The 11-year cycle of solar activity and configurations of the planets

Okhlopkov, V. P.

doi:10.3103/s0027134914030126

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This gave further support for our conjecture (Stefani et al 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019) that the Schwabe cycle results from synchronizing a rather conventional α − Ω dynamo by means of an additional 11.07‐year oscillation of the α effect, which in turn is related to the helicity oscillation of either a kink‐type ( m = 1) Tayler instability in the tachocline region (Weber et al 2015) or a ( m = 1) magneto‐Rossby wave (Dikpati et al 2017; Zaqarashvili 2018). Building on and corroborating earlier ideas of Hung (2007), Scafetta (2012), Wilson (2013), and Okhlopkov (2014, 2016), the source of this synchronized helicity was hypothesized to be the 11.07‐year periodic tidal ( m = 2) forcing of Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, which are the tidally dominant planets in the solar system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Phase coherence and phase jumps in the Schwabe cycle

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Guided by the working hypothesis that the Schwabe cycle of solar activity is synchronized by the 11.07‐year alignment cycle of the tidally dominant planets Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, we reconsider the phase diagrams of sediment accumulation rates in Lake Holzmaar and of methanesulfonate data in the Greenland ice core Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2), which are available for the period 10000–9000 cal. BP. As some half‐cycle phase jumps appearing in the output signals are, very likely, artifacts of applying a biologically substantiated transfer function, the underlying solar input signal with a dominant 11.04‐year periodicity can be considered to be mainly phase‐coherent over the 1,000‐year period in the early Holocene. For more recent times, we show that the reintroduction of a hypothesized “lost cycle” at the beginning of the Dalton minimum would lead to a real phase jump. Similarly, by analyzing various series of 14C and 10Be data and comparing them with Schove's historical cycle maxima, we support the existence of another “lost cycle” around 1565, also connected with a real phase jump. Viewed synoptically, our results lend greater plausibility to the starting hypothesis of a tidally synchronized solar cycle, which at times can undergo phase jumps, although the competing explanation in terms of a nonlinear solar dynamo with increased coherence cannot be completely ruled out.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Phase coherence and phase jumps in the Schwabe cycle

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The closely related discussion, initiated by Wolf (1859) and later entered by Bollinger (1952); Takahashi (1968); Wood (1972); Öpik (1972); Condon and Schmidt (1975); Grandpierre (1996); Palus et al (2000); Hung (2007); Wilson (2013); Okhlopkov (2014); Poluianov and Usoskin (2014), of whether the Hale cycle of the Sun is synchronized with the 11.07 years alignment cycle of the tidally dominant planets Venus, Earth and Jupiter, was recently fueled by Okhlopkov (2016) who demonstrated an amazing parallelism of both time series for the last 1000 years. Schove (1955Schove ( , 1983 and Hathaway (2010), and of the maximum alignment of the Venus-Earth-Jupiter system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model of a Tidally Synchronized Solar Dynamo

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We discuss a solar dynamo model of Tayler-Spruit type whose Ωeffect is conventionally produced by a solar-like differential rotation but whose α-effect is assumed to be periodically modulated by planetary tidal forcing. This resonance-like effect has its rationale in the tendency of the current-driven Tayler instability to undergo intrinsic helicity oscillations which, in turn, can be synchronized by periodic tidal perturbations. Specifically, we focus on the 11.07 years alignment periodicity of the tidally dominant planets Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, whose persistent synchronization with the solar dynamo is briefly touched upon. The typically emerging dynamo modes are dipolar fields, oscillating with a 22.14 years period or pulsating with an 11.07 years period, but also quadrupolar fields with corresponding periodicities. In the absence of any constant part of α, we prove the subcritical nature of this Tayler-Spruit type dynamo. The resulting amplitude of the α oscillation that is required for dynamo action turns out to lie in the order of 1 m/s, which seems not implausible for the sun. When starting with a more classical, non-periodic part of α, even less of the oscillatory α part is needed to synchronize the entire dynamo. Typically, the dipole solutions show butterfly diagrams, although their shapes are not convincing yet. Phase coherent transitions between dipoles and quadrupoles, which are reminiscent of the observed behaviour during the Maunder minimum, can be easily triggered by long-term variations of dynamo parameters, but may also occur spontaneously even for fixed parameters. Further interesting features of the model are the typical second intensity peak and the intermittent appearance of reversed helicities in both hemispheres.

show abstract

“…Surveying the literature we can distinguish between studies (Abreu et al, 2012;Scafetta, 2014) advocating a planetary modulation of the solar cycle, while accepting the explanatory power of traditional dynamo models for the 22-year Hale cycle, and other studies that, more radically, relate the Hale cycle to planetary motion, mostly to the tidal effect of the Venus-Earth-Jupiter system (Bollinger, 1952;Takahashi, 1968;Wood, 1972;Hung, 2007;Wilson, 2013;Okhlopkov, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synchronized Helicity Oscillations: A Link Between Planetary Tides and the Solar Cycle?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have seen an increased interest in the question of whether the gravitational action of planets could have an influence on the solar dynamo. Without discussing the observational validity of the claimed correlations, we ask for a possible physical mechanism that might link the weak planetary forces with solar dynamo action. We focus on the helicity oscillations that were recently found in simulations of the current-driven, kink-type Tayler instability, which is characterized by an m = 1 azimuthal dependence. We show how these helicity oscillations can be resonantly excited by some m = 2 perturbation that reflects a tidal oscillation. Specifically, we speculate that the 11.07 years tidal oscillation induced by the Venus-Earth-Jupiter system may lead to a 1:1 resonant excitation of the oscillation of the α-effect. Finally, in the framework of a reduced, zero-dimensional α-Ω dynamo model we recover a 22.14-year cycle of the solar dynamo.Roughly, we can distinguish between four different interpretations of the toroidal-to-poloidal field transformation. Mean-field dynamo theory, focusing on helical twisting of toroidal field lines in the turbulent convective zone, can be traced back to heuristic arguments by Parker (1955) and was later corroborated in mathematical detail by Steenbeck, Krause, and Rädler (1966); see also Krause and Rädler (1980). The theory starts by expressing the flow U = U + u and the magnetic field B = B + b as the sum of their mean parts (denoted by an overbar) and their fluctuating parts (denoted by lower-case letters). The interaction of the fluctuating flow and magnetic-field components produces an additional electromotive force term in the induction equation which, in its simplest form, can be written as E = u × b = αB − β∇ × B (but see Krause and Rädler (1980) and Rädler and Stepanov (2006) for significant extensions).Despite various conceptual problems (Proctor, 2006), regarding e.g. the catastrophic quenching of α (Vainshtein and Cattaneo, 1992), or the questionable relationship between helicity and α and the non-convergence of α for large magnetic Reynolds numbers (Courvoisier, Hughes, and Tobias, 2012), meanfield theory has served for decades as the standard model of the solar dynamo, which provided a natural explanation for the periodicity and the equator-ward sunspot propagation of the solar cycle (Steenbeck and Krause, 1969;Stix, 1972). A first blow to this model came when helioseismology mapped the differential rotation in the solar interior (Brown et al., 1989), in particular the positive radial shear in a ±30 • strip around the Equator, resulting in a serious problem with the Parker-Yoshimura sign rule which requires α∂Ω/∂r < 0 in the northern hemisphere for the correct equator-ward propagation of sun spots (Parker, 1955;Yoshimura, 1975). A second issue was raised by D' Silva and Choudhuri (1993) who noticed that the rather strong toroidal field at the bottom of the convection zone, which is needed to explain the variation of the tilts of bipolar sunspot pairs with lati...

show abstract

The 11-year cycle of solar activity and configurations of the planets

Cited by 11 publications

References 15 publications

Phase coherence and phase jumps in the Schwabe cycle

Phase coherence and phase jumps in the Schwabe cycle

A Model of a Tidally Synchronized Solar Dynamo

Synchronized Helicity Oscillations: A Link Between Planetary Tides and the Solar Cycle?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About