Evidence for a new fundamental constant of the sun

From NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY and the “solar constant” department

New research undertaken at Northumbria University, Newcastle shows that the Sun’s magnetic waves behave differently than currently believed.

Their findings have been reported in the latest edition of the prominent journal, Nature Astronomy.

After examining data gathered over a 10-year period, the team from Northumbria’s Department of Mathematics, Physics and Electrical Engineering found that magnetic waves in the Sun’s corona – its outermost layer of atmosphere – react to sound waves escaping from the inside of the Sun.

The sun’s corona — its outermost layer of atmosphere. CREDIT Dr. Richard Morton, Northumbria University Newcastle

These magnetic waves, known as Alfvénic waves, play a crucial role in transporting energy around the Sun and the solar system. The waves were previously thought to originate at the Sun’s surface, where boiling hydrogen reaches temperatures of 6,000 degrees and churns the Sun’s magnetic field.

However, the researchers have found evidence that the magnetic waves also react – or are excited – higher in the atmosphere by sound waves leaking out from the inside of the Sun.

The team discovered that the sound waves leave a distinctive marker on the magnetic waves. The presence of this marker means that the Sun’s entire corona is shaking in a collective manner in response to the sound waves. This is causing it to vibrate over a very clear range of frequencies.

This newly-discovered marker is found throughout the corona and was consistently present over the 10-year time-span examined. This suggests that it is a fundamental constant of the Sun – and could potentially be a fundamental constant of other stars.

The findings could therefore have significant implications for our current ideas about how magnetic energy is transferred and used in stellar atmospheres.

Dr Richard Morton, the lead author of the report and a senior lecturer at Northumbria University, said:

“The discovery of such a distinctive marker – potentially a new constant of the Sun – is very exciting. We have previously always thought that the magnetic waves were excited by the hydrogen at the surface, but now we have shown that they are excited by these sound waves. This could lead to a new way to examine and classify the behaviour of all stars under this unique signature. Now we know the signature is there, we can go looking for it on other stars.

“The Sun’s corona is over one hundred times hotter than its surface and energy stemming from the Alfvénic waves is believed to be responsible for heating the corona to a temperature of around one million degrees. The Alfvénic waves are also responsible for heating and accelerating powerful solar wind from the Sun which travels through the solar system. These winds travel at speeds of around a million miles per hour. They also affect the atmosphere of stars and planets, impacting on their own magnetic fields, and cause phenomena such as aurora.”

Dr Morton added:

“Our evidence shows that the Sun’s internal acoustic oscillations play a significant role in exciting the magnetic Alfvénic waves. This can give the waves different properties and suggests that they are more susceptible to an instability, which could lead to hotter and faster solar winds.”

The research was funded by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council and the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research. It was undertaken by Dr Morton and Professor James McLaughlin from Northumbria’s Solar Physics research group, together with Dr Micah Weberg, who recently moved from Northumbria to Washington DC’s Naval Research Laboratory.

Dr Morton and Professor McLaughlin are currently working with NASA to analyse images of the Sun which were taken by NASA’s High-Resolution Coronal Imager, Hi-C.

###

Their paper A basal contribution from p-modes to the Alfvenic wave flux in the Sun’s corona is published in Nature Astronomyhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0668-9

Via Eurekalert

Advertisements

107 thoughts on “Evidence for a new fundamental constant of the sun

  1. I greatly like this idea. Transferring energy by way of driving a magneto-hydrodynamic generator using sound waves. I’m sure some bright minds are already trying to figure out how to make money off it.

    I look forward to seeing what Leif says about this.

    w.

  2. I’m unclear on how sound waves affect magnetic fields. Is it because the sound waves impact the plasma at the point where the magnetic fields are created?

    • It is easier to imagine how the magnetic fields would affect the sound wave through homogeneity in plasma density due to the magnetic fields. I guess it can work vice versa as well.

    • Here’s the answer I found on Quora:

      Rafal Muszynski

      Yes they can interfere very strongly in a conducting medium like a plasma. First of all, sound waves are pressure changes and in such a medium the pressure has a term related to a magnetic energy pressure, thus any disturbances to the magnetic field will cause pressure disturbances as well. Second, the sound waves cause periodic dislocations of the medium volume elements – but in plasma the charged particles strongly interact with the magnetic field and their movement is very much restricted spatially to the direction along the magnetic field lines. That causes severe mechanical anisotropy in the medium and affects the accoustic oscillation propagation modes.

  3. The Alfvén waves were observed in the Sun in 2011.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110801094253.htm
    The plasma that carries the waves travels at speeds of ~ 20 km/s, but the waves themselves travel much faster, at speeds of 200-250 km/s.

    The sound waves that excite the Alfvén waves might have a constant frequency, but the speed of the Alfvén waves does vary with the 11-year solar cycle, so it must be determined by the magnetic properties of the sun.

    There is so much in the sun we still don’t know.

  4. Solar activity for January the ‘classic’ sunspot count (Wolf SSN) was just 3 points up, while the new SIDC reconstructed number was at 7.8
    Composite graph is here
    SC24 is nearing what might be the start of a prolong minimum (possible late start of SC25 too) but could this slight rise be a ‘dead cat bounce’, most unlikely but the time will tell.

    • I am of a different opinion. I believe we are reaching the solar minimum about now and solar activity should be increasing towards the end of the year.

      I don’t know how you got your formula, but (nothing personal) it looks like it is going to fail spectacularly for SC25 that should peak around 2026 and should be quite similar to SC24, probably a little more active.

      This is just a centennial low, and shouldn’t be a very prominent one considering that solar activity has been on a long-term increase since the Maunder Minimum.

    • Sometime the nature plays ‘games’ providing us with a puzzling coincidences, in this case it is the sun and global temperature
      http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/HC4-SSN.htm
      – the top graph is for the two sections of the HadCrut 4 global temperature data. Correlation is on the border of ‘by chance’, but it might have been a bit higher if it wasn’t for an early elNino.
      – the bottom graph is the sunspot number, with the early section of data inverted giving high correlation of R^2=0.85.
      Two sections of data in both graphs are separated by 19 years, a well known orbital constant.
      Note: it has some curiosity value but should not be taken too seriously.

      • Landscheidt
        As early as 1989, the development of the weak sun was properly addressed by Dr. Ing. Landscheidt predicted. The up to now presented and current forecasts about the future strength (weakness) of the sun, coincide astonishing with the already in 1989 (!) By the German astrophysicist Dr. Ing. Theodor Landscheidt (deceased 19.05.04) correctly predicted sun cycles. Also Dr. Landscheidt assumed a global slowdown caused by weakening solar cycles. What Dr. Landscheidt predicted:

        -> The sun would enter a new minimum in the first cycles of the 21st century

        -> In 1990, the number of sunspots would usher in the end of the modern maximum

        -> The climax of the next cycle 23 2000/2001 would be weaker. (was observed)

        -> Cycle 24 would be significantly weaker. (currently being watched)

        -> With cycle 25 the minimum would start (remains to be awaited)

        Landscheidt also predicted the Super-El-NINO of 1997/98, with the last warmest year since recording began, and another, weaker, for 2002, which would hide the cooling, but this would be increasingly clear from 2007. Landscheidt has made his forecasts based on Newtonian mechanics. He suspects that the giant planets use magnetic fields to exchange angular momentum with the sun and in this way influence the solar cycles. However, the mechanism by which such an exchange could influence solar activity is not fully understood. His correlations and calculations of past patterns fit together with the past small ice ages, but also other climatic events from 5000 years of paleo-agriculture.

        Source, in German>/a>

    • The bump-up in January’s SSN over December was due entirely to 2 northern hemisphere SC24 regions: 12732 and 12733, both cycle 24. There were 15 spotless days in January 2019. There were no catalogued SC25 regions for January.

      Region 12732 (initially designated S6101+6102 at N10) formed on 12/29/18, peaked on 1/2/19 with a Wolf number of 18. Mostly decayed by 1/5/19, and rotated out of view by 1/6.
      Region 12733 (initially designated S6110 at N07) formed on 1/21/19. It acquired beta gamma magnetic classification on 1/25 with some minor C-class flaring on 1/26 and a Wolf number of 29 before decaying and rotating out of view on 1/30. January ended the month (31st) spotless.

      So far in February, on 2/06 (last Wednesday), one tiny SC25 region was numbered (S6114) and was gone by the end of the day at N30W42. Today, February 11th, the sun is spotless.

      Jan Alvestad is keeping a running tally of SC 25 numbered regions here:
      http://www.solen.info/solar/cycle25_spots.html
      Right now the Northern hemisphere seems to be slightly leading the count for SC25 and has the largest SC25 region so far, S6071, on 11/08/18.

      Conclusion: SC24 is still running the show, with minor sporadic appearances by SC25 spots of about 1 per month.

  5. Acoustic waves in the photosphere were discovered in 1960. These are in the range of 5 minute oscillations. There are actually a large number of oscillation modes in the 2-15 minute range. The peak of the power spectrum though is centered around 3 millihertz. These solar oscillations are the foundations of helioseismology. So while they are acoustic, thinking of them as audible humming means you would need to run a time lapse speed up of the recordings by 1000x to bring them into the low human hearing range of around 30 Hz.

    Here are some long recordings for down load that have been sped-up by 42,000 times to bring them up to about 126 Hz for the human ear to hear.
    http://soi.stanford.edu/results/sounds.html

    (AIFF files can be opened-listened to with iTunes.)

    As for the nearly 6,000K surface (5778 K o be a litle more precise), it gets much hotter very quickly downward into the Convective Zone and upwards to the Corona. At a depth of only 0.0001radius (~70 km), the temperature is up to well over 8,000K. This is why the looking a the center of the solar disc appears brighter than the limb (the disc edge) because you’re looking into deeper, hotter parts of the sun’s interior.

    • Thanks, Joel, I knew someone knowledgeable would speak up before long. Interesting sound files.

      w.

    • The sun is a sphere and not a disc. The ‘edge’ is 0.7 million kms further away than the centre The cosine rule would apply. There would be a gradient in brightness from the centre to the edge.

      • Just call me a “Flat-Sun-er”…. lol.

        And the explanation of why the limb appears darker than the center of the DISC is due to fact one is observing the center is seeing deeper into the photosphere where it is hotter, while viewing the limb we are peering into ever shallower parts of the solar atmosphere. This is well understood aspect of the solar atmospheric model of T and P.

        The Eddington approximation for the observed intensity due to optical depth, which uses cosine theta (viewing angle away from center, where theta =90 at the limb) works well nearer to the center of disc, but fails to meet observations at the limb. (see for example: The Sun 2nd Ed., by Michael Stix, section 4.3.1. for a description and explanation of limb darkening)

    • errata: sorry I meant a 10,000x speed up to get them to 30 Hz from millihertz. Didn’t drink enough coffee this AM. I better go get an afternoon coffee and a brisk walk to wake-up.

  6. Wouldn’t it be fun if it turns out the sound waves were being generated in the corona and directed into the sun, not the opposite as described above?

    Just because there’s a whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on doesn’t necessarily mean it rises from below. As I read the papers, the rapid acceleration of particles away from the surface as they rise from below has a very uncertain origin and the explanations are, and always were, arcane. If something as fundamental as sound waves was missed before, what still remains to be discovered?

    The “constant” might be generated by the corona and passed into the sun. The explanation that the sound waves drive the processes that heat the corona by a factor of thousands hotter than the surface and turn that tenuous plasma-filled region into a massive linear accelerator borders on necromancy. To me, it fails on an energy conservation basis.

    Consider the energy leaving the surface and the energy leaving the corona. The difference is supplied by sound? If it is, the the sun is surrounded by a thermoacoustic resonator made of plasma with the cold end at the surface of the sun. Seriously?

  7. I don’t think that the Greens with their obsession with CO2 controls everything, will be happy abo this. Any change in magnetism from the Sun, must interact with the metal core of the Earth, and produce electricity which of course produces magnetism, stronger than that produced normally.

    This then must cause a variation in the Cosmic Rays from space, and a change in cloud cover. So the Greens villain CO2 is not needed.

    MJE

    • None of which changes in the slightest the fact that carbon dioxide has strong absorption of heat, something that was determined so long ago that there is zero debate left about this.

      Which means that as we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will in fact result in a warming of the Earth’s surface as more and more CO2 traps more and more heat.

      As was illustrated in this radical new research…. from 1896.

      http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

      • Coombes
        What you and many other alarmists forget is that the Arrhenius observations are only a part of the system. The real world is a complex, probably non-linear, interaction of many factors called feedback loops. Just because one element of the system COULD cause warming doesn’t mean that the net result WILL BE warming. It is not unlike observing that the brake pads of your automobile generate heat from the friction with the rotors, and erroneously concluding that they will quickly melt from the heat. The conclusion is wrong because it overlooks the cooling effect of air going over the rotor. You have to examine a dynamic system in its entirety and not focus on just one aspect.

      • technically CO2 absorbs and re-radiates IR electromagnetic radiant energy only in specific wavelengths. Saying something is absorbing “heat” implies conduction, like a metal heat sink attached to a microprocessor.

        The only relevant scientific question regarding the CO2-climate question is what is the actual value for ECS/TCR (referred to by some as the Charney sensitivity). By 2070-2075, when CO2 will likely hit 560 ppm will nature tell use what it really is. The climate models only tell us what the modellers’ hand-tuned puppetry wants us to believe it might be. And a nothing-to-see-here ECS (un-scary) story of less than 2 K would quickly end most of the modellers’ funding gravy trains. They know that — so the model hand-puppetry continues onward on the “settled science.”

        • “Joel O’Bryan February 11, 2019 at 5:28 pm

          technically CO2 absorbs and re-radiates IR electromagnetic radiant energy only in specific wavelengths. Saying something is absorbing “heat” implies conduction, like a metal heat sink attached to a microprocessor.”

          Yes!

          Arrhenius’ experiment was a closed system in a lab.

          “Doug Coombes February 11, 2019 at 4:30 pm

          Which means that as we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will in fact result in a warming of the Earth’s surface as more and more CO2 traps more and more heat.”

          CO2 does not trap heat.

      • Doug, when you make this howler, I can’t take you seriously,

        “None of which changes in the slightest the fact that carbon dioxide has strong absorption of heat, something that was determined so long ago that there is zero debate left about this.”

        There is a reason why there is no debate about it, because CO2 NEVER absorb heat, it absorbs Infrared Radiation in very specific bandwidths.

        CO2 doesn’t trap or generate heat either since all it does is absorb and emit IR.

        Arrhenius modified his research in the 1906 paper and said having MORE CO2 was good. I notice that warmists like you never refer to his 1906 paper, maybe because it doesn’t help your cause?

        Snicker.

        • There is a general misunderstanding.

          Tyndall and Arrhenius did closed box experiments..

          similar to you stepping out of shower cubicle longe after you have stopped the flow of warm water: it is much warmer inside the cubicle and if it is very cold you are almost inclined to step back inside the cubicle….
          The error they made, or they could not have known in their time, is to look at the whole spectrum of the molecule.

          If people would understand the principle involved, they would not singularly identify green house gases (GHG’s) by pointing at the areas in the 5-20 um region (where earth emits pre-dominantly) but they would also look in the area 0-5 um (where the sun emits pre-dominantly) for possible cooling effects.
          For comprehensive proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see here:

          http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
          They measured the re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth-moon -earth. Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um. It all comes back in fig. 6 top.
          This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):
          http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
          There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
          We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.

          So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-15 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing might not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours).

    • Really Doug? …. you bring that skep- Science crap around here? Do you know what site your on? Do you really think …. I mean we’re you so naive to believe that that crap hasn’t already been ripped to shreds by the bright minds that inhabit this place?

      There is lots of “truthiness” in the skep sci crap, but the entire Alarmists community has failed to incorporate how CO2 …. or any other forcing for that matter … is incorporated into the chaotic climate system. If they had not failed, all those cockamamie predictions they keep putting out would have come true long ago.

      Let me guess …. the next thing your going to tell us is that the world will end in 12 years.

      • Hi Dr. Dean,
        If the climate is a chaotic system can you explain why adding CO2 won’t make matters a whole lot worse? Claiming that the climate is chaotic is not a reason to not to be concerned and rather it would be a reason to worry a lot since since small changes in forcing could make huge catastrophic changes in the climate.

        • Percy, aka Griff, it falls upon you and your brethren to show how an increase in CO2 will make it “worse”, that’s how science works. You and your buddies would get an F in any grade school science class as you cannot present a coherent hypothesis and a set of verifiable predictions. All predictions so far, e.g. “all the artice ice will be gone by 2013”, have failed to happen. Please crawl back under your rock.

        • Your statement: “If the climate is a chaotic system can you explain why adding CO2 won’t make matters a whole lot worse?

          There is (first) no clear definition of what you mean by “worse”. Climate is; it always has been, and it always will be. Second, there is no clear geological history of CO2 ever driving climatological temperatures. If anything, the evidence is strongly pointing the other way: temperature drives CO2 concentration. Third, if only “human-produced” CO2 is capable of causing “warming”, what is it in those “human-produced” CO2 molecules that causes their chemical characteristics to be so different from “natural” CO2? Fourth, CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past, yet somehow there just does not seem to be a lot of evidence of ‘life’ struggling to survive such immense concentrations. Have you ever looked at the Ordovician/Silurian glacial episode? CO2 was about 4000 ppm (ten times today’s concentration), yet the environment was remarkably cool. How do you explain that? It’s really quite simple: CO2 has LITTLE effect on global climate; its effect is overwhelmed by myriad other factors: always has been, always will be.

          Please check out the Reference pages here. Anthony has posted Bill Illis’ 750 million-year chart of CO2 vs Temperature. Note that he uses the IPCC-derived estimate of three Kelvins for each doubling of CO2 concentration, to show what the “CO2-driven” temperature SHOULD have been, against the actual proxy temperatures (primarily delta-O-18). The lack of relationship between the two is remarkable.

          Recall that Einstein said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” The idea that CO2 drives global climate/global temperature has been disproven so many times and in so many ways, makes believing in the CO2-‘boogeyman’ a matter of complete faith, the hallmark of our younger generations. They want to believe, so badly, that they matter that they’ll latch onto anything that suggests they are “important”. You really think that Planet Earth even “knows” we’re here? If you can tolerate the language, you should listen to George Carlin’s “Saving the Planet” schtick; he SO nails the vanity of human hubris.

          Maybe one of the other commentators here will put up the video; I watch it everytime someone posts it, it’s that good.

          Regards to you and yours,

          Vlad

        • I don’t know, and neither does anyone else … that small changes in forcings will do squat to the chaotic nature of climate. The more I view it, any forcing is going to be buffered by the very nature of a planet made of water. The problem with a system made of water, combined with the biosphere of land and ocean, is that the energy arriving today is stored for decades, centuries, etc. Some never leaves. Lots of energy is taken up and stored in plant material, only to be buried deep. The oceans themselves can hold orders of magnitude more energy than is required to raise the temperature. Heck, for that matter, even the ICE in the poles holds vast amounts of energy. Throw on top of that, energy is moved around in the system for 1000s of years. Thus, the little equilibrium picture that is always shown is an out and out lie. There is no law requiring that the earth “IMMEDIATELY” emit radiation at the same rate it is absorbing it, …. the earth system could absorb the imbalance for decades, centuries, maybe even millennia before that imbalance begins to affect the atmospheric temperature. At the same time, the internal system, no forcings necessary, could impact temperature one way or another, even turn temperature in the opposite direction as the stinky little computer models would indicate … because the amount of energy STORED in the system is ENORMOUS.

          Taking into account Significant Figures, a measurement cannot be expressed to a significance greater than the least significant figure. So .. just how how precise and accurate is the temperature record. I’d say the earlier measurements probably didn’t go beyond whole numbers. Newer measurements to 0.1, but when you combine them your average cannot be expressed in significant figures greater than whole numbers. Throw in rounding, and your increase in temps can’t be more accurate than a whole degree. For this reason, all this crap about temperature going up 0.1, 0.2 cannot be scientifically proven, as you have no accuracy beyond a full degree. And all this crap about this or that year being the “hottest eva” based on 0.01 degree is purely made up, and completely unscientific.

          I’m certain, as everyone else is, CO2 plays some role …. but there is NO empiric quantification of CO2’s contribution in the real world system. Mindcraft don’t cut it!

          • Sorry doc.
            I don’t believe the CO2 has anything to do with warming, except perhaps indirectly,
            i.e. .e.g. >CO2 > more Greenery (more trees,lawns, crops and that what man wants) and this does trap heat.
            For example, in Las Vegas we find T min sharply rising, after they turned a desert into an oasis over the past 40 years.
            OTOH, in the south of Argentine, where they chopped all the big trees, we find Tmin sharply falling.

          • HenryP …. I didn’t say it did. I said it plays some role, not that it was any kind of control knob. At the very least, CO2 being a molecule that can absorb energy, serves as one of the minor heat capacitors of the system. That said, it doesn’t in anyway compare to water in all its forms.

    • I can’t view the URL because my browser claims it’s an insecure connection.

      Does it have anything to do with the Earth being flat?

    • For anyone interested in learning actual science….
      Go here. You will learn more about science in 62 seconds that all of the climate alarmists.

      • One of our greatest physicists…too bad that field has also gone down the rabbit hole by chasing virtual worlds…LHC is bringing them back to reality.

      • One of the great physicists…too bad that field has also gone down the rabbit hole of chasing virtual worlds…LHC is bringing them back to reality.

    • Doug’s just another pawn in a long line that come and go on here regurgitating the same old alarmist dreck thinking they’re setting us straight.

  8. Hey … maybe that is the missing element in the fussion reaction ….. they just need to set up a couple of big JBL speakers next to the unit and crank it up. BAM! … power for everyone.

  9. The Sun always displays a corona so its atmosphere must be heated at all times. Some of that heating is done by Alfven waves requiring a magnetic field [although the details are still under debate] at all times. The expanding solar wind carries that magnetic field out into space, to the Earth and beyond. The solar plasma supports sound waves too [so-called p-modes; p for pressure] and the combination of purely magnetic and purely sound waves carry energy into the atmosphere, so it is not a surprise that a solar ‘hum’ is observed. As the magnetic field [at Earth] seems to have a ‘floor’ at about 4 nT at solar minimum [at least as observed or inferred to last couple of hundred years], the field in the corona must have a similar floor: the new [?] ‘solar constant’.
    We are going to have a meeting at Stanford tomorrow discussing the paper in the posting so I can sya more about it tomorrow. “It is interesting that one of the first suggestions about solar oscillations, even before the term helioseismology was used, and one of the justifications for building WSO [Wilcox Solar Observatories] was the idea that solar oscillations might be the energy source of the solar wind and that variations in wave power might be the source of high speed streams. This was planned before we knew about trapped p-modes.” [Phil Scherrer].

    • I’m surprised you didn’t mention that the photo accompanying this article is not showing the corona, despite what the figure legend says.

    • “We are going to have a meeting at Stanford tomorrow discussing the paper in the posting so I can sya more about it tomorrow.”

      We all (if I may) certainly appreciate you taking the time to visit here and keep us up top date on things like this.

    • to understand that every 1000 years there is a general warming period in the nh,
      apparently leading to severe melting of arctic ice and the possibility of a passage to the east via the north,
      you probably must accept the theory of the ‘magnetic stirrer’ effect
      i.e. earth’s inner core re-aligning itself with that of the sun, leading to higher Tminimum
      Interestingly, one of my forefathers, Willem Barentz, went looking for a passage to the east via the north. He must have read this somewhere from ancient Norse writings. Sadly, he and crew died trying to find the passage. Hence, we still have the Barentz Sea, there in the Arctic/. So, there is strong anecdotal evidence that a thousand years ago, the arctic was largely icefree, or almost icefree, or just like it is now. Willem would not have risked his own life and that of his crew unless he was sure about that passage.
      Funny, how the world changes in 400 years….meaning we now don’t want that passage to the east via the north anymore-not even to discover it – like Willem wanted to find it ….how dumb is that, actually?

      So, anyway, not to worry when you see less ice in the arctic.

      We have been there, done all that.

    • We discussed the paper yesterday and were generally disappointed. Although we mostly agreed with their conclusion that the waves are important, the paper actually did not demonstrate that nor did it provide an explanation of how this would work. The ten years of data are not enough to establish a new ‘fundamental constant’, independent of solar activity and ever-present, so the statistics was poor and un-convincing.

  10. I was taught that the so called heating by CO2 was logarithmic, i.e. the first 100 ppm did all the work.

    Anyway its been long known that CO2 does not retain its heat from whatever source, it viberates and then re-radiates the energy to another place, usually another gas, or to outer space.

    Try living in a dry climate such as South Australia and then you can wonder why we can have a 40C day yet at night it can fall to as low as 15C. Its because CO2 will accept heat energy fro whatever source, in daytime that is the Sun, but at night it accepts it from the warm air and cools it by sending it to space. So CO2 is a good gas, it not only gives us much needed Oxygen, essential for all life forms, but it also “Greens the Earth,” an d finally actually cools things down. What is there to not like about it ?

    MJE

  11. Always the same story , They claim they discover something when the real point is they simply observed something and have no idea how the Sun actually works.

  12. 10 years of data ? on the sun ? which has cycles that last decades … seems like they may have observed something cool … maybe their grandchildren may be able to explain why its that way …

  13. With cycles so slow and observations so short, why is it reasonable to suspect there is a pattern happening here at all?
    Red noise perhaps?

  14. One “acoustic” on the sun was a song by Frankie Laine, that included:
    “That lucky old sun has nothing to do but roll around heaven all day.”
    🙂

  15. In terms of temperature, the spectral irradiance from the sun at the top of the earth’s atmosphere is fairly well known. This irradiance is strictly massless photons should include all turbocharging of the effective radiative temperature of the sun by all known and unknown processes.

    Electromagnetic radiation gets red shifted from the sun to the earth by 1/92 million miles squared. A Planck curve for 5250K matches or overstates the observed irradiance except for the bluer parts of the visible spectrum, where it falls quite short.

    The quarks and electrons of the solar wind are not part of this irradiance, but are more probably dissociated from molecules at higher temperature.

    The problem becomes analogous to determining the effective radiative temperature (and altitude) of the earth. The earth, and Javier’s whale, creates sound waves too.

  16. So we have two Swedes here, Arrhenius and Hannes Alfvén (Leif sic the Swedish prime minister Stefan decided to omit the ´ in Löfvén but not Hannes !!) (Nobel prize in Physics 1970) Wikipedia in english claims he was married for 67 years but then he would have married at 17-18 and his wife being 15-16 so I tend to believe the Swedish Wikipedia more: They were married for 57 years 1935-92 … Hannes uncle was the rather famous Swedish composer Hugo Alfvén . His “Midsommarvaka” Midsummer Vigil was the first Swedish recording in Stereo! (1954)
    I think there might be some things about the sun we don’t know already and bedbugs are not just annoying, maybe…??

  17. In the 19th century, Lord Kelvin calculated that a molten Earth would cool and solidify in around 100 million years. From this he concluded that Earth is not more than 100 million years old because Earth’s interior is still molten. But geological evidence suggested Earth is over a billion years old. The development of radioisotope dating in the 20th century proved that Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. It solved the puzzle of Earth’s age but it raised another puzzle: why didn’t Earth’s interior cool and become solid?

    The standard theory of geophysics states that radioactive elements in Earth’s core and friction heating from mantle convection kept Earth’s interior hot and molten. Geophysicists around the world, do the calculations. Radioactivity is hopelessly inadequate. Heating by mantle convection is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind (one that violates the second law of thermodynamics). Mantle convection is caused by heat in the lower mantle driving fluids to rise. The standard theory says this heat is caused by mantle convection. This is circular causation. Convection is both cause and effect of heat. Since it is causing itself, the process will never stop: a perpetual motion machine. No such thing because heat dissipates in reality. If we consider heat dissipation, Earth’s interior would cool and we’re back to the puzzle why it’s still hot and molten.

    To explain this mystery, I invented my X-magneto theory. Earth does not cause its own heating. There is an external cause and it is the solar magnetic field. Earth’s core is made up of iron. However, since the core’s temperature is above the Curie temperature for iron (1043 K), it exhibits paramagnetism rather than ferromagnetism. In paramagnetism, the atomic magnetic dipoles can rotate and align to the applied magnetic field, which in this case are the solar magnetic field and geomagnetic field.

    The solar magnetic field reverses every 11-year cycle. Thus its orientation with respect to the geomagnetic field changes over time. The effect of the two magnetic fields and paramagnetism result in a magnetic moment displacement in Earth’s core. The strong gravitational force in the core acts as a normal force to the displacement. This induces a resistance to motion or friction, a force that is opposite to the direction of torque of the magnetic moment. Friction generates heat and this is the source of geothermal heat. The physical mechanism is described by my Thermomagneto Equations:

    X = r arctan (B/Bc sin w)
    F = π r^2 P
    q = X u F a N

    Where: X is magnetic moment displacement; r is atomic radius of Fe; B is solar magnetic field; Bc is geomagnetic field at Earth’s core; w is angular velocity of solar magnetic field; F is gravitational force per atom; P is pressure at core; q is friction heat rate; u is coefficient of dynamic friction; a is portion of atoms susceptible to paramagnetism; N is number of Fe atoms in core

    The magnetic fields are vectors. Hence, vector addition is performed to obtain the angular displacement. The atomic radius is the torque arm. The arc length is the displacement due to torque. Solving the Thermomagneto Equations give a friction heat rate that approximates the geothermal heat flow of 4.4 E+13 watts. The heat rate is slightly less than the geothermal heat flow since the core is cooling at a slow rate. It is estimated the inner core solidified about 500 million years ago. It took four billion years to solidify. The core will eventually cool but it will take billions of years.

    Trivia: The name X-magneto comes from my Thermomagneto Equations where X is the symbol for magnetic moment displacement. Magneto comes from solar magnetic field that causes the magnetic moment displacement. That’s the official version. The personal version is I named it after Magneto of X-men :-0

  18. I guess the phrase “The quiet Sun” has a new meaning to me! Very interesting and incalculably over my head….

  19. I can “See” how the Suns magnetic field can interact with the metal core of the Earth, and result in a electrical generater, and just as with a fossal fuel generater there is a lot of heat, which we then cool down.

    But as the Earth has a semi solid crust, its a very good insulator and thus keeps the heat in. Simple really.

    MJE

  20. Dr. Deanster
    At the very least, CO2 being a molecule that can absorb energy,

    Henry says
    no it cannot. You donot understand the principle of the GH effect. It does not ‘absorb’ energy.

    I can easily prove from simple experiments that what happens is this: in the wavelengths areas where absorption takes place, the molecule starts acting like a little mirror, the strength of which depends on the amount of absorption taking place inside the molecule. Because the molecule is like a perfect sphere, 62,5% of a certain amount of light (radiation) is send back in the direction where it came from. This is the warming or cooling effect of a gas hit by radiation.
    Unfortunately, in their time, Tyndall and Arrhenius could not see the whole picture of the spectrum of a gas which is why they got stuck on seeing only the warming properties of a gas.
    If people would understand this principle, they would not singularly identify green house gases (GHG’s) by pointing at the areas in the 5-20 um region (where earth emits pre-dominantly) but they would also look in the area 0-5 um (where the sun emits pre-dominantly) for possible cooling effects.
    I also explained this here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/11/evidence-for-a-new-fundamental-constant-of-the-sun/#comment-2624799

Comments are closed.