By Andy May
Dr. Frank Stefani and colleagues from Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden – Rossendorf and the Institute for Numerical Modelling, University of Latvia, have proposed a new physically consistent model of solar variability. It proposes that the known solar cycles, from the eleven-year Schwabe cycle to the 193-year De Vries cycle are related to planetary orbits and the 19.86-year solar oscillation around the solar system barycenter.
The paper, “Rieger, Schwabe, Suess-de Vries: The Sunny Beats of Resonance,” explains the details of the concept. The press release, which is easier to read, explains the implications.
Astronomers and physicists have long been writing about the possible solar tidal effects of the planets, see Scafetta and Bianchini’s review paper here. The planetary orbits must affect the solar plasma in some fashion and the orbital patterns do correlate to proposed solar and climate cycles. While the statistical correlation was good, the underlying physics of why it all worked remained elusive.
Stefani and his colleagues have created a physically consistent model of the 193-year De Vries solar and climate cycle, the longest solar cycle physically modeled to date. There are longer solar cycles, such as the famous ~2450-year Bray cycle and the ~1,000-year Eddy Cycle, that have been observed but not modeled as precisely yet. This is an important start.
Stefani, F., Horstmann, G.M., Klevs, M. et al. Rieger, Schwabe, Suess-de Vries: The Sunny Beats of Resonance. Sol Phys 299, 51 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-024-02295-x (link)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s the gravity!
Now if we only knew what gravity is.
Down with gravity
I’d do away with it myself!
The universe sucks!
The boson particle, theorized decades ago by Biggs, recently proven to exist by CERN, is responsible for gravity
Boson is responsible for mass – gravity is still curvature of space/time – mass tells space/time how to bend and space/time tells mass how to move
All energy and mass has a gravitational field. This includes the photon. Otherwise there would be no gravitational lensing.
Light (photons) follow space/time curvature – a black hole severely curves space/time and light enters a black hole but does not exit a black hole.
A photon with a wavelength less than Planck length is indistinguishable from a black hole.
In effect, a high energy photon star is a black hole.
Newtonian mechanics worked well enough at some scales. The same is true of curved space-time theory, but it’s getting shopworn and fraying around the edges.
Einstein showed Newton wrong, based upon Maxwell’s work. Now general relativity needs to be amended to accomodate quantum mechanics, or replaced by a theory of quantum gravity.
Higgs.
If you really do want to know look up Lew Paxton Price’s “Lights Illusions”. When you discover what gravity is, you learn how everything works. It is the foundation for TOE. It is elegant & fits all known data. You can follow it using algebra & don’t even need higher mathematics to understand how it all fits together. He spent decades making it easy to understand. Except, I get lost with the light part.
Clue: how do electrons have spin with out batteries, IE perpetual motion? It does proceed from Newtonian Physics seamlessly. I love its elegance.
My search returns ‘nothing found’
My search got a a link to a list of books written by Lew Paxton Price. I didn’t see anything free.
TOA TSI satellite measurements are available since the late 1970s
Sunspot counts are incompetent proxies that grossly exaggerate tiny changes of TOA TSI and should never be used for scientific conclusions.
Again you’re looking at the full EM spectrum. Sunspots by definition have a reduced output in visible wavelengths. However, this doesn’t mean that other wavelengths, for example ultraviolet, aren’t significantly brighter, as the attached photograph shows. There are papers from the early part of this century that suggest mechanisms by which ultraviolet can impact on earth’s climate.
CO2 is an incompetent proxy that grossly exaggerates tiny changes of surface TSI and should never be used for scientific conclusions.
CO2 is an accurate measurement of a climate change variable not a proxy, because CO2 affecta upwelling radiation but not sunlight.
“CO2 molecules absorb infrared light at a few wavelengths, but the most important absorption is light of about 15 microns,” says Kroll. Incoming light from the sun tends to have much shorter wavelengths than this, so CO2 doesn’t stop this sunlight from warming the Earth in the first place
Total solar irradiance (TSI) is a measure of the solar power over all wavelengths per unit area incident on the Earth’s upper atmosphere. It is measured perpendicular to the incoming sunlight.
Your comment is far from clever. And close to dumb.
CO2 retained energy role in the atmosphere is about 0.68% in 2023, whereas WV role is about 50 times greater
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere Equals Global Warming
About 5.5 million EJ/y from the sun enters the top of atmosphere, and almost as much leaves, but about 116,300 EJ, at 16 C atmospheric temperature, stays in the atmosphere as RE, on a continuous basis.
RE in atmosphere is a net effect of the interplay of the sun, atmosphere, earth surface (land and water), and what grows on the surface and in water.
Below calculations are based on three well-known items. I assumed 16 C in 2023 and 14.8 C in 1900, as the temp of the entire atmosphere, which is overstated, but helps simplicity.
The RE ratio would not be much different, if complex analyses were used, such as how the three items vary with altitude and temp. The complex approach would subtract from both REs, leaving the ratio intact.
This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2. How CO2 performs that role, the A-to-Z process, will keep many academia folks busy for many years.
.
NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no RE role in the world’s driest places, with 423 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm, i.e., blaming CO2 for global warming is an unscientific hoax.
https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
.
Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat of dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy of WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat of WV at constant pressure
.
1) World, enthalpy of moist air, at T = 16 C and H = 0.0025 kg WV/kg dry air (4028 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = 1.006T + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) + 0.0025 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 22.4 kJ/kg dry air
RE of dry air is 16.1 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 6.3 kJ/kg
.
2) Tropics, enthalpy of moist air, at T = 27 C and H = 0.017 kg WV/kg dry air (27389 ppm)
h = 1.006 (27) + 0.017 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 70.5 kJ/kg dry air
RE of dry air is 27.2 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 43.3 kJ/kg
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor.
.
CO2
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
World, enthalpy of CO2 = {(421 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000639 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 241 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 289 K = 0.154 kJ/kg dry air.
.
RE In 2023; 16 C; CO2 421 ppm; World WV 4028 ppm; Tropics WV 27389 ppm
World: (16.10 + 6.33 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 116,263 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.3%, 28% and 0.68% RE roles.
RE ratio of WV/CO2 = 41.1; RE ratio of dry air/CO2 = 104.5
.
Tropics: (27.16 + 43.36 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 144,804 EJ.
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 38.4%, 61.4% and 0.22% RE roles.
RE ratio of WV/CO2 = 281.6; RE ratio of dry air to CO2 = 176.4
The Tropics is a major RE area, almost all of it by WV. At least 35% of the RE is transferred, 24/7/365, to areas north and south of the 37 parallels with energy deficits
.
RE in 1900; 14.8 C; CO2 296 ppm; World VW 3689 ppm
World: (14.89 + 5.79 + 0.108) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 107,015 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.6%, 27.9% and 0.52% RE roles. RE ratio of WV/CO2 = 53.8
The 2023/1900 RE ratio was 1.086, a 9,248 EJ increase
Excellent analysis, thanks. Did I get this correct, using your numbers?
9248/116300 = 0.08 or 8% increase in retained energy from 1900 to 2023.
and 0.08*0.0052= 0.4% of this is due to CO2, about 48 EJ.
Yes, an 8.6% RE increase since 1900, or 9248 EJ, of which about (0.154 – 0.108 = 0.046) x 9248 is due to the CO2 increase
Addition
429 EJ increase due to CO2 increase from 291 in 1900 to 421 ppm in 2013 and a temp increase from 14.8 C to 16 C
CO2 RE in 1900 was (0.108/20.788) x 107,015 EJ = 554 EJ; in 2023 was 0.154/22.584 x 116,263 EJ = 793 EJ, for an increase of 239 EJ
Ignore the subsequent numbers
Thanks for the corrected calculation. OK an increase of 239 EJ due to CO2, got it. Not much.
CO2 ppm increase was 423/296 = 42% and RE increase was 793/554 = 43%, from 1900 to 2023
239 EJ increase due to CO2 increase from 1900 to 2023
Remember, all radiation effects are accounted for by 1) the atmospheric temperature, and 2) the wet-air specific enthalpies, and 3) CO2 specific enthalpy; all three change with temperature and/or pressure.
All radiation and evaporation and precipitation effects are accounted for
Hmmm….step 1 issue….Enthalpy does NOT equal global warming.
Mostly for newbies since I’m pretty sure Wilpost knows all this…The specific heat of CO2 is not an important factor relative to it’s absorption of IR….compared to the transparency of O2 and N2….Then after absorbing the IR, CO2 molecules transfer their vibrations to the 2500 or so surrounding O2 and N2 molecules and all become the same temperature ( and vice-versa). Water molecules do the same thing. At surface water molecules can be 15000 ppm compared to CO2’s 400 ppm, but by the time one gets to top of Troposphere 12 Km up….CO2 is still 400 ppm and water is down to below 10 ppm. It requires IR line-by line, and altitude layer-by-layer analysis to get the answer.
Doubling of CO2 creates a measley 3.7 W/m^2 according to the formula used by the IPCC ….RF=5.35 x Ln (C/Co) and Ln(2)=.693…W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer get 3 W/m^2 with their calculation, and H. Harde got 4 W/m^2….so the incremental “watts of global warming” caused by doubling of CO2 isn’t in very much in dispute. Just that it will take a couple of hundred years to get there, and the Surface Temperature increase per Watt of warming, λ, is hugely unsettled…..although IPCC picks a number to come up with their RCP scenarios.
Wilpost, you would find Harde’s paper here interesting if you haven’t already read it.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2017/9251034/
“It requires IR line-by line, and altitude layer-by-layer analysis to get the answer.”
=====
It makes more sense to solve the problem in terms of energy rather than radiation, because of cloud uncertainty.
I assumed specific heat content values at surface conditions, which vary as elevation increases.
As temps and WV decrease going up, specific heat content values decrease, etc., so RE calculations are needed at each elevation, to get a more accurate value for entropy
However, the RE 2023/1900 ratio likely would be unaffected
RE 2023/1900 ratio for CO2 would be as shown in my answer to Andy May
The advantage of the RE method is, all effects are accounted for, including radiation
1/2 the energy arriving from the sun is LW and captured by GHG. 1/2 of this is then radiated out to space, cooling the planet.
Time for Greene to highjack yet another comments thread…
Oops:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/27/the-solar-cycles-a-new-physical-model/#comment-3917144
Professor (emeritus) Harald Yndestad has several articles on planetary influence on the climate here:
https://www.climateclock.no/category/english/
A new article published last week in Nature trashes all theories and models about the Sun’s magnetic field origin:
Vasil, G.M., Lecoanet, D., Augustson, K., Burns, K.J., Oishi, J.S., Brown, B.P., Brummell, N. and Julien, K., 2024. The solar dynamo begins near the surface. Nature, 629(8013), pp.769-772.
It shows strong evidence that the solar magnetic field originates near the surface of the Sun.
Besides destroying Prof. Leif Svalgaard’s confidence that the solar dynamo model did not allow for long solar activity cycles to exist, it makes it easier for planetary theories of solar activity to be correct, as planetary tidal forces should have a stronger effect near the surface of the Sun.
The press release from CU Boulder:
Solar physicists unlock the key to how sunspots form—and much more
“Besides destroying Prof. Leif Svalgaard’s confidence that the solar dynamo model did not allow for long solar activity cycles to exist”
Haven’t you conflated those author’s external gravitational dynamo theory with a ‘solar memory’?
The paper you cited didn’t specifically address this issue of a solar memory.
If external forcing influences the solar dynamo producing long-term solar activity cycles, this does not mean the sun itself has retained a memory per se, as according to this theory sunspot cycles are always just responding to outer forcing on longer times scales than individual solar cycles.
When scientists can explain the Solar Modern Maximum from 1935-2004 with planetary theory, or predict the magnitude of the current or next solar cycle with it, I’ll pay attention to it.
A solar memory is not required. That was the problem with Leif’s reasoning. He defended planetary effect was too small and the solar dynamo model did not admit a long-term memory so long cycles did not exist.
He was wrong on several accounts. Planetary effect is sufficient according to Stefani et al. 2024. A long-term memory is not required. The solar dynamo model is wrong. Long cycles do exist. It is hard to be wronger than that.
If he was wrong about planetary theory it just proves it’s hard to be right about everything all the time, as new data or interpretations can emerge disproving old ideas, something you could take to heart as you claim the TSI effect is too small.
Leif also believes the TSI effect to be too small, so we might both be right on that one.
we might both be……..are……….wrong is more like it.When I talk about it I have the proof with data in hand.
My Modern Maximum was computed to understand the effect of the cumulative TSI increase from 1935-2004 compared to 1865-1934, not to be abused and not used analytically as intended as a diagnostic.
Centennial solar minima are a product of the synodic cycles of Venus-Earth versus Jupiter-Uranus, on average every 110.3 years (107.9 yrs long term mean). The Jupiter-Saturn cycle cannot explain the centennial solar minimum cycle, and only results in the wrong periods, there is no 193 years in solar variability.
Away from the weaker solar cycles in each centennial solar minimum, the maximum of each sunspot cycle is actually centered at inferior conjunctions of Venus-Earth when in syzygy with Uranus. Rather than the alternating superior and inferior conjunctions of Venus-Earth with Jupiter. That is why the solar cycle length is shorter between the centennial minima, at around 10.4 years, because Venus-Earth return faster to being in line with Uranus as it orbits slower than Jupiter.
The Venus-Earth-Jupiter-Uranus cycle essentially suffers a phase catastrophe every 110.3 years.
THE APPARENT PLANETARY ORDERING OF SUNSPOT CYCLES AND CENTENNIAL SOLAR MINIMA.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YOu7hHVEuaWWLuztj6ThEsJd7Z-765Uz-L68lQbRdbQ/edit
“The Venus-Earth-Jupiter-Uranus cycle essentially suffers a phase catastrophe every 110.3 years.”
When was the last and when is the next phase catastrophe via the Venus-Earth-Jupiter-Uranus cycle?
They are in one now, the current centennial solar minimum, which will involve solar cycles 24 and 25 only. The next centennial minimum is from around 2095, and looks to be at least as long as the Maunder Minimum.
Earth has a complex magnetic field operating within a much larger magnetic field. Research has shown that stronger magnetic fields impede heat transfer in salt water.
Reduced heat transfer in saltwater by a magnetic field: do oceans have a “geomagnetic brake”?: Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics: Vol 108, No 5 (tandfonline.com)
Here is a paragraph from the article’s paper, talking about their references using SATIRE-S TSI.
SATIRE-S TSI is a poor historical TSI model to use as it’s correlation relationship with sunspot number is skewed forward in time by one or more solar rotations compared to instrumental TSI.
Thus the SATIRE-S TSI in the 100-195 day range after sunspot emergence is likely poorly modeled by Gurgenashvili et al and has probably lead to wrong conclusions, particularly when the results are for periodicities given as numbers of days.
I find it fascinating that gravity always points in the direction that time is running slowest. The greater the time gradient, the stronger the gravitaional field.
This opens up a chicken and egg question. Does gravity determine time or does time determine gravity.
Hi Andy
I have been saying all along for many years that CO2 is a red herring. Again today:
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2024/05/28/no-change-in-temperature-in-south-africa-for-more-than-45-years/
Would be great if you could give me a comment there, if only for the good of Sourh Africa. Please.
It is a red herring. As noted in the comments above, CO2 may have added 239/116,263 Exajoules to the climate system since 1900. That is 0.2%, too small to detect.
It is highly unlikely that the enhanced GHG effect (due to human emissions) has changed global warming since the Little Ice Age very much. And what warming we’ve seen to date (whether from CO2 or not) has been mostly beneficial.
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2022/08/30/are-fossil-fuel-co2-emissions-good-or-bad/
By my calculations on the IR spectrum it is zero really. The energy of the back radiation of CO2 to sun and space is equal to that going back to earth. Pity nobody understands my work. Could you perhaps have a look at it? If you think it is good, how do I get it published?
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/12/15/an-evaluation-of-the-greenhouse-effect-by-carbon-dioxide/
My thanks in advance.
PS i was aware of orbital influence of planets, especially those influencing the Gleissberg cycle.
Henry
Prof Philip Lloyd determined that there was zero increase in the pan evaporation rate on 12,000 South African farms in the past 100 years. The “more than 45” may be far longer.
Due to density, it takes hundreds to thousands of years for radiation to travel from the sun’s core to the surface. Orbital mechanics may well correlate with solar cycle, but these may need to be lagged thousands of years.
The N body problem tells us that we cannot reliably predict solar activity or climate using complicated models because we have no math to deal with N>= 3 dimensions for time series problems.
It isn’t that we don’t understand the problem. We simply don’t have the math to solve it. This is a fundamental unsolved problem.
Thus we can solve the ocean tides using orbital mechanics, because Planetary orbits are extremely close to N=2 dimensions.
As well, solar cycles and climate would be predictable using tidal methods if they correlate with orbital mechanics. However, even the IPCC recognizes that current climate models cannot predict only project climate.
Since it can be shown that climate and solar activity cannot be predicted outside of orbital mechanics (N=2), such models need be ignored and look for orbital effects to provide the only possible skillful prediction.
“it can be shown that climate and solar activity cannot be predicted outside of orbital mechanics..” Link, please.
“Stefani and his colleagues have created a physically consistent model of the 193-year De Vries solar and climate cycle, the longest solar cycle physically modeled to date”.
Great, we finally have a number. We know that 30-years of weather does not describe climate but agreeing to a basis for a more appropriate timeframe has stymied the required change. The 1000-year Eddy Cycle always seemed a little too long. Would rounding to 200 years be a problem? I don’t think so. How different is the 1824-2024 “climate”, from the 1624-1824 “climate”, and the 1424-1624 “climate”?
I don’t think anyone, including Stefani and his colleagues, doubts that the Eddy and Bray solar cycles exist. They are right there in the 10Be and 14C records.
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/the-bray-hallstatt-cycle/
But they have not been able to show a clear physical model for how that happens in the solar dynamo yet. I suspect they working it, maybe in the future.
The Bray cycle cannot seem to make its mind as to whether it is 2300 or 2600 years long. The actual cycle of the four gas giants is 4627 years. All four were in inferior conjunction in 3322 BC and in 1306 AD, with a pair of near analogues 179 years apart either side of the middle of the cycle in 1098 BC and 919 BC:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
If the orbits were circular, there would be a near perfect mirror image sequence of Jovian configurations going back from 1089 BC to 3322 BC as there would be going forwards from 919 BC to 1306 AD. So the cycle does not neatly split into half at 2318 [sic] years.
Andy et al,
Some 16 years ago I came across a paper on the Jovian Planet cycle gravitational effect on plasma velocity at the Sun’s equator. I have never been able to find any follow-up. Perhaps there is nothing new under the Sun? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252842547_Does_a_Spin-Orbit_Coupling_Between_the_Sun_and_the_Jovian_Planets_Govern_the_Solar_Cycle