question

What modulates our Sun? The majority of science work on the principle that the Sun is self modulating and each solar cycle is a product of a random number generator. There are others that suspect the Sun is modulated by the planets with a special emphasis on Uranus & Neptune. Thanks to Carl Smith who has recently left us we have new knowledge that significantly adds to Jose, Landscheidt & Charvàtovà's work.

Geoff Sharp

A Challenge for Leif Svalgaard.

"THE FORCE THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME"

Planetary Theory is gaining traction with the likely onset of the "Landscheidt Minimum". There are many who challenge the validity of Angular Momentum Theory (AMT) with perhaps little or no understanding of the principles involved. Leif Svalgaard has been strongly opposing this theory for years in science forums which include WUWT. If you are going to appose a theory it makes sense to at least have a working knowledge of the principles involved, this is a basic minimum in scientific discourse. I believe Leif Svalgaard has not shown he has the understanding required to comment in this area.

I issued a challenge to him on Anthony Watt's website (WUWT) to explain his knowledge of the two fundamental forces involved in AMT.

1: The Modulating Force.

2: The Disruptive Force.

The ball is in your court Leif Svalgaard.

 

UPDATE: A new article explaining the two Forces is available HERE.

 

Comments

Sadly Leif Svalgaard has

Sadly Leif Svalgaard has admitted that he does not understand the basic principles of Angular Momentum Theory (AMT) and he is not interested in learning about a theory that he perceives has no mechanical driver. Wolff and Patrone have recently published a peer reviewed paper that links solar output to the movement of the outer 4 planets. We may also now have to give up Newtons theory of gravity, as a mechanical driver does not exist.

Science should be about the pursuit of information, not about agendas or barrow pushing. I have copied some of the discussions from WUWT for those who might be interested. On another front a graph by Ed fix was promoted by David Archibald in the WUWT article below who is now firmly among the Planetary Theory camp. My thoughts on the Ed Fix research remain guarded but it appears his model is a revamp of the Carl Smith AM graph fitted to the sunspot cycle. AM cycle lengths will never follow sunspot cycles, and cannot keep in step with solar cycles, AM cycles should be seen as a background engine and not a device that starts and finishes a solar cycle. The Ed Fix model unfortunately does not stay in synch with previous cycles as we go further back beyond 1900 and also fails to hindcast the Maunder Minimum. Time will show that a greater understanding of the basic principles is required.

 

David Hathaway had already given a reasonable reply to Ed, with which I concur:
“While Jupiter produces excursions with a period near that of the sunspot cycle (first noted in the literature in the mid-1800s) it very quickly gets out of phase with the more chaotic sunspot cycle.”

I also responded with a similar suggestion. Using solar velocity is the same as angular momentum, it will show the same roughly 10 year oscillation which is close to the solar cycle and never stay in phase. But solar velocity or AM can be used to determine overall solar modulation strength and also give a marker for grand minima. Solar velocity follows the same curve as the Sunspot cycle wave but one has to acknowledge the interruption caused by grand minima. The only reason for the velocity wave and grand minima markers is the combined gravity of Uranus and Neptune at their conjunction.

  1. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm
    but one has to acknowledge the interruption caused by grand minima.
    No, one has to show that there is something. And define ‘interruption’. What is it characteristics? Interruption of what?

  2. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Geoff Sharp says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm
    but one has to acknowledge the interruption caused by grand minima.
    ———————————–
    No, one has to show that there is something. And define ‘interruption’. What is it characteristics? Interruption of what?

    We have been over this several times but you still do not understand. Lets start with the powerwave first, your diagram shows this easily because there is no grand minima in the timeframe. My diagram is the same curve but over a longer time scale and has interruptions to the wave when grand minima occur. Once you understand the background principles it all becomes clear.

  3. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 10, 2011 at 6:28 pm
    Lets start with the powerwave first, your diagram shows this easily because there is no grand minima in the timeframe.
    My wave has no physical significance. It is just there to aid the reader in following the trend that I think I see. He can the agree or disagree as he sees fit.
    My diagram is the same curve but over a longer time scale and has interruptions to the wave when grand minima occur.
    I take it that you ascribe physical significance to your curve and that ‘interruptions’ are where your physics fails.

  4. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    My wave has no physical significance.

    The wave is the trend that we and many others have noticed. I have a driver for that trend where you ascribe to a random number generator.

    I take it that you ascribe physical significance to your curve and that ‘interruptions’ are where your physics fails.

    This is where your understanding fails you. There are two forces at play, one controls the background modulation while the other disrupts the solar cycle. Can I suggest you have another go at reading my paper as “the force that dare not speak its name” is not open to discussion here.

  5. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:26 pm
    Can I suggest you have another go at reading my paper
    Your paper contains nothing new and is [as we have discussed many times] just curve fitting, finding different wiggles of different types. You are still pushing the Angular Momentum spiel in spite of having been shown that there is no free AM to exchange: the solar AM [wrt to the barycenter] precisely balancing that of the planets. This is a necessary consequence of physical laws. I still have to see a quantification of your data. Without that you have nothing [as you well know].

  6. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    So you have not shown you have an understanding of the theory.

    You are also forgetting that there is now a peer reviewed paper by Wolff and Patrone that provides a viable mechanism that links solar path changes to solar output. This paper should be discussed in a separate article on WUWT once “the force that dare not speak its name” is allowed airspace.

  7. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:40 pm
    So you have not shown you have an understanding of the theory.
    There is no theory to understand. The one physical element you used to invoke does not work, even Shirley understands that.

    You are also forgetting that there is now a peer reviewed paper by Wolff and Patrone that provides a viable mechanism that links solar path changes to solar output. This paper should be discussed in a separate article on WUWT once “the force that dare not speak its name” is allowed airspace.
    There is no such mechanism. What Wolff and Patrone point out is that IF you can find a coupling between what they calculate and solar phenomena [any phenomena] then there might be a cause-effect relationship, but they pointedly do not supply any viable coupling.

  1. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:47 pm
    “Wolff and Patrone that provides a viable mechanism”
    There is no such mechanism.
    A mechanism means that you can specify a force in Newtons, a mass in kg that the force is acting on for a time t in seconds, giving rise to an acceleration and hence a velocity [in m/sec] displacing solar matter a distance in meter, causing a change in the magnetic field in Tesla of the sunspots, etc. THAT is a mechanism. It is OK if you have to assume [reasonable] values for some of the parameters because they may be poorly known, but the values should in real physical units. For examples see http://www.leif.org/EOS/Leighton-1969.pdf or http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuri-Karak-2009.pdf Those are mechanisms.

  2. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    You have to understand the theory before dismissing it with nonsensical statements. I challenge you to prove to me you understand the theory of both forces on my blog.

    There is no such mechanism. What Wolff and Patrone point out is that IF you can find a coupling between what they calculate and solar phenomena [any phenomena] then there might be a cause-effect relationship, but they pointedly do not supply any viable coupling

    Wolff and Patrone have provided a model built on sound physical attributes that provides a mechanism for solar modulation as a product of the outer 4 planet positions. This is what needs to be debated, the peer review process has certainly not found fault.

  3. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:24 pm
    You have to understand the theory before dismissing it with nonsensical statements. I challenge you to prove to me you understand the theory of both forces on my blog.
    I agree that is is useless to continue here at WUWT.

    Wolff and Patrone have provided a model built on sound physical attributes that provides a mechanism for solar modulation as a product of the outer 4 planet positions.
    I have studied that papaer and finds no references to sound solar physical attributes [they were astronomical attributes].

    This is what needs to be debated, the peer review process has certainly not found fault.
    You cannot fault a paper that conditions its result: IF such and such happens, THEN this and that will happen. That does not say that the IF is satisfied, and that is what is wrong with the W&P paper. No mechanism, only a hypothetical.
    See my comment
    “Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:59 pm”
    for what a mechanism is.

  4. David Archibald says:

    Doug Proctor says:
    May 10, 2011 at 10:17 am

    Thankyou for being gracious. There is a paper coming that will be the last word on this subject. I will say, for all the North American academics reading, that the US and Canada is still an open territory (Europe has been done). With the demise of global warming, something will fill the gap, and that will be solar-climate studies based on solar cycle length. You can generate a large number of papers and get that paper count up. Own a brand new field. Speak at agricultural conferences. That sort of thing.

  5. David Archibald says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:45 pm
    You can generate a large number of papers and get that paper count up. Own a brand new field. Speak at agricultural conferences. That sort of thing.
    That smells more like alarmist propaganda than science…

  6. vukcevic says:

    Geoff is correct in assuming that there is
    ‘modulating factor’
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
    and
    ‘disrupting factor’
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm

  7. vukcevic says:
    May 11, 2011 at 1:55 am
    Geoff is correct in assuming that there is
    ‘modulating factor’ and ‘disrupting factor’

    Like adding another epicycle when the first one doesn’t do the trick.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    is is useless to continue here at WUWT.

    “Resistance is futile.
    You will be assimilated.”

    lol.

    From Wolff and Patrone’s paper:
    “One mechanism, whose basis is discussed in Sections 4 and 5.2, takes place in a solar-type star where an individual convection “cell” at the proper phase in its short life would release some of the PE. This would cause a local upwelling of mass and heat. If close enough to the surface, it would cause horizontal flows on the surface that have to terminate in downflows with vorticity. Spinning downflows are known to be where considerable solar activity collects and strengthens (Schatten, 2009). “

  9. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 5:20 am
    From Wolff and Patrone’s paper:
    “One mechanism, whose basis is discussed in Sections 4 and 5.2, takes place in a solar-type star where an individual convection “cell” at the proper phase in its short life would release some of the PE.

    What is missing is how to transfer some of PE from the orbit to the convection cell. This is the stumbling block. If I am in an airplane at 30,000 feet I have more potential energy than at 10,000 feet. Descending gently from 30,000 to 10,000 feet changes my PE, but that has no effect on me as such as there is no coupling between me and the PE. Thus no mechanism to extract that PE. Should I crash into the ground, a coupling exists in the back reaction of the ground on me, but the W&P paper is silent on what their coupling would be and thus they have no mechanism.

  10. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 11, 2011 at 5:30 am
    What is missing is how to transfer some of PE from the orbit to the convection cell. This is the stumbling block.

    Ah good, I now see what it is about W&P’s paper you don’t understand.
    I’ll try to work out a way of explaining it and post it on my blog.

  11. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 5:50 am
    Ah good, I now see what it is about W&P’s paper you don’t understand.
    I’ll try to work out a way of explaining it and post it on my blog.

    I understand their paper perfectly well. It will be worth your time to try to explain it so you can see where the problem lies.

  12. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 11, 2011 at 5:55 am
    I understand their paper perfectly well.

    No, you don’t.

  13. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 6:07 am
    “I understand their paper perfectly well.”
    No, you don’t.

    The paper is well-written and clear enough. There is no difficulty understanding it. Otherwise it would have been caught in peer-review, wouldn’t it? That is what peer-review is about. Not about whether the results are ‘correct’.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Well clearly the peer reviewers understood it.

    The example you gave shows that you don’t.

  15. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 6:27 am
    The example you gave shows that you don’t.
    Perhaps you do not understand my example. Try to work out what is wrong with it and put that on your blog.

  16. tallbloke says:

    The problem is your understanding of Wolff and Patrone, not my understanding of your example, which shows that you think they are talking about gravitational potential energy with their ‘PE’ quantity.

    They are not.

    This is where you are going wrong in understanding the mechanism they have identified. They are talking about the potential change in the Kinetic energy of massive elements in overturning convective cells preferentially releasing energy (assisted by a suitable flow) on the hemisphere facing the barycentre in amounts non-linearly proportionate to the distance of the stellar core from the system barycentre. This would occur due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, nothing directly to do with their gravitational potential (because the exchange in places of the two masses under consideration would cancel the changes in that). It is because the distance between stellar core and system barycentre varies with the motions of the gas giant planets (predominantly) that the mechanism could potentially explain the correlations we have found between solar motion wrt to the centre of mass of the solar system and variation in levels of solar activity.

  17. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 7:54 am
    They are talking about the potential change in the Kinetic energy of massive elements in overturning convective cells
    Very clever misuse of ‘potential’ here. They calculate the potential energy and have not identified how to change that into kinetic energy, i.e. no coupling between the two, i.e. no mechanism.

  18. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 7:54 am
    They are talking about the potential change in the Kinetic energy of massive elements in overturning convective cells preferentially releasing energy [...] This would occur due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, nothing directly to do with their gravitational potential

    Contrast the above ‘understanding’ with what W&P actually claim:
    If a fluid element has rotational and orbital components of angular momentum with respect to the inertially fixed point of a planetary system that are of opposite sign, then the element may have potential energy that could be released by a suitable flow. [...] The exchange releases potential energy …”

  19. tallbloke says:

    Wolff and Patrone:
    The exchange releases potential energy that, with a minor exception, is available only inthe hemisphere facing the barycenter of the planetary system. We calculate its strength andspatial distribution for the strongest case (“vertical”) and for weaker horizontal cases whose motions are all perpendicular to gravity. The vertical cases can raise the kinetic energy ofa few well positioned convecting elements in the Sun’s envelope by a factor ≤ 7. This is the first physical mechanism by which planets can have a nontrivial effect on internal solar motions.

    Nice try Leif. Are you going to accept gravitational potential energy is a red herring you made a mistake over?

  20. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 8:32 am
    Are you going to accept gravitational potential energy is a red herring you made a mistake over?
    It is clear that W&P are talking about how to convert that red herring into kinetic energy for a ‘few’ convective cells. It is also clear that they have not explained how.

  21. Leif Svalgaard says:
    It is clear that W&P are talking about how to convert that red herring into kinetic energy for a ‘few’ convective cells. It is also clear that they have not explained how.
    And in spite of your enthusiasm W&P note: “Clearly, Figures 6 and 8 are not strong enough to prove that planet-caused events have noticeably affected the Sun.”

  22. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 11, 2011 at 4:58 am

    vukcevic says:
    May 11, 2011 at 1:55 am
    Geoff is correct in assuming that there is
    ‘modulating factor’ and ‘disrupting factor’
    ————————–
    Like adding another epicycle when the first one doesn’t do the trick.

    You obviously do not understand the principles involved. It is not surprising you ducked the challenge.

  23. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 11, 2011 at 7:07 pm
    It is not surprising you ducked the challenge.
    There is no challenge in something ‘not even wrong’

  24. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 12, 2011 at 10:32 am

    Geoff Sharp says:
    May 11, 2011 at 7:07 pm
    It is not surprising you ducked the challenge.
    ——————————
    There is no challenge in something ‘not even wrong’

    A weak answer Dr. Svalgaard. I have issued a direct challenge to you on my website. There is a special forum area set up where you can prove to us you have a basic knowledge of the theory (in particular the 2 forces involved, the modulation and disruptive forces)

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/216

  25. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 12, 2011 at 5:15 pm
    A weak answer Dr. Svalgaard. I have issued a direct challenge to you on my website.
    so what? I think the shoe is on the other foot: convince me.

    in particular the 2 forces involved, the modulation and disruptive forces)
    since no forces are involved and have not been described with viable physics or quantified by you, what is there to understand? And I freely admit that it all sounds like nonsense to me and trying to understand nonsense does not seem a worthwhile activity. So you are welcome to quote me on that.

  26. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 12, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    since no forces are involved and have not been described with viable physics or quantified by you, what is there to understand? And I freely admit that it all sounds like nonsense to me and trying to understand nonsense does not seem a worthwhile activity.

    We can only assume you do not understand the principles involved. If so, any further criticism of Angular Momentum Theory (AMT) in the future would undermine your credibility.

  27. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 12, 2011 at 9:07 pm
    We can only assume you do not understand the principles involved. If so, any further criticism of Angular Momentum Theory (AMT) in the future would undermine your credibility.
    As far as I can see there are no principles involved other than your hand waving. The AMT is in the ‘not even wrong’ category as it violates physical law: “there can be no relative acceleration of any two constituent particles of the body of the Sun that is solely due to the revolution of the Sun about the Solar system barycentre; and the spin–orbit coupling hypothesis [...] must be discarded, http://www.leif.org/EOS/Shirley-MNRS.pdf . If that undermines my credibility in the astrology department, then this is something I have no problems at all living with.

  28. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    There is no point arguing….you have no credibility.

  29. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 12, 2011 at 10:01 pm
    There is no point arguing….you have no credibility.
    I don’t think you are presenting arguments of any kinds, just trying to play the ad-hom no-credibility card. But guess what. It doesn’t work here.

We are now 2 years on and no

We are now 2 years on and no reply from Svalgaard.

He has also been challenged in WUWT and no answer was forthcoming.

This area of science is changing with my paper now published in a peer review journal and some big players in the solar science arena changing sides and now publishing papers backing up planetary theory.

Svalgaard is not informed and not a reliable source on the new data coming to hand.

The Landscheidt Minimum is now taking hold fully, the world will wake up soon.....

 

A further challenge was

A further challenge was addressed to Dr. Svalgaard more than a year ago on his question section at the  Solarcycle24 Board that he has yet to properly answer. The diagram below is a plot of all grand minima occurring across the Holocene taken from the McCracken et al paper published in Solar Physics 2014.

Proof of Planetary Theory

I believe this plot is undeniable proof of Planetary Theory. McCracken et al are the owners of the 10Be Holocene Solar Proxy record and here have plotted grand minima for the last 9400 years. Of big interest is their plotting method which clearly shows that no grand minima occur when Uranus & Neptune are apart. Instead of the usual linear method of plotting the data, the  McCracken team have layered the plot in vertical 172 year slices (Uranus/Neptune conjunction period).

Dr. Svalgaard has no answer why no grand minima occur in the first column (Charvatova Ordered Phase or when U/N are in opposition). It is beyond reason to suggest this has happened by chance?

So we are waiting Dr. Svalgaard?

Many thanks go to Carl's brother Dave for providing the Domain, Server and Software.