude of 25 can be expected to be much the same as 24. Back to levels of the 19th century – not that that won’t be interesting with potential for mid-summer frosts in the Corn Belt.
The amplitude of that in 24 is the same as in 23. From that the amplitude of 25 can be expected to be much the same as 24
Actually, somewhat larger.
Archibald.
Thx for ur comment. However. I am with Leif on this one. If there is no extended minimum i.e grand minimum, I expect cycle 25 to be slightly stronger than 24. It will be similar to 27. This is after my finding a direct correlation with the position of Uranus and Saturn and the 87 year GB cycle.
Sorry. Not 27. I meant 17.
Trying to work on my phone with very small keyboard..
I don’t think that’s a sunspot group in the animation. I think it’s Phoenix droppings.
I always wondered what it would be like if two asteroids collided …….. then I read this thread
A big gaseous fusion bomb, the Sun…. Really?
https://youtu.be/keJAQIWEyzY
since when is EU stuff allowed here? I thought AntWat banned it
WXcycles May 24, 2018 at 1:45 am
zazove May 24, 2018 at 1:56 am Edit
zazove, the problem is not here on WUWT. The problem is that skeptics everywhere have had a total overload of “may”, “might”, “could”, and the rest of the weasel words. We hear claims all the time like:
“Global warming could wipe out a third of all species by 2030!”
and
“Sea level rise may drown Miami in the next three decades!”
Yeah, right. I’m sure you can see the problem.
As a result, when someone like you comes along peddling that same brand of merchandise, you are likely to receive a less than warm welcome … nothing to do with WUWT, we’re just tired of ungrounded speculation masquerading as science.
Regards,
w.
I get mocked for being reasonable and you say “someone like you… peddling”. Hmmm, nice. That’s way down on your pyramid.
And,
Given the piles ignorant certitude that get deposited here daily I’d suggest a little humble uncertainty might not hurt.
zazove May 25, 2018 at 4:32 am Edit
zazove, I specified exactly what I objected to, the overuse of “can”, “could”, “might”, “may” and the like in making predictions of disaster … and I quoted the exact words where you were trying to sell us that same line of patter. Way up on the pyramid.
I have no problem with error estimates and with acknowledgment of uncertainty. I do have a problem with claims on the order of “Sea level rise may drown Miami in the next three decades!”. That’s as far from “humble uncertainty” as one can get.
w.
Universe Today:
“Many a climate change-denier will at least concede that the current climate of the Earth is indeed changing, though they’ll question human activity’s role in it. The rather ominous fact is, taking only current solar activity into account, we should be in a cooling trend right now, a signal in the data that anthropogenic climate change is working hard against.”
In fact the ocean modes are in their warm phases during solar minima, which is what has occurred with the AMO since 1995.
‘Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum’
“Modeled surface temperature changes
show alternating warm oceans and cold con-
tinents at NH mid-latitudes (Fig. 1), with
maximum amplitude in winter.”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5cbd/083da522a1164131bf592cd2d4b4a3157d42.pdf
That is the misconception which is we should be cooling.
The truth is we should have been warming due to solar activity through the end of year 2005. After that lag times have to be appreciated which are at least 10+ years of sub solar activity(which started in late year 2005) in general along with very low average value solar parameters within the sub solar activity in general. Those solar values being equal to or greater then typical solar minimum values between solar cycles and longer in duration.
This year is the first year when one can say we should be cooling due to solar activity, and this is why I say the climate test is on from this year moving forward..
I maintain that the warming of the AMO since 1995 is acting as a negative feedback to the decline in solar wind pressure and temperature since then.
Universe Today is run by the cultural marxists — just like everything else academic. Too bad, but everything nowadays is politicized by the marxists
Which is much different then trying to say it is due to AGW.
I am puzzled as to why a comment of mine to Javier has gone in moderation?
Henry I say global temperatures are still quite high we have a ways to go.
Ja. Well. By my results it is globally cooling. Have you at least checked how much it is warming in your own backyard?
I liked how at the end of the complete article it says something like “those denying AGW should realize we should be in a cooling trend already”. You mean like the 2 year one we’ve had already start? lol
Meteorologist
Generally speaking when bodies attract and make orbits there is some interaction both ways. No matter how small the forces. But, yes. Correlation does not yet mean causation. I can only suspect that the planets might have an influence on our weather by pulling some switch on the sun.
Henryp – yes it’s an interesting idea. Stars are just balls of gas.
But I thought I remembered from childhood that the gravitational attraction of Jupiter is less than the bus going by you on the street.
from Reddit
Gravitational force is given by f = G m1 m2 / r2 . I’ll assume a mass of 90kg for you (although it is irrelevant to the answer).
Girl sitting across from you on bus (50kg, 2m away):
F = 6.67×10-11 x 50 x 90 / 22
F = 7.5×10-8 N
Proxima Centauri (4.24 light-years, 0.123 solar-mass):
F = 6.67×10-11 x 90 x 2.4×1029 / ( 4.0×1016 )2
F = 9.1×10-13 N
Alpha Centauri (4.37 light-years, 2.01 solar-mass combined):
F = 6.67×10-11 x 90 x 4.00×1030 / ( 4.1×1016 )2
F = 1.4×10-11 N
The Sun:
F = 6.67×10-11 x 90 x 1.99×1030 / ( 1.5×1011 )2
F = 0.53 N
So the sun by far, followed by the girl
How much energy do you use to push or pull a switch to put the big light in your house?
How much energy do you use to push or pull a switch to put the big light in your house?
The big light sits on an energy hill [built up by the power company]. The situation is like this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Potential-Hill-and-Valley.png
A small push is enough to make ball A roll off. Try to push ball B…
It is in fact an electrical switch. People have made switches that turn on and off by a sound.
That is the kind of switch that happens on the sun every 43 years. And we all know it is the planets who dunnit. Some very small gravitational pull or push. Amazing, actually.
That is the kind of switch that happens on the sun every 43 years
I know it is hopeless to educate you on this, but there is no such switch.
Thanks, Leif … I saw henryp’s comment and though “A nice even steady 43-year ‘switch’ in the sun … riiiight”, but I didn’t have the heart to answer.
w.
Willis
We all know you believe in AGW.
You calculated that and if it makes you happy I am fine with that.
One day you will find out that you were wrong,
though.
Lol.
Henryp May 27, 2018 at 1:32 pm
Man, that is dumb as a bag of ball bearings. I do NOT believe in AGW no matter what you think, that’s just the voices in your head.
I think the greenhouse effect is real, but I don’t think that changes in CO2 will have any visible effect on temperature.
Again, 100% wrong.
Guess what? Today YOU found out that you are wrong.
Lol indeed,
w.
Willis
I am not sure now but I am happy to accept that this is your opinion; maybe you are playing devil’s advocate sometimes?
Or maybe you should re-open that post on symmetry and balance because we had not finished discussing the subject…
As far as I remember I had informed you that I also believe in some kind of GH effect,
e.g.
I notice minimum T rising during a night when clouds move in, indicating some kind of ‘blanket’ action, i.e. earthshine being back radiated to earth by the clouds.
However, at daylight same clouds now deflect a lot of sunshine, reducing Tmax, often by more than 5 degrees K, here where I live.
I then asked you to provide me with a balance sheet, showing me what the net effect of the GH gases would be?
Cooling or warming?
In this article, Gerry Pease discusses a syzygy pattern that he compares to SC24, 25. It suggests to me that ssn for SC25 wont start increasing until July 2021. Further, it may not peak until 2027.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/gerry-pease-a-syzygy-pattern-emerges/
Sandy, Minister of Future
Here is a thought experiment about a star and one planet. In this star there is a huge amount of hydrogen under very high pressure and at a high temperature. So the hydrogen exist as a plasma and all the protons are vibrating randomly at high speed because of the temperature. When two protons bump together in the right way they fuse and release energy forming a helium plasma. Now imagine we place a giant planet the size of Jupiter and in Jupiter’s orbit around this star. There will not be much of a gravitational force from Jupiter but it will bias the direction of the plasma gas molecules and consequently their chemical or physical reactions.
That didn’t hurt to think about did it?
Sandy, Minister of Future
True. That fits in with my thinking as well.
To continue the thought experiment. Because the reaction is biased in the direction of Jupiter gravity there will be a hotspot that follows Jupiter possibly with a lag. Also a bulge in the sun surface will follow Jupiter.
Sandy, Minister of Future
Also a bulge in the sun surface will follow Jupiter
Yes, all of 0.2 millimeter high (0.008 inches)…
interzonkomizar May 26, 2018 at 7:45 am
This is a common misconception. Actually, there will be zero “gravitational force from Jupiter”. A star and a planet in orbit are no different than if they were both moving through empty space, with one exception—tidal force. This relates to the difference in gravitational pull between the near and the far side of the sun.
HOWEVER, and it’s a big however, as Leif points out, the tidal force of Jupiter on the sun raises a tidal bulge that is all of 0.2 mm high … and if you think that will make a difference at the turbulent surface of the sun, go to the back of the class.
See my post Canute Ponders The Tides for further information on this subject.
Willis, Minister of Ugly Reality
Just a final reminder.
All over climate specialists are looking at ‘means’ or even global ‘mean’
Quite frankly, your sample has to cover the whole earth to give you an exact global mean.
The sats are also not to be trusted as there have been many problems and I can see that whenever a problem arose (new version) they re-calibrated on GISS. However, if GISS is also not right, due to imbalance/ & human adjustment, what have you got?
The global mean is almost impossible to predict as it depends on too many factors.
If you believe AGW is true: check minima and find that there is no increase in global minima.
If you want to see what is allowed through the atmosphere [as regulated by the amount of the most energetic particles released by the sun that produce the ozone, peroxides and N-oxides]
ckeck maxima.
And find that the energy we get from the sun has already been declining.
When will the global mean be affected?
I suggest you evaluate the amount of snow in front of your door at the same date relevant to you each year.
OK?
@Leif- Thank you for your comment. Now imagine Jupiter and Saturn and Earth all in zyzygy on the same side. The Bulge might be a tad bigger, and the hotspot a tad hotter, huh?
Sandy, Minister of Future
The Bulge might be a tad bigger
Yeah, all of 0.01 inches…
@Leif- What about the hotspot? A plasma reaction rate based on random thermal collisions will surely increase with the gravitational bias field, no matter how small, resulting in more radiated energy from the bulge.
What do you think about that?
Sandy, Minister of Future
A plasma reaction rate based on random thermal collisions will surely increase with the gravitational bias field
The fusion takes place in the solar core and it takes 100,000 years or more for the heat to leak out to the surface, so any variation much shorter than that [Jupiter 12 years…) will be completely washed out. So, no increase that can be observed.
interzonkomizar
My results show dead end stops at regular 43 year intervals, more or less, depending on the cycle,
I subsequently found that the solar poles move over twice at these times – going by the south and north solar magnetic fields, e.g. 1927, 1971, 2014
Speculating, this process seems to me related to the pulling of an electrical switch on the sun, To pull this switch you just need some additional gravity?
@Leif- So, can you imagine any way this affects the tachocline interface or reactions and events outside the core? You have the knowledge and resources to check this out. If the zyzygy was between Jupiter Venus Saturn Uranus and Neptune it might be larger and more detectable. It would be a good paper for you to disrupt all the previous thinking.
Sandy, Minister of Future
It would be a good paper for you to disrupt all the previous thinking.
The problem is that the outer planets move too slowly. The Sun rotates in 25 days so your ‘hotspot’ [caused by almost stationary planets] is smeared over all longitudes and completely washes out. This is in addition to the negligible tidal effect to begin with. So, no glory to be gotten from that. The planetary enthusiasts prefer the idea that the Sun sloshes around the center of gravity of the solar system, but ignore that the Sun is in free fall and thus does not feel any forces [like an astronaut in orbit]. There are many planet systems known and they do not show any effect of the planets on their star. You might enjoy http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf on this subject.
@Leif- For example, could it modulate some parameter of the tachocline interface which would show up at the surface faster?
Sandy, Minister of Future
could it modulate some parameter of the tachocline interface which would show up at the surface faster
Same problem as before: the sun rotates, so the hotspot [no matter where it is] will be smeared all over the place, erasing any signal due to the almost stationary planets.
@Leif said- Sun rotates in 25 days so your ‘hotspot’ [caused by almost stationary planets] is smeared over all longitudes and completely washes out.
OK, most of the time the effect would be smeared, but when significant mass planets are in zyzygy, or approaching it, that could have an effect for several solar rotations, i would think.
Thanks for link, i can read tomorrow.
Sandy, Minister of Future
X
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
when significant mass planets are in zyzygy,
The biggest effect would be from Jupiter and Venus and the Earth [Venus+Earth has more effect than Jupiter]. The big outer planets [S, U, N] have effects hundred of times smaller. The varying distance between the Earth and the Sun [we are closest in January] has an effect about a hundred times larger that of any solar activity [caused by planets or otherwise], so that alone washes out any planetary signal.
@HenryP said- My results show dead end stops at regular 43 year intervals, more or less, depending on the cycle,
I subsequently found that the solar poles move over twice at these times – going by the south and north solar magnetic fields, e.g. 1927, 1971, 2014.
Help me with your terms please.
‘dead end stops’ =
‘poles move over twice’ =
Sandy, Minister of Future
interzonkomizar
my physics is very rusty and when I did this stuff my score usually was below 50%….
I do remember that it has to do with electricity, normally, the dead end stops happen at certain binomial functions coming suddenly to an end at a certain top or bottom, and from then move in the exact opposite direction, also binomial, forming a mirror image with the first function.
In its turn, the dead end stops can usually be related to the top and bottom of some other related sine wave function….
@HenryP- OK, sounds like something undergoing phase change. Also i noted 43 yrs is close to 2 Hale cycles. So we will study this more, and i will read Leif’s pdf.
Sandy, Minister of Future
OK.
True, every Hale cycle makes one quadrant of the GB cycle. Note that what I explained earlier to Javier.
As to why the solar poles move over twice – as can be seen from the solar polar magnetic field strengths –
[at least in 1971/2 and 2014]
I am trying to figure out as to why this happens just knowing that if it does not happen every 43 years there could be a problem….