New Solar Paper Published by Australian Astronomical Society

A new paper entitled: Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle? by Wilson et al has been published.

The Abstract states:

We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System. We propose that this synchronization is indicative of a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun. However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling. Some researchers have proposed that it is the period of the meridional flow in the convective zone of the Sun that controls both the duration and strength of the Solar cycle. We postulate that the overall period of the meridional flow is set by the level of disruption to the flow that is caused by changes in Sun’s equatorial rotation speed. Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.

Keywords: sun: activity — sun: sunspots — sun: rotation — stars: planetary systems

Andrew Bolt contacted lead author Ian Wilson who told him:

“It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 – 30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 – 2 C.”

26 Responses to New Solar Paper Published by Australian Astronomical Society

  1. Luke June 30, 2008 at 4:57 pm #

    Gadzooks !

  2. JVK June 30, 2008 at 5:12 pm #

    Bam!

  3. Neville June 30, 2008 at 6:49 pm #

    In spite of the brainless layabouts retorts of gadzooks and bam the above report comes from Csiro publishing, an organisation I thought they may have approved of.
    But of course this type of report and conclusion doesn’t fit in with their stupid new religion of Globull warming promoted by high priests Hansen and HIPPO Al etc.

  4. wes george June 30, 2008 at 7:17 pm #

    OUCH, was that a piece of the AGW sky falling, or just a hail stone?

    If Wilson et al have something, it will be the first time that a credible link between solar anything and the gravitational effects of the Jovian planets has been made…. I said credible.

    And if true, then perhaps we have an extra 20 to 30 years for technology to evolve beyond the hydrocarbon age.

    Poor Luke, the apocalypse has been postponed…again. Ahhh, shucks.

    The revolution will not be broadcasted…because it ain’t gonna happen. Gonna have to think of a new reason cancel our civil rights and redistribute wealth. Must be pretty humiliating after dozens of denialist posts, denying that the sun is the primary driver of climate, as opposed to CO2, to find out that King Sol trumps everything. Doh.

    In the meanwhile, perhaps China’s building of a new coal fired power plant per every three days should be accelerated to help offset global cooling, while raising the standard of living for hundreds of millions of now living in poverty?

  5. Luke June 30, 2008 at 7:40 pm #

    Well it’s stunning isn’t it.

    And you dudes haven’t read it (not that it would help). So why do believe this piece of science and not others. What a bunch of clowns you really are.

    Immediate acceptance – oh yea – that’ll do mate – we’ll just go with that – I haven’t got a clue what it means but it’s 100% correct.

    Do AGW believers deny that the Sun is not the primary driver of climate – another moronic Wes-erley.

    Did they say anything about greenhouse Wes & Neville. hmmmm…

    And after hearing Lief biffing barycentres too …

    Gadzooks !

  6. Paul Biggs June 30, 2008 at 8:20 pm #

    This paper seems pretty much in line with what Fairbridge/Shirley were saying in 1987, and others.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/

    Given that the sun has cycles, something cyclical must be driving them. Solar Inertial Motion/jupiter-sun barycentre is a candidate.

    Meanwhile, the sun remains quiet and we are having a ‘global non-warming’ summer in the UK.

  7. Mick June 30, 2008 at 8:23 pm #

    Hmm, in the mean time the TSI dropping, and the
    cosmic ray increase….
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
    http://helios.izmiran.troitsk.ru/cosray/main.htm

    Back to the stone age? Any one?

  8. Ender June 30, 2008 at 8:33 pm #

    “On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 – 2 C.”

    Yes but in the past there was not 6 billion humans emitting billions of tons of greenhouse gases and changing the land.

    Again we shall see if the positive forcing from the enhanced greenhouse effect is larger than a negative forcing (if any) from solar effects.

    Again trumpeting now is pretty stupid.

  9. Mick June 30, 2008 at 9:07 pm #

    Ender,
    “negative forcing (if any) from solar effects”

    Well, this planet is going around the star called
    the Sun. This star like the others emits lots of
    things, like electro magnetic radiation in the full spectrum (not just light what you see).
    Other things are particles, charged one of that.
    This star also have a big influence on the magnetic field of the blue planet.
    To make the statement that the star has no influence of the planet climate is foolish at best, ignorant worst. You have to do your home work before making a statement like that. Study astrophysics and put things in perspective.
    6 billion humans? Where? Had count not compute…
    It was before that Earth is the center of the universe. Sorry to disappoint you but it’s not.
    Equally the humble humans are so minute to influence climate that it’s a noise in any equipment we have. Back to you…

  10. Ianl June 30, 2008 at 9:42 pm #

    There’s old Ender again, displaying his geological ignorance. Such petulance: 20 years is not the deep past.

    In the deeper past, the CO2 atmospheric levels have been very much higher (some 300x in the Cretaceous), yet the planet still managed largely to freeze over a very considerable number of times after this absolute deluge of CO2. The oceans still swarmed with life, despite all those photosynthesising organisms doing their thing.

    The paper in question simply raises the point that the authors believe they may have found a mechanism for periodic solar cyclic activity which they have correlated with warming/cooling cycles. They have even put a predictive timetable on it. Whether they are correct or not about future effects is the obvious point of debate.

    The paper is peer-reviewed and published. The authors are credible physicists. So how is this process different to AGW papers proposing an hypothesis ?

  11. wes george June 30, 2008 at 9:55 pm #

    Paul, I stand corrected.

    Luke, I lie ROTFL. Ender is an exemplar of solar denialism. So are you, your comment record here proves as much, so go on– try to deny your solar denialism. Go on.

    Luke asks with coy pretense,”Do AGW believers deny that the Sun is not the primary driver of climate???”

    Well, yes, Luke, yes they (and YOU) do too…

    Ender sez, “…we shall see if the positive forcing from the enhanced greenhouse effect is larger than a negative forcing (if any) from solar effects”

    Ender’s statement is pseudo-science babble on several levels. But it does illustrate that the AGW acolytes imagine that CO2 forcing is more important than that of the Sun, regardless of the obvious voodoo-climatology of that postion.

    Surprisingly, this mystical belief in the omnipotence of human induced climate change is wide spread in the AGW faith community.

    It’s as if they imagine the Sun rotates around the Earth, with humankind as the primary forcing agent of the entire universe.

    Ironically, though they are Godless, sin illogically remains. We have been bad, bad people stealing fire from the Gods with our industrial revolution, we shall be punished with an apocalypse.

    Ender and Luke really do believe in the post-modern version of the Ptolemaic system. Aye, the poor sods live life so unexamined they know not what they so enthusiastically believe.

    Thanks for the links Mick.

  12. Ender June 30, 2008 at 10:08 pm #

    wes – “Ender’s statement is pseudo-science babble on several levels. But it does illustrate that the AGW acolytes imagine that CO2 forcing is more important than that of the Sun, regardless of the obvious voodoo-climatology of that postion.”

    It is???? Forcings are the shorthand that climate scientists use to quantify the different changes.

    Human greenhouse gases change the radiative balance of the earth that ‘force’ the planet to warm up. Drops in solar intensity will possibly introduce a negative forcing. If it is larger than the positive warming of the enhanced greenhouse effect then the planet will cool.

    The problem is that skeptics have no coherent theory contrary to AGW. Therefore it is impossible for you quantify the negative forcing that may result from this research. You also have no coherent theory regarding any effects of solar activity on the Earths climate.

    All you have is pseudo scientific babbling. If you cannot do better than empty rhetoric then perhaps you can spare us.

  13. Ianl June 30, 2008 at 10:31 pm #

    Oops, I meant to add a Geology 101 link

    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UaD1WeZcDrwC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=co2+in+the+cretaceous&source=web&ots=6ntTpPXJUt&sig=lMOyTwxTDYVEcXywZWbhKIiyzDI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA242,M1

    “The problem is that skeptics have no coherent theory contrary to AGW”

    We’ve been here before, Ender. Repeat after me “the hypothesiser has to prove the case; the questioner needs only to question”. We call that scientific theory. Your persistent version is the straw man of proving a negative

    Now read Geology 101. It gives a very coherent explanation of why the high levels of CO2 earlier in the planet’s history did not cause a runaway greenhouse cookup.

  14. Mick June 30, 2008 at 10:58 pm #

    Ender,

    “positive warming”

    I’m not sure what you mean by that?

    “…solar activity on the Earths climate…”

    Well, this star of ours is the only direct contributor to the atmosphere. Mind you the atmosphere has a couple magnitude less thermal inertia than the oceans. So, incoming energy, modulated by albedo of the planet, heating water,
    water driving atmosphere… you get the picture.
    Top of that is the back EMF. This will drive huge current true the ionosphere and the oceans to complicate things a bit. It’s very convenient for the IPCC to ignore all this. Ah, they ignore all the water I forget. And the solar modulation. And
    the cosmic rays. But hey this is all variables, and computer not happy with that.
    Neither the politicians.
    I rest my case.

  15. Luke June 30, 2008 at 11:48 pm #

    Wes – I read what you wrote and there is not one scientific bit in it – it’s simply your opinion. Writing perfect prose ain’t a science argument.

    Ender’s statement is pseudo-science babble on several levels. But it does illustrate that the AGW acolytes imagine that CO2 forcing is more important than that of the Sun, regardless of the obvious voodoo-climatology of that postion. DRIVEL

    Surprisingly, this mystical belief in the omnipotence of human induced climate change is wide spread in the AGW faith community. DRIVEL

    It’s as if they imagine the Sun rotates around the Earth, with humankind as the primary forcing agent of the entire universe. DRIVEL

    Ironically, though they are Godless, sin illogically remains. We have been bad, bad people stealing fire from the Gods with our industrial revolution, we shall be punished with an apocalypse. DRIVEL

    Ender and Luke really do believe in the post-modern version of the Ptolemaic system. Aye, the poor sods live life so unexamined they know not what they so enthusiastically believe. DRIVEL

  16. Gary Gulrud July 1, 2008 at 3:43 am #

    Jose, Landscheidt, Fairbridge, Clilverd, on and on and on, have noticed the 180 year repetition of cyclic minima in solar activity. The problem has been finding a probable physical cause.
    The North American solar dynamists regard these ‘theorists’ as “astrologers” trying to focus on explanation of the Schwabe cycle interms of their paradigm.
    We are about to get a definitive result regarding the predictions of both schools. Things rather favor the astrologers just now, but that could change by 2012 (Manetohydrodynamic low-ballers like Leif S. could survive, many are toast).
    As our AGW friend’s world will end and they must stand in front of trains or jump from high ledges were the astrologers to be exonerated, I’m pulling for the planet watchers.

  17. Luke July 1, 2008 at 6:34 am #

    What an unfortunate turn of phrase.

  18. Ender July 1, 2008 at 9:48 am #

    Ianl – “Repeat after me “the hypothesiser has to prove the case; the questioner needs only to question””

    Is that it is it? So you only have to question? And then what do we do. You demolish AGW with your ‘questions’ and then sit around waiting for an alternative theory to magically appear? The Hypothesier has proved the case at least to the satisfaction of the global climate science community. So far the skeptics have failed to provied peer reviewed work that questions it enough. Also AGW skeptics have failed to provide different mechanisms or theories to account for recent warming.

    If you have a better theory that explains the facts better then lets have it.

    Until then the incumbent theory is the best knowledge that we have and it what we use to make policies.

  19. Ivan July 1, 2008 at 10:31 am #

    Ianl:
    I’m coming around to agree with Ender’s point of view (at least as to policy outcomes). This is an unwinnable argument — there are just too many Enders out there, and obviously you can’t shoot them all.

    I’ve been watching Rudderless in the electronic media over the last couple of weeks, and he really does believe in this AGW hogwash, and acts like he thinks he is on a mission from God. Make no mistake – ever since he went to Bali, he wants to wear the red cape and underpants on the outside of his trousers.

    So bet it. They are determined to implement their ETS, come what may. Stand back and give them clear air, I say. They need to be given the opportunity to fail. If they don’t it will always be “unfinished business” for the likes of the Enders of this world.

    It is going to be interesting to watch this little drama play out. Australia apparently will be an AGW test case for the world. What with falling living standards (already), increasing energy prices, mounting job losses, and an increasingly cooling planet – I reckon that 2-3 years should be enough to put the issue to bed once and for all, without irretrievably screwing the economy for all time (we’re only 2% of the world economy, after all). But at least then the argument should be settled, and there will be plenty of time for recriminations and punishment of the guilty.

    Bring it on! All this argument back and forth is a complete waste of effort. No-one is listening.

  20. proteus July 1, 2008 at 5:59 pm #

    “Also AGW skeptics have failed to provide different mechanisms or theories to account for recent warming.”

    Rubbish, Pielke Snr, for example, suggests numerous mechanisms, incl. GHGs.

    “If you have a better theory that explains the facts better then lets have it.”

    There is some doubt as to the magnitude of these facts, which, of course, has consequences for the theory.

    “Until then the incumbent theory is the best knowledge that we have and it what we use to make policies.”

    Considering the uncertainities involved with this theory, its ability to inform policy seems rather limited.

  21. SJT July 1, 2008 at 9:07 pm #

    “Landscheidt”

    Haven’t you heard the news? Landscheidt is banned from being mentioned at climataudit.

  22. J.Hansford. July 2, 2008 at 12:41 am #

    not really correct SJT, you seem prone to exaggerate and mislead….

    Landscheidt is not banned from mention at climate audit… He simply is not pertinent in relation to Steve M’s examination of IPCC related statements on climate…..

    It was causing debate to go off topic as Landscheidt’s work is not the focus of CA’s scrutiny….

  23. J.Hansford. July 2, 2008 at 12:47 am #

    Here is what Steve McIntyre actually said.

    “Steve: None of these studies is relied upon by IPCC. For the 1000th time, I ask people to discuss studies relied upon by IPCC rather than studies not relied upon by IPCC. I want at least a 3-month moratorium on cosmic rays, cosmic electricity, barycentric movements etc etc.”

    Very naughty SJT…. You now have no credibility…

  24. KuhnKat July 2, 2008 at 1:03 am #

    SJT;

    Don’t you READ Climateaudit??

    Steven has clarified that he only wants to deal with science behind the IPCC Report!!

    He has stated many times that he supports their work and, if a Politician, would follow their recommendations!!

    Of course, he is continuing to ask for a ROBUST study of the CO2 connection.

    I think we can all agree that there is a lot of good science there. Where we disagree is what ISN’T!! And most of that disagreement is around the positive forcings and lack of negative.

  25. wes george July 4, 2008 at 3:06 pm #

    “AGW skeptics have failed to provide different mechanisms or theories to account for recent warming.”

    Ender, we are an interglacial period, the long term trend should be towards warming. If you are unaware of the fundamental background science, please RTFM before posting again.

    “If you have a better theory that explains the facts better then lets have it.”

    Again, Ender please read the fundamental science before posting. If you imagine that AGW is the only working “theory” of climatology then you are way out of your league, bubba.

    A better question to ask is how does AGW theory driven by rising CO2 emissions explain the recent cooling?????

    Answer: It can not. Unless the warming soon resumes at an accelerated pace not only will the IPCC forecasts be well out of whack, the whole theory of AGW will be teetering on the brink of catastrophic failure.

    Of course, for our resident true believers, Ender, STJ and Luke we’ll be to be half way into the next ice age before they give AGW up.

  26. africangenesis July 21, 2008 at 8:14 pm #

    I’m a little surprised that the skeptics haven’t been able to provide you with a mechanism. The competing hypothesis is that solar activity rose to a plateau circa 1940 and was there for the rest of the century. In an article in the journal Nature in 2004, Solanki, using proxy data, showed that this level of solar activity was one of the highest in the last 8000 years, and statistically unlikely (less than 8 percent) to continue past 2050. Due to the thermal intertia of the oceans, it takes decades for most of the temperature response to a new level of forcing, and millenia for the deep ocean to come into equilibrium. See the climate commitment studies of Wigley, et al, and Meehl, et al.

    A poorly understood mid-century cooling interrupted the warming due to both solar and CO2, so the steep shape of the recent temeperature curve is actually due to the resolution of the cause of this cooling. The best theory is the transition from global dimming to global brightening.

    Less than a third of the recent warming can be explained by the direct effects of GHGs. Anything more requires positive feedbacks from the models and they have documented and correlated errors far larger than the energy imbalance of about 0.8w/m^2 globally and annually averaged (per James Hansen), according to various IPCC diagnostic subprojects, which for some reason the IPCC ignored. See the correlated positive albedo bias among all the AR4 models found by Andreas Roesch, and the Arctic cap melting research that showed the models were 30 years behind the climate, and thus somehow “matching” the warming while reflecting too much sunlight into space.

    Camp and Tung have also recently shown that none of the AR4 models can represent the amplitude of the signature of the solar cycle seen in the observations. Such models should inspire confidence in the models ability to fairly evaluate the solar hypothesis.

    Skeptics get your act together!

Website by 46digital