Some time ago now, I did some analysis on the asymmetry of sunspot production. Sometimes more spots are being produced in the northern solar hemisphere, sometimes more in the south. Leif Svalgaard, when he told me where to find the data, (Thanks Leif!) said I was wasting my time because no-one had ever made any sense of sunspot production asymmetry.
Making some headway, I produced the poster below the break. My coding expert friend Rob and I are revisiting this work just now, so hopefuly we’ll have something more to show soon.
barycentre-sunspots click for legible version!
This work is important for establishing the relative power to modulate solar activity of z-axis motion of the planets relative to the solar equatorial plane to compared to the x-y planar motion of the planets in their orbits.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
How is that of the Sun’s torque and the total solar system torque?, if the mass of the sun would be calculated from it, what would it be?
BTW:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/tx1836m434p72x7h/
“How is that of the Sun’s torque and the total solar system torque?”
Sorry Adolfo, I don’t understand the question. Can you reformulate?
I was asking if most of the solar system torque was found to be in the planets then what could be the mass of the sun if considered representing that small part.
Looks interesting. The x scale I presume is months from start date. Looks like there is some connection to warmer and cooler periods. Might be worth marking in the 1930-40s, 1960-1970s and 1990-2000s
Keep up the good work.
On another topic. I can not agree with your kindness to scientists. Most do not understand errors in a) assumptions b) relations/equations c) instruments d) measurement f) data handling g) analyses. To me quoting the sun’s power flux at the TOA of say 1360 W/m2 to even one unit (o.1% accuracy) let alone to one or two decimals is nonsense. The sun has a visible diameter but is that the actual diameter? The sun radiant flux distribution does not perfectly follow the Planck distribution. Is there a problem assuming it is a black body, or with the Planck relation, or a measuring error? A recent paper by Kopp an Lean http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf found the radiant flux to be 5 units less than previous estimates. They put the difference down to measurement accuracy but the measurements still assume that the Stefan-Boltzman equation is correct, that the sun is a black body plus some other assumptions.
Keep healthy and strong
Click click, hmm, odd seeing your post with a different version of one of the datasets being worked on here. (no kid)
I’ll point out something, why now, ah?
For the purposes here there is no global warming, the south pole is stuck on zero. What we can see in the satellite record is a tilt of north south. Without going into detail there is north pole data suggesting this is a wave. Could be that we are cresting now and it will wobble back.
This fits temperature, sea level and solar.
Although a side work in progress, I’ve switched to earth orientation data 2000A which is supposed to be significantly better. (odd how the old versions are wonderful until admitted otherwise)
This has produced some perplexing problems. Previously I was able to model rather nicely but now it looks like the data is more variable, with old data worse.
Put differently the model was highly predictive but from the new data less so. (only good by my standard a few years out)
A surprise was what could be another incarnation of the same thing as above.
A while ago I did look at gravitational effect on earth and found no match, it would though involve gyroscopic effects.
Not happy to say much yet.
The nasa/greenwich data is as Hathaway says, in a bit of a mess. I’ve tried various ploys to create useful data but I doubt there is any one set.
I’ve not done any work on barycentre with this, other things seem of more interest. As I think I mentioned I used local processing to created barycentre data here, which seemed to double check with the jpl data where you helped me get access.
Solex 110 is available, should run under win or I assume wine.
For barycentre set plan.centric, -1, and 0,0,0 then the sol output file will be barycentre data, distance, speed, in whatever format you have set.
http://chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/
I was going to write about some findings to do with ephemeris. One item is that de421, current, is significantly different from the much earlier and widely used de40x (solex has 406 and 421)
I suspect the earlier version is more suited to work on ancient positions, the new which has a lot of adjustments from spacecraft measurements is much better for very recent work. But I might be wrong.
The signal I have here is recognisable as the same thing you are showing. Can’t remember exactly what I am extracting from the dataset, is how I left it last time.
I’m doing this as part of a data rework with some kind of public showing more likely.
Quickly bashed together (removed parts, added a few) a spreadsheet so you can see part of this.
sheet1 is about the tilt from uah tlt
sheet2 is a cross check (sanity) using hadcrut3
Few notes on the sheets.
Let WordPress host this one but ouch… allows xls but not ods. Dirty trick time, rename to odt which they do allow. Openoffice doesn’t care, just a compressed container for whatever.
http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/uah-tlt-tilt1.odt
Adolfo, there is no connecting bar between a planet and the Sun. The bodies are nominally in ‘freefall’. Standard torque calculations don’t apply. The question of the overturning torque or ‘moment’ on convective cells in the Sun is what Wolff and Patrone address. I don’t think there is any clear path from their model to solar mass through resolving the force in the torque equation T=rF to mass and acceleration.
Not yet anyway.
Landscheidt did discuss torque, but I think you’ll find this rests on assumptions about a spin-orbit coupling which is as yet unproven.
Cementafriend:
Thanks. Even without questions about the apparent solar diameter and ‘black body’ status, there are plenty of isues with instrumentation and data splicing which mean the accuracy of our TSI reconstruction is highly contentious. See my link on the new Roger Andrews thread first comment to the ACRIM-PMOD dispute
Tim: thanks for the notes! I’ll take a look at the spreadsheet.
Hi tallbloke
Is there any chance of a north and south split.
Sure, I’ll email you the data.
The link vividly show that the injection come from the spot, from the highly radioactive matter. Each spot is a giant plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass and density. Violent thermonuclear bombardment through the shell produces periodic concentration of the super heavy nuclear matter within the spot interior. We able to see results only – wonderful flare or giant protuberance of the demolished super heavy nuclear matter, without the spectral data. I’m sure the spectral data is prohibited for the publication. Of course the spectral data can destroy all old teaching on “hydrogen-helium ball”.
http://www.space.com/10965-monster-solar-flare-sun-photo.html
All the best
Kakha