This is a major new paper published in the March issue of prestigious journal ‘Solar Physics’ by solar-planetary theorists Ken McCracken, Jurg Beer and Friedhelm Steinhilber, which makes a newer and more extensive analysis of planetary motion in relation to the Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10 Glactic cosmic ray proxies than the 2400 yr Hallstat cycle study we looked at yesterday. The paper has been in the works a long time (submitted in July 2012), achieving final acceptance in late February this year. I can’t make the whole paper available due to copyright restrictions, but the abstract gives a clue as to the content. I’ve added one of the figures up to help convey some of the more important results. I’ve also appended the bibliography, as this isn’t part of the paper’s main text, it’s great to see Geoff Sharp and Ian Wilson getting citations. We can discuss other parts of their paper in comments. Boy is Martin Rasmussen going to look stupid in the future, by axing PRP for publishing our solar-planetary special edition.
Evidence for Planetary Forcing of the Cosmic Ray Intensity and Solar Activity Throughout the Past 9400 Years
K.G. McCracken · J. Beer · F. Steinhilber
Received: 10 July 2012 / Accepted: 22 February 2014
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract
Paleo-cosmic-ray (PCR) records based on cosmogenic 10Be and 14C data are used to study the variations in cosmic-ray intensity and solar activity over the past 9400 years. There are four strong correlations with the motion of the Jovian planets; the probability of occurring by chance being <10−5. They are i) the PCR periodicities at 87, 350, 510, and 710 years, which closely approximate integer multiples of half the Uranus–Neptune synodic period; ii) eight periodicities in the torques calculated to be exerted by the planets on an asymmetric tachocline that approximate the periods observed in the PCR; iii) the maxima of the long-term PCR variations are coincident with syzygy (alignment) of the four Jovian planets in 5272 and 644 BP; and iv) in the time domain, the PCR intensity decreases during the first 60 years of the ≈172 year Jose cycle (Jose, Astron. J. 70, 193, 1965) and increases in the remaining ≈112 years in association with barycentric anomalies in the distance between the Sun and the center of mass of the solar system. Furthermore, sunspot and neutron-monitor data show that three anomalous sunspot cycles (4th, 7th, and 20th) and the long sunspot minimum of 2006 – 2009 CE coincided with the first and second barycentric anomalies of the 58th and 59th Jose cycles. Phase lags between the planetary and heliospheric effects are ≤five years. The 20 largest Grand Minima during the past 9400 years coincided with the latter half of the Jose cycle in which they occurred. These correlations are not of terrestrial origin, nor are they due to the planets’ contributing directly to the cosmic-ray modulation process in the heliosphere. Low cosmic-ray intensity (higher solar activity) occurred when Uranus and Neptune were in superior conjunction (mutual cancellation), while high intensities occurred when Uranus–Neptune were in inferior conjunction (additive effects). Many of the prominent peaks in the PCR Fourier spectrum can be explained in terms of the Jose cycle, and the occurrence of barycentric anomalies.
References
Abreu, J.A., Beer, J., Ferriz-Mas, A., McCracken, K.G., Steinhilber, F.: 2012, Is there a planetary influence on solar activity? Astron. Astrophys. 548, A88. DOI.
Beer, J., McCracken, K., von Steiger, R.: 2012, Cosmogenic Radionuclides: Theory and Applications in the Terrestrial and Space Environments, Springer, Berlin. ISBN 978-3-642-14650-3.
Beer, J., McCracken, K.G., Abreu, J., Heikkila, U., Steinhilber, F.: 2011, Cosmogenic radionuclides as an extension of the neutron monitor era into the past: potential and limitations Space Sci. Rev.. DOI.
Cameron, R.H., Schüssler, M.: 2013, No evidence for planetary influence on solar activity Astron. Astrophys. 557A, 83C. DOI.
Charvatova, I.: 2000, Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion. Ann. Geophys. 18, 399.
Cliver, E.W., Siscoe, G.L.: 1994, History of the discovery of the solar wind. EOS 75, 139.
Dicke, R.H.: 1978, Is there a chronometer hidden deep in the Sun. Nature 276, 676.
Eddy, J.A.: 1976, The Maunder Minimum. Science 192, 1189.
Fairbridge, R.W., Shirley, J.H.: 1987, Prolonged minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion. Solar Phys. 110, 191. DOI.
Gleeson, L.J., Axford,W.I.: 1968, Solar modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays. Astrophys. J. 154, 1011 – 1026. DOI, ADS.
Jokipii, J.R.: 1991, Variations of the cosmic-ray flux with time. In: Sonett, C.P., Giampapa, M.S., Mathews, M.S. (eds.) The Sun in Time, Univ. Ariz. Press, Tucson, 205.
Jose, P.D.: 1965, Sun’s motion and sunspots. Astron. J. 70, 193. Kelvin, W.T.: 1892, Presidential address to Roy. Soc. (London). Nature 47, 109.
Lal, D.: 1987, 10Be in polar ice: data reflect changes in cosmic ray flux or polar meteorology. Geophys. Res. Lett. 14, 785.
Livingston, W.C., Penn, M.J.: 2009, Are sunspots different during this sunspot minimum? EOS 90, 257.
McCracken, K.G., McDonald, F.B., Beer, J., Raisbeck, G., Yiou, F.: 2004, A phenomenological study of the long-term cosmic ray modulation, 850 – 1950 AD. J. Geophys. Res. 109, A12103. DOI.
McCracken, K., Beer, J., Steinhilber, F., Abreu, J.: 2011, The heliosphere in time. Space Sci. Rev. DOI.
McCracken, K.G., Beer, J., Steinhilber, F., Abreu, J.: 2013, A phenomenological study of the cosmic ray variations over the past 9400 years, and their implications regarding solar activity and the solar dynamo. Solar Phys. 286, 609. DOI.
McDonald, F.B.: 1998, Cosmic ray modulation in the heliosphere. Space Sci. Rev. 83, 33.
McDonald, F.B., Webber, W.R., Reames, D.V.: 2010, Unusual time histories of galactic and anomalous cosmic rays at 1 AU over the deep solar minimum of cycle 23/24 Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L18101.
Parker, E.N.: 1958, Dynamics of the interplanetary gas and magnetic fields. Astrophys. J. 128(3), 664.
Parker, E.N.: 2000, The physics of the sun and the gateway to the stars. Phys. Today 53, 26.
Peristykh, A.N., Damon, P.E.: 2003, Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the past ∼12,000 years: evidence from cosmogenic isotopes. J. Geophys. Res. 108(A1), 1003. DOI.
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Ramsey, C.B., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeye, C.E.: 2009, Intcal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0 – 50,000 years Cal Bp. Radiocarbon 51, 1111.
Schrijver, C.J., DeRosa, M.L., Title, A.M.: 2002, What is missing from our understanding of long-term solar and heliospheric activity? Astrophys. J. 577, 1006.
Sharp, G.J.: 2013, Are Uranus and Neptune responsible for solar grand minima and solar cycle modulation? Int. J. Astron. Astrophys. 3, 260. DOI.
Solanki, S.K., Schüssler, M., Fligge, M.: 2002, Secular variation of the Sun’s magnetic flux. Astron. Astrophys. 383, 706.
Sonett, C.P.: 1984, Very long solar periods and the radiocarbon record. Rev. Geophys. 22, 239.
Steinhilber, F., Abreu, J.A., Beer, J., McCracken, K.G.: 2010, The interplanetary magnetic field during the past 9300 years inferred from cosmogenic radionuclides. J. Geophys. Res. 115, A01104. DOI.
Steinhilber, F., Abreu, J.A., Beer, J., Brunner, I., Christl, M., Fischer, H., Heikkilä, U., Kubik, P.W., Mann, M., McCracken, K.G., Miller, H., Miyahara, H., Oerter, H., Wilhelms, F.: 2012, 9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109. DOI.
Stuiver, M., Quay, P.D.: 1980, Changes in atmospheric carbon-14 attributable to a variable Sun. Science 207, 11.
Usoskin, I.G., Mursala, K., Kovaltsov, G.A.: 2002, Lost sunspot cycle in the beginning of the Dalton Minimum – new evidence and consequences. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 2183. DOI.
Usoskin, I.G., Mursala, K., Arit, R., Kovaltsov, G.A.: 2009, A solar cycle lost in 1793 – 1800: early sunspot observations resolve the old mystery. Astrophys. J. Lett. 700, L154.
Wang, Y.-M., Lean, J., Sheeley, N.R.: 2002, Role of a variable meridional flow in the secular evolution of the Sun’s polar fields and open flux. Astrophys. J. Lett. 577, L53.
Webber,W.R., Higbie, P.R.: 2010, What Voyager cosmic ray data in the outer heliosphere tells us about 10Be production in the Earth’s polar atmosphere in the recent past. J. Geophys. Res. 115(A5), A05102. DOI, ADS.
Wilson, I.R.G.: 2006, Possible evidence of the de Vries, Gleissberg and Hale cycles in the Sun’s barycentric motion. Proc. Austral. Inst. Phys. Paper 625.
Wilson, I.R.G., Carter, B.D., Waite, I.A.: 2008, Does a spin-orbit coupling between the Sun and the Jovian planets govern the solar cycle. Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 25, 85.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
This is the kind of research we need more of. Great.
Oh Noes! Looks like a lot of Leif’s colleagues have become ‘barycentrists’. What now Watts? 🙂
I will second that!
I *thought* I heard a popping sound… probably a certain “solar expert’s” head exploding ;). And by the way, Martin Rasmussen already looks stupid :).
2,500,000 views and 50,000 comments. The talkshop is rocking along nicely despite the ostracism of the California dreamers and the Göttingen book burners.
http://www.medicallegend.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1739
“Many of the prominent peaks in the PCR Fourier spectrum can be explained in terms of the Jose cycle, and the occurrence of barycentric anomalies.”
Nothing can be “explained” as is told above. Data does show a correlation and it does not even prove A is causing B or B is causing A since C (an undiscovered factor) might cause both A and B.
I am pretty allergic to the common use of “explain” in this context in articles that pretend to have a scientific quality.
Hans, that’s just the abstract.
It is worth comparing the loss of ozone in the Southern Hemisphere and geomagnetic field. Ice growth too is the largest of side of the Atlantic.
Hans Jelbring March 25, 2014 at 6:04 pm. There’s a difference between “can be explained” and “proven”. If you can’t say that something can (as in “may”) be explained, then there’s no point in doing any science, or showing any correlations. Instead of useless semantics, why not be constructive and tell us why this paper, in your view, only “pretends” to have scientific qualities?
Tallbloke can paste graphics.
[Reply] Thanks ren, I doubt Springer will hunt you down. 😎
@ ren
Shi-Hub is for personal study not for blog…
😉
Ren, I think the configuration (magnetic excursions) of the magnetic field of the earth as well as the strength plays a role in some other areas, one being the location on the earth where galactic cosmic rays will be directed the most.
The further South galactic cosmic rays are directed due to the earth’s magnetic field configuration the greater impact they may have in the formation of clouds. Reason being the nuclei via the galactic cosmic rays would have more moisture to work with thus being more effective in the formation of clouds.
More low clouds equates to colder temperatures.
High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.
One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.
Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.
These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward
[…] McCracken Beer & Steinhilber: Evidence for Planetary Forcing of the … […]
The magnetic field’s role in climate is being greatly ignored in my opinion, especially by mainstream which totally ignores it.
Ren , as well as myself has shown the magnetic field plays a role.
One item that has my attention is I wonder by how much the galactic cosmic ray concentrations in space in the vicinity of earth vary amongst the many prolonged solar minimum periods the sun has had in the past?
I then say the degree of magnitude increase in galactic cosmic rays during a given prolonged solar minimum must vary for each solar minimum, therefore have differing climatic effects.
This is then compounded or minimized by the given strength of the earth’s magnetic field during a given prolonged solar minimum.
The possibilities and combinations are endless from these examples to the given beginning state of the climate which I posted about in detail on the third most recent article that has come out over this site.
I meant to say the earth’s magnetic field, in the first sentence of my previous post.
See the ozone at 5 hPa. You can see similar shift as 10 hPa.
I am of the opinion that weak solar/earth magnetic fields equate to a colder climate how cold depends on some of the other factors that have been discussed of late over this site.
I have a “authors personal copy” of the paper which has been a long time coming. I would not be surprised if someone we know had a hand in stalling this paper.
In summary the paper is almost a re write of my paper and hopefully it will start a new round of real investigation by science that so far has been sadly lacking. The main thrust is the barycentric anomaly (or AMP event as I have been calling it) that coincides with all solar grand minima. There are no models or missing data or weaknesses that the opposition can jump on…just one planetary alignment and a Holocene worth of grand minima.
Anthony Watts has already commented on twitter that he wont be reviewing this paper or mine, he should be afraid because the data is so strong. I urge as many people as possible to pressure Watts on this issue. His day is coming.
The graph used at the head of this article is probably the worst example in the paper and probably wrong. I have found a 340 year glitch in the Dendrochronology record around -2800 that probably needs to be applied to Ken’s graph. http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/323
I have asked Ken if there is a full copy of the paper available without copyright restrictions but suspect he is flying over the pacific right now.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/325
Such differences of ozone inside the Arctic Circle polar vortex anomalies cause.
Due to the magnetic field effective modifies the polar vortex.
Hi Geoff,
I had to post in a hurry between finishing work and getting 300 campaign leaflets through letter boxes. Sorry the choice of figure isn’t to your liking.
Watts site is ok for a laugh on the posts about warmist antics. I wouldn’t worry about not getting a review there. Those Californicated dimwits wouldn’t know what pioneering science looked like if it thwacked them round the head with a 4×2.
Rog: Ken McCracken and his team have finally got their results out in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a great day for those who propose that a phenomenon associated with configuration of the planets controls the long term variation in the level of solar activity. A lot of what Ken McCracken has to say in this paper really just confirms many of the conclusions in Geoff Sharp’s paper – so we should campaign to ensure that those in the “scientific main-stream” recognize Geoff’s pioneering work in this area.
Geoff: As with any scientific mystery there are usually more than one theory that is proposed to explain a particular phenomenon. In this spirit, I would like to point out to the wider audience on this blog, how my theory differs from those of yours, Geoff. I will use a few of your summary points posted at your blog to highlight these differences.
[Geoff: I am highlighting these differences to show others that there are competing theories to the pure Barycentric model that you and Ken McCracken propose. I have great respect for the excellent work you have done and I recognize that there is a good possibility that your theory might prove correct in the long run. However, all good science centres around a competition between differing models, theories and ideas. It is in this spirit that I write the following in response to the summary points of your theory.]
Geoff’s POINT 1: Both papers agree that the Jose Cylce is now 172 years instead of 178.
Ken McCracken and you are correct in pointing out that the repetition period in the Solar angular momentum about the centre-of-mass of the solar system is ~ 172 years. However, I believe that:
a) the 178 year Jose cycle is a repetition period for the relative configuration of the planets where as the
172 year period is a repetition period for the Sun’s angular momentum around the centre-of-mass of the solar system
b) what you are both seeing is an arithmetic average of the 164.8 year orbital period of Neptune
and the true Jose Cycle length of 178.7 years.
(164.8 + 178.7) / 2 = 171.75 years
Geoff’s POINT 2: Both Papers agree that the AMP event is responsible for solar grand minima.
I believe that the relative configuration of the solar planets and the resulting variation in the Sun’s
angular momentum about the centre-of-mass of the solar system just acts as a timing clock that is linked to a separate mechanism that is really responsible for the variations in the level of the Sun’s surface magnetic activity. Of course, I am referring to the Venus-Earth-Jupiter-(Saturn) Spin-Orbit Coupling model.
Geoff’s POINT 3: Both papers agree that the 208 year De Vries cycle is a result of fluctuations of the 172 year cycle.
The 208 year cycle is the synodic product of the following two time periods associated with the VEJ planetary configurations:
a) the time it takes Jupiter to re-synchronize with the Penta-synodic Venus-Earth Alignment cycle and also with respect to the stars:
2 X 575.518 yr = 1151.0 years
b) the 22.38 yr period for the VEJ tidal-torquing model and 19.859 yr period for the gear effect
(22.38 × 19.859)/(22.38 − 19.859) = 176.30 yr.
Hence:
(1151.0 × 176.30)/(1151.0 − 176.30) = 208.2yr
I agree with Ian Wilson that Geoff Sharp should be recognized for this work.
This paper uses Geoff’s ideas.
However, it is important to realize that any function of the planets is modulated more or less by the same harmonics. Only the amplitude of the harmonics changes and may be more or less extended.
Many of these harmonics can be found in the barycentric movements. For example see my analysis in Figure 4A
Scafetta, N., 2014. The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system. Pattern Recognition in Physics 2, 1-19.
Click to access prp-2-1-2014.pdf
Here Jose harmonic is shown be the basis of most sub-harmonics of the planetary movements
see Figure 4B.
However, similar harmonics are found also among the tidal harmonics and some are complementary to those of the barycentric motion. As also explained in my paper.
About Steinhilber record it was extensively analyzed in Figure 3B in
Scafetta N., and R. C. Willson, 2013. Planetary harmonics in the historical Hungarian aurora record (1523–1960). Planetary and Space Science 78, 38-44.
Click to access Scafetta_Willson_2013_Aurora_PSS.pdf
and it shows clear sign of multiple planetary harmonics. Compare with the above two figures.
And in figure 4A
Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.
Click to access ATP3581.pdf
It is good that Solar Physics have now dismissed Leif who blocked my papers years ago.
(I am still waiting that Anthony responds my question about whether Leif could serve as a fair referee of my papers)
Only negative point of the paper is personal. They have again ignored my published works despite my analysis of Steinhilber record that is consistent with some of their results.
But it is good to get these paper out.
To make this all work, you will have to consider the existence of “dark matter/dark energy” or Aether. Examinations of the behavior of light by Morley a hundred years ago demonstrated that light behaved as if it were traveling in a gas packed to 10,000 psi. A background energy pressure of 10,000 psi! Like a fish in the ocean we perceive fields in the medium but not the medium itself. Something is out there that is the carrier of EMF and Gravity, Something that demonstrates Mass/Inertia effects to impede acceleration and maintain momentum.
Various savants opine that their measured energies are too weak to cause these effects but they don’t recognize the existence of the overall field only the fluctuations in the fields that they can measure.
In manipulation of EMF, large fields are controlled by the use of small fields that work with or against them. When the “circuits” are in balance, very small control energies can accomplish great work.
The argument is that the sun is in free-fall and therefor can not be effected by shifts in solar system center of gravity! that is patently ridiculous. The Sun has tremendous mass/inertia and size, every part of it is effected differently from every other part based on the distance and direction to the Barycenter. The planets circle within the “Atmosphere” of the Sun, thin though it might be. Still it exists and its’ density varies over time, The energies blasted out of the sun also varies as well.
Gravity? we can measure it, sort of, but the science has not advanced much since Newton and he just wrote down what others had taught him. Einstein got lost in the study of light after starting out to solve the question of what gravity was. No advancement has taken place because of the cul-de-sac of rejection of the existence of Aether that took place a hundred years ago.
There ain’t nothing in space! Space is packed full of something. pg
Thanks Ian and Nicola, I have only noticed a correlation that seems strong, but there is ample opportunity for your ideas to mesh with the AMP event, especially a mixture of tide torquing, spin orbit coupling, magnetic connection and barycentric movement.
But it seems clear to me that following a strict cyclic approach to solar output is open to criticism, there are rough cycles in the gas giants when looking at all four but they move around according to the natural differences in their orbits. The 178.8 Jose cycle does not work past a few hundred years, and the reason why is what explains the differing strengths of all grand minima. The planet angles are always different, so as far as solar path is concerned it will be very different each time Uranus and Neptune come together, BUT there is a very close repeating pattern every 4627.25 years.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/323
The 208 year cycle is in fact not a cycle at all, but just a most common gap between grand minima. Very few understand this concept, but every 172 years and average of 3 AMP events occur, each one will be of different strength and not always capable of producing grand minima (SC20). Over the Holocene most AMP events are weak.
The McCracken team made several mentions of my work in their paper, its good to see another stream of research come to the same conclusions.
p.g.sharrow says: March 26, 2014 at 4:03 am
“There ain’t nothing in space! Space is packed full of something.”
I will remember the first sentence!
There is an alternative explanation to the Michelson – Morley experiment result.
Agree, It is time to revive the old aether concept again. A pointer is to investigate the structure of a photon. From where and how are they created? We know that they are individuals since they can be counted.
Nicola,
I agree, McCracken et al. should have also refer to some of the outstanding and ground breaking work that you have been doing on this topic. The “main-stream” scientists seem to have inexplicable blind spots when it comes to citing other people’s [both lay and professional] work and sometimes that extends to professional scientists like yourself.
Geoff,
You cite the following graph of the distance of the Sun from the Barycentre:
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/323
It shows three segments of time each separated by 4627.25 years – i..e the grand planetary realignment cycle. The segments extend over:
-8082 to -7482
-7455 to -2855
+1172 to +1772
The Sun’s distance from the Barycentre repeats almost perfectly over these time intervals.
However, the data also shows that there are three trident like peaks (each separated from the other by ~ 38 years) in the distance of the Sun from the Barycentre. If you compare the same fork on each of these three tridents, they are precisely separated by ~ 179 year.
Isn’t this just the 178.7 year Jose cycle?
PG and Hans: The Michelson-Morley experiment often quoted as a null result for Aether was in fact not a null result, just a weak one. Dayton Miller got the same result in the same concrete basement. When he moved his larger and better interferometer to the top of Mt Wilson, he got stronger positive results: Anisotropy in the speed of light from different directions; since replicated using modern equipment by Yuri Galaev in 2002.. From his results Miller calculated a speed for the Aether which was close to the currently accepted speed for the solar system through interstellar space. I have been in trouble for this article ever since I published it three years ago:
Ian,
This is what Jose saw and it is over a very short period. Because the outer 4 almost come back to the same position every 4267 years we are just seeing the same pattern but shifted 4627 years. Ken found the same in his parallel research.
If you pick any solar system orrey and watch the outer 4 each 172 years you can see Jupiter and Saturn moving in relationship to the U/N conjunction significantly, this movement is crucial and is what makes every AMP event different. The LIA was a unique period of AMP events that is repeated every 4267 years but will probably move out of phase eventually, but this movement of J/S in relationship to U/N is the key. It is the shape of the Holocene proxy record.
So there is no short term (>4627 years) repeating pattern of the outer 4, but the average centre of the AMP groups is 172 years. So there is really not even a 172 year cycle, only an average.
[Mod note] I think Geoff means <4627 years.
You could say the Jose cycle is modulated over the 4627yr ‘grand cycle’. Similarly, the De Vries cycle is modulated over the Halstatt cycle, as noted by Vasiliev and Dergachev
Yes…sorry for the typo’s…daughter bugging me for dinner. The close repeat should be 4627 years and the reference symbol should be “less than” 4627.
Thanks Geoff. Oldbrew and I have a bit more to say about the 4627yr ‘grand syzygy’ in a post we have been drafting for a week or so. Enjoy your dinner.
‘Space is packed full of something. pg’
Yes – otherwise the solar wind is a fiction and astronauts don’t need radiation protection, for one thing.
http://www.universetoday.com/108728/can-a-mega-magnetic-field-protect-astronauts-from-radiation/
All this is rather academic unless science can show existence of a direct link to a reliable climate record.
Rog had a
post at Christmas 2010 implying that such link indeed could exist.
tallbloke says: March 26, 2014 at 7:31 am
Rog,
What heresy! Just be greatful you haven´t been burnt yet. Thanks for the information.
This should be a priority field to investigate.
@Hans; you mite want to read my description of Aether and sub atomic particles:
as well as those in the comments.
To continue my examination of the causes of mass/inertia and gravity it was necessary to reexamine everything that I had learned about physics and do a rewrite of theory rather then a patch job on old theories. Not sure of how valid my point of view is, but it is useful to me. pg
Hans Jelbring (March 25, 2014 at 6:04 pm)
commented about “explained”
The statistical definition appears intended. In cross-disciplinary communications I suggest we extend the same courtesies we would extend in cross-language conversations. In a politically charged context like the climate discussion, it just ends up looking like disrespectful-waste-of-everyone’s-time shameless distortion artistry otherwise.
Nicola Scaffeta, Ian Wilson, and Geoff Sharp are all on the correct path when it comes to what modulates the sun, which will then have ramifications for the climate.
Again to what degree will those ramifications be ,the million dollar question.
I can easily conceive different climatic results from similar prolonged minimum solar periods.
Besides the all important beginning state of the climate ,another area that needs to be given attention are the evasive climatic thresholds which are out there, and impossible to know when one may or may not be triggered.
An analogy. Take a body of water with an atmosphere over it, and say the body of water has a beginning state of temperature (climate) of 5c, then due to very weak solar activity the body of water cools 4c to 1c.
The result is the body of water cooled due to weaker solar forcing ,but NO thresholds were reached and if we were a person from another planet we would NOT know that a threshold was lurking, which would be the freezing point of water.
Now if that same body of water had a beginning state of water temperature (CLIMATE) of 3c and cools 4c once again due to weaker solar forcing, this time a THRESHOLD is breached which is the state of water going from water to ice!
This would then lead to ramifications in the way of feedbacks for the atmosphere above the water which turned to ice ,which would be much different for the atmosphere over the water which remained water. Even though the same amount of solar forcing with the same impacts were present for the water.
However the different beginning states of temperature of the water (climate)and the fact a threshold was reached in one case and not another gives much different results for the body of water and the atmosphere above that body of water which turned to ice in contrast to the body of water which remained water..
I maintain this analogy applies to the climatic system of earth, therefore expecting x change in the climate from x change in solar is not going to result in the same x change in the climatic outcome.
For my two cents I think the state of the climate in comparison to the past 10000 years is fairly close to glacial conditions, not all that far away , which means a significant change in solar has the potential to have a fairly big climatic impact. I liken this period of climate to 1275 AD, which was when the Medieval Warm Period ended and the Little Ice Age started. I might add it started rather abruptly.
Now in contrast to 1275 AD the earth’s magnetic field is weaker, Milankovich Cycles are probably very slightly more favorable, the beginning state of the climate is cooler , all of which means the climate is as unstable today if not slightly more so then it in 1275 AD ,which means the climate is vulnerable to changes in solar activity.
To what degree is the million dollar question. I am confident however that the prolonged solar minimum period which started in earnest in year 2005 has a long way to go, and that the climate will be growing colder. The question is how much colder????
@ p.g.sharrow
What is a volcano ?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/22172242/suspected-mh370-debris-may-lie-above-undersea-volcanoes/
Ivanka Charvatova is not being duly credited. She was decades ahead of everyone else on U-N. Competent parties who look carefully will see the mathematical equivalence of what she wrote decades ago and recent remakes of her work. Reminds me of the music industry… The original work should be cited, not just recent remakes of it.
Uh-oh…[Reaches for crash helmet] 😎
Finally a site with no agenda. This is wonderful. Let us seek the truth when it comes to future solar activity and the impacts it will have on the climate.
CO2 I feel has no impact on the climate because it is a result of the climate not a cause for it.
Colder oceans will take CO2 out of the atmosphere which with all things being equal lessens the greenhouse gas effect and any potential water vapor /CO2 positive feedbacks.
Less evaporation would cause less convection which would have a warming effect, however in the tropics where most of the convection takes place I am of the opinion that the temperatures in that area of the globe would not be effected by global cooling ,they would remain the same.
In the areas most effective by global cooling those being N.H. land areas N.of 30 degrees lat. and oceans N./S. of 30 degrees lat. global cooling would cause less evaporation(but very small lesser amounts of evaporation) in those areas, which itself would impact convection very little ,due to the fact evaporation in those areas is low in contrast to the tropics, and convection to begin with in those ares of the globe is much less then it is in the tropics to begin with, which would mean the warming effect would be minimal due to convection changes, in contrast if this process would to take place in the tropics, where convection is much higher and changes in evaporation rates would be much greater IF the temperature of the oceans in that area should change due to a global cooling, but I contend the temperatures of the oceans in the tropical areas would be essentialy the same, nullyfying this effect.
Therefore the ghg effect would become less overall through oceanic cooling and less water vapor overall in the atmosphere , while not decreasing in the mid troposhere regions which would perhaps contribute to warming if it were to take place.
The upshot being the GHG effect due to cooling oceans overall(less co2 in atmosphere) and less water vapor in the atmosphere overall would become less as the energy coming into the climatic system decreased(via the sun), while the convection factor would be at least neutral.
p.g.sharrow says March 26, 2014 at 2:11 pm
Thanks. I will ponder about your suggestions during my vacation. My stomach feeling is that this topic should be examined thoroughly.
Paul Vaughan says: March 26, 2014 at 2:32 pm
It might be cultural and I might lack the English feeling for ambiogous semantics. In a scientific article I feel in my back bone that an “explanation” requires a result as a consequence of a cause.
It is far to common to show a correlation between two or several factors in scientific articles and tell something is “explanied”. Very often some relevant factors have been omitted or even worse, they haven´t been discovered yet. My remark was intended to put attention to that situation for those who are not aware that such an action is a “blinder” for some authors.
Sorry if you and others are offended.
tallbloke: Thanks for the nudge for me to get here from the other talkshop topic; this is the kind of pioneering science I have been looking for.
Paul Vaughan: Ivanka Charvatova indeed should be credited for pioneering barycentric research.
p.g.sharrow said: [To make this all work, you will have to consider the existence of “dark matter/dark energy” or Aether.]
I absolutely agree with you.
Vincent: Paul Vaughan: Ivanka Charvatova indeed should be credited for pioneering barycentric research.
McCracken et al cite this Charvatova paper:
Charvatova, I.: 2000, Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion. Ann. Geophys. 18, 399.
Charvatova herself tells us:
First I studied the SIM periodicity and in 1987 I came to survey the geometry of this motion. I discovered the solar motion can be classified into two elementary types. Motion along a trefoil-like trajectory governed by the Jupiter-Saturn order. And another motion type which is chaotic. This gave us a precise homogeneous basis, upon which it became possible to study the solar-terrestrial and climatic variability. You may find it comforting that no matter how the Sun wiggles, every 179 years it comes back to a regular trefoil path. It is important to note, that the periods of chaotic motion coincide with the long-term minima in solar activity such as the Wolf Minimum (1270-1350), Spörer Minimum (~1430-1520), Maunder Minimum (~1620-1710) or Dalton Minimum (~1790-1840). During the trefoil periods the ST-phenomena are stable – the sunspot cycles are 10 years long, volcanic activity is muted and in the middle of the trefoil period there is a temperature maximum down here on Earth.
If we look at Charvatova’s 1990 paper we find she did not specifically identify the Uranus-Neptune effect on the trefoil pattern, although she does state that they are under consideration along with Jupiter-Saturn at the start of the paper.
Geoff Sharp’s hypothesis is that specific alignments of U-N in relation to J-S are what produce the perturbations in the Solar Inertial Motion that cause the solar grand minima. This is the theme reiterated in McCracken’s paper. So Geoff deserves the citation he got as well as Charvatova for her 2000 paper. I think McC et al should have cited Charvatova 1990 too.
McCracken et al said: “Many of the prominent peaks in the PCR Fourier spectrum can be explained in terms of the Jose cycle, and the occurrence of barycentric anomalies.”
Hans Jelbring said: ” I might lack the English feeling for ambiogous semantics….It is far to common to show a correlation between two or several factors in scientific articles and tell something is “explanied”. “
Hans, They didn’t say it is explained. They said it can be explained. Perhaps they should have said ‘can potentially be explained’ to make it really clear that they are not making a strong claim yet.
To all,
My point is that the Sun’s Barycentric motion [which is really just a reflection of the relative orientation of the Jovian planets] is not the sole cause of variations in solar activity.
I explain in my PRP paper how the effects of the tidal forces of Venus, the Earth, combined with the GRAVITATIONAL forces of Jupiter i.e. the VEJ Tidal-Torquing model, are modulated by the Gear effect. The effectiveness of the Gear effect depends upon the way in which the the orientation of the Jovian planets affect the Sun’s distance from the Barycentre of the solar system (Note: I only address the effects of Jupiter and Saturn in my paper but it is obvious that Uranus and Neptune also play an important role).
In summary:
A) Barycentric model:
Orientation of the Jovian planets –> Sun’s Barycentric motion –> Solar Activity
B) Venus-Earth-Jupiter Spin-Orbit Coupling Model:
Orientation of the Jovian planets –> Sun’s distance from the Barycentre –> Effectiveness of the Gear Effect
that modulates –> Venus-Earth-Jupiter Tidal Torquing model –> Solar Activity
I believe that the difference that I am pointing out are more than just semantics.
Ian, absolutely! In my opinion, your combined SIM/tidal torquing model is the most complete orbital plane hypothesis yet proposed. I’m also hoping Ray Tomes will provide a paper on his Z-axis model so we can look at the possibilities for integrating it into the scheme.
The paper contains this curious passage in the conclusions:
“the supplementary material for Abreu et al. (2012) shows that the torque will contain a
term varying as R2b . This is clear from first principles: each planet orbits the barycenter,
and consequently the distance between the planet and the Sun [Rp] will vary in a periodic
manner with an amplitude of ±2 R superposed on that due to the orbital motion of the
planet. Clearly, the resulting percentage variation in Rp will be greatest for the planets
close to the Sun, and least for the Jovian planets. That is, while the Jovian planets determine
the time dependence of Rb, the variation in torque due to a planet’s motion about
the barycenter will be greatest for the planets that are close to the Sun.”
It looks like McCracken, Beer and Steinhilber believe the planets individually orbit the solar system barycentre!
It doesn’t affect their main findings, but I find this remarkable.
Also from the conclusions:
“Dicke (1978) asked the question whether there is a chronometer hidden deep in the Sun.
The empirical evidence assembled here suggests that the Jovian planets provide that clock.
However, the direct effect of the planets on the Sun is too weak. A physics-based internal
amplification mechanism remains to be identified.“
This is where they should have cited Scafetta’s hypothesis on the mass – luminosity relation published May 2012.
Or Wolff and Patrone 2010
One possibility I’m considering as a crude, first-order (aggregate) explanation for the 80 year translation symmetry of SAOD (stratospheric aerosol optical depth) tower clusters is the following:
(166)*(54) / (166 – 54) = 80
where 166 years is the longer JEV cycle and 54 years is how long it takes for the 18 year lunisolar cycle to cycle back to roughly the same geographic location.
A further elaboration on “explained”. Some word has to be used and that is simply the word that became conventional in Stats. This is not something that can easily be undone as it is taught this way in every introductory Stats course. Quite simply, some words have more than one meaning and this is one of them. Making clarifications about this is fine so long as it’s acknowledged clearly that the term has been used correctly if intended in the statistical sense.
Indeed I was referring to Charvatova’s earlier work on U-N, which I believe has been misinterpreted by some who have failed to recognize &/or acknowledge the mathematical equivalence of the index she used. The work can be traced back further than 1990. Earlier on Charvatova was publishing under what was presumably her maiden name. I do not see what is to be gained by pretending it was not Charvatova who did the pioneering work on U-N, but it’s clear what stands to be lost.
It’s worth also noting that the harmonic mean of 54 & 80 is 65.
I’m currently developing pilot animations of what Marcia Wyatt calls a “stadium” wave. The multidecadal climate waves are driven by the sun.
Some of the residual patterns pointed to SAOD and JEV 166, but I’m not finished sorting out my interpretations of those residual patterns. I don’t know if I’ll have time to finish, but I’m 100% confident that there’s something incredibly simple (about the symmetry) that’s being overlooked. (I sure wish I had more time & resources…)
By the way, I’ve long had a suspicion that aliasing by calendar months can make JEV 166 look like 124.5. I’ve never had time to pursue verification, but I mention this here in case someone else is inclined to check into this. The Talkshop is definitely not afraid of the type of work it takes to sort out such loose ends.
Regards
@Paul Vaughan wrote: It’s worth also noting that the harmonic mean of 54 & 80 is 65.
In another thread oldbrew and I mentioned the 65 years solar-lunar cycle; it was entered under Unidos in the literature and repeats, for 2470.2~ years, at nearly the same date in the Julian/Gregorian calendar.
Paul,
Are you referring to this 1986 Jakubcova paper?
RESONANCE FREQUENCIES IN THE SUN’S MOTION
V~CLAV BUCI-IA, IVANKA JAKUBCOV.~, MILO~ PICK
Click to access ivanka1986.pdf
Ian Wilson , what is your forecast for solar activity thru 2030? Thanks.
Some unknowns are how much does total solar irradiance vary, and what are all the secondary effects due this solar variance on the climate? How sensitive is the climate to solar variability? What possible thresholds are there?
Not easy to answer due to other variables which I have mentioned at length in previous post..
Nevertheless the sun is the main driver for the climate and has and always will impact the climate to varying degrees. A weak sun is going to cause cooling , an active sun warming , by how much is the question.
I think the earth’s magnetic field is being overlooked.
For me the answer to solving the climate mystery is to be able to state definitively the reasons and causes for all the abrupt climatic changes of the past, which no one has done including myself.
Magnetic Reversals and Glaciation
A small article that might be of interest on the climate versus earth magnetic effects. I think this is in the mix of the solar influence on the climate to some degree. How much I do not know.
Look at the time 20 years or less according to this article. Interesting.
Gothenburg magnetic reversal is said to have happened 12000 years ago. Is this tied into the Younger Dryas?
During highlighted magnetic reversals (or excursions), the climate descended from periods of warmth such as today’s into full-blown glaciation in less than twenty years. (kya = thousands of years ago)
•That there is a link between magnetic reversals and ice ages is undeniable.
•At least twelve magnetic reversals can be linked to glaciation during the last three million years alone.
•A magnetic reversal about three million years ago marked the onset of glaciation. A magnetic reversal about two million years ago marked the onset of glaciation. And yet another reversal about one million years ago marked the onset of glaciation.
•The Jaramillo magnetic reversal maked the onset of glaciation, as did the Brunhes magnetic reversal.
•The Biwa I, Biwa II, Biwa III, and Blake (at the end Eemian) magnetic reversals coincided with glaciation, and so did the Lake Mungo, Mono Lake, and Gothenburg magnetic reversals (or excursions).
•Many of those catastrophic cooling episodes, says Michael Rampino of NASA, may have actually been triggered by the magnetic reversal (or excursion).
Why should this concern us?
•One: We appear to be headed for another magnetic reversal right now. During the past 2000 years, magnetic field strength has fallen some 50 to 65 percent. Unfortunately, the rate of decline is picking up. Five percent of the decline has occurred during the last 100 years
There are two papers related to this idea not mentioned here:
1) The peaks in FFT spectrum are artifacts due to aliasing effect:
Poluianov & Usoskin, Critical Analysis of a Hypothesis of the Planetary Tidal Influence on Solar Activity, Solra Physics, v.289, pp.2333-2342, 2014 ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3547 )
2) The claimed periodicities do not exist in 10Be data 330 kyr ago, but they should if the planetary influence was a major driver.
A. Cauquoin et al., No evidence for planetary influence on solar activity 330 000 years ago, Astron. Aatrophys., 561, A132 (2014)
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2014/01/aa22879-13/aa22879-13.html
Ilya: Thanks for posting. We will take a look at both these papers.. please visit again to help us with your expertise.
Ilya, we already looked at the 330kyr paper and found some problems. Tell us what you think of the criticism:
With Dr. Usoskin commenting on this topic it is obvious we are making waves in Solar Physics.
If Planetary theory continues its path it will affect not only how the planets mesh with the Babcock/Leighton theory, but will also force the 14C guys to amend their timeline on the Holocene record.
There is an anomaly in the Dendrochronology and carbon dating method around 5000 years ago that the planetary alignments flesh out. If the theory is correct then we have a solid marker that allows the dating method to be calibrated. The 14C record is used to date the 10Be record so the ramifications continue, it also highlights it is impossible to rely on the dating process of ice cores over 330kyr years old.
I used Dr. Usoskins graph in my original work 5 years ago, and also recently to highlight the flaws in the dating method. Thanks Dr. Usoskin.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/323
“Making waves”
Good choice of words Geoff. 😉
Salvatore Del Prete says:
March 27, 2014 at 5:11 pm Look to the polarity for glaciation pulse. South polarity should yield greater cold in that area, also low atmospheric pressure. The strength and concentration of the field would intensify the effect. Magnetic lines of force through space have flow along them from south pole to north pole. This causes the Earths’ shape to be an oblate spheroid, egg shape, not symmetrical. . The atmosphere is also distorted. pg
@Ilya, your paper (peaks in FFT spectrum) states that the same source of the planetary coordinates are used as in the referenced A12 paper, and the source is clearly simulated, fictitious data which only by consensus can be taken as tolerable substitute for empirical evidence from The Difficult Road of permanent and actual observations (like we attempt for the weather in recent times).
But then, in your ultimate conclusion you state that: Thus, the proposed hypothesis of planetary influence on solar activity is not based on solid
empirical evidence. But the scientific formulation which includes the unpleasant factual basis can Not state More than: Thus, the proposed hypothesis of tolerably simulated planetary influence on solar activity is not based on your wished-for mathematical gung fu.Can you elaborate a bit on the mathematically tolerable width (hours? days? weeks? what?) of simulation coordinate hit/miss which is manageable by your analysis; TIA.
In these discussions role of electromagnetic forces is (I believe mistakenly) neglected despite the fact that the solar activity as we know it is mainly electromagnetic manifestation; in addition all the GCR related factors are also governed by the same forces.
Magnetic field of gas giants was discovered only in the recent decades, and we have no idea about their past stability. There is a little agreement among the geomagnetic scientists about strength and variability of our own planet’s magnetic dipole before the invention of Gauss magnetometer (1830s) or at best before 1600s when compass use became widespread.
TB, so far as I understand Ivanka had the result ~1988 or sooner and submitted papers. Papers communicating the result visually came out in 1988, 1989, & 1990 (the latter was subject to a lengthy reviewing delay). A few years later Fairbridge & a co-author put the visuals into words. (I can’t remember if they credited Ivanka and I don’t have time to dig to check.) Further down the road others recycled the idea without giving due credit.
– –
I need to retract what I said about 54 above. I was going on second hand knowledge — a bad idea and something I almost never do. I checked and discovered that that can’t be the source. Apologies to all. I’m exploring other possibilities.
Paul, I think Ivanka was in direct contact with Fairbridge. Read the interview I linked above.
@ Tallbloke,
Rog said: The paper contains this curious passage in the conclusions:
“the supplementary material for Abreu et al. (2012) shows that the torque will contain a
term varying as R2b . This is clear from first principles: each planet orbits the barycenter,
and consequently the distance between the planet and the Sun [Rp] will vary in a periodic
manner with an amplitude of ±2 R superposed on that due to the orbital motion of the
planet. Clearly, the resulting percentage variation in Rp will be greatest for the planets
close to the Sun, and least for the Jovian planets. That is, while the Jovian planets determine
the time dependence of Rb, the variation in torque due to a planet’s motion about
the barycenter will be greatest for the planets that are close to the Sun.”
Yes, Rog this a major major flaw!
This is factually incorrect and physically impossible!
a) The Terrestrial planets do not revolve around the centre-of-mass (CMS) of the solar system. Each terrestrial planet revolves around the centre of mass between itself and the Sun e.g. in the case of the Earth this is a point located ~ 500 km from the centre of the Sun.
b) If what they say is true, their would be an easily observable change in the size of the Sun over an 19.858 year period which IS NOT OBSERVED. This by itself rules out the notion that all the planets rotate around the Barycentre of the solar system.
c) Whoever has been telling them this has a very flawed knowledge of basic astronomy.
I have contacted Ken McCracken and asked him to correct this very flawed assumption before he lookes
foolish.
Ian & Rog, I did talk to Ken about this issue when we met, I thought he was convinced when he saw my plot that I used to dismiss the solarchord stuff, so maybe it was an oversight or the other authors disagreed?
Geoff: A back of fag packet calc tells me that if Earth orbited the SSB while the Sun did the same, we’d see an variation in TSI ranging from around 13.6W/m^2 to zero over the half period of the J-S synodic during a period of trefoil motion. This would be in addition to the annual 80W/m^2 swing due to Earth’s orbital eccentricity, and would surely be spotted by our TSI measuring instrumentation.
Maybe Scafetta and Willson could confirm it’s not there in the ACRIM data
TB, I read all of Ivanka’s papers years ago. I wasn’t referring to the 1986 paper. The Fairbridge+ paper was from 1994 or 1995.
Paul,
in the interview I linked, Ivanka says this:
“What made you study solar motion?
In the 1980s the director of our institute was academic Václav Bucha. At some conference abroad he met the renowned American geologist and climatologist Rhodes W. Fairbridge, who was currently studying solar motion along with J.H. Shirley from JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory), NASA, Pasadena. Mr. Bucha could smell important topics miles away, so we decided to research this too.
Did the world notice your discovery?
Even before my major discovery came, Prof R.W.Fairbridge contacted me after I published an article about SIM periodicity in Paris. It was published under my former name Jakubcová. He and J.H.Shirley published an article in Solar Physics at the very same time. R.W.Fairbridge wrote me a very friendly letter of praise. There was a communist dictatorship in Czechoslovakia in that time, so any post coming from the Capitalist West was inspected by censorship. Surely you can imagine what a fuss there was about this letter. Not only it had NASA on the envelope, but on top of that Prof Fairbridge mentioned in the letter, that he knew Prague because he had been here in 1968 during the Prague Spring at some Geology Conference. And he mentioned to have seen the “eastern visitors”, the tanks of the occupants invading Czechoslovakia. He and Jim Shirley were so excited at my trefoils that when they edited the Encyclopaedia of Planetary Sciences in the early 1990s they invited me to write the main article on “Solar Motion” there. I was the only author from the whole Eastern Block in that very Encyclopaedia. And I was the most cited one.
Did you two meet in person?
No, we did not. But we maintained very lively correspondence. He used to send me articles that were not available in my country. He also invited me to write an article to the Proceedings published on the occasion of his 80th birthday anniversary (published in the Journal of Coastal Research.)”
TB, what I always remember most from that interview is Ivanka asking, “Why me?!” The exasperation is palpable.
OK guys, I goofed. In trying to provide some physical intuition to a difficult subject, I went too far and got it wrong. Thank you for pointing it out. Don’t blame my co-authors- it was my mistake alone. I acknowledge that Geoff Sharp pointed it out to me, but other pressing matters ( I am an 80 year old who runs an 850 acre cattle breeding farm while not being a research worker) meant that I failed to correct it. Big mistake!
OK on the several comments about Dr. Charvatova. I agree entirely, and hence we cited her work, and acknowledged her coining of the terms “ordered” and “disordered” phases that we use. It is important that we always recognise the early pioneers of our modern work and thus our citations of Jose (of course); one of the more recent Fairbridge papers; Peristykh and Damon; Charvatova; Sonett, et al. And those who contributed greatly to the theoretical understanding and the cosmogenic data that our all the modern work uses- Parker; Gleeson and Axford; Stuiver and Quay-; Eddy, et al. And yes- there were accidental omissions too, to be corrected in future publications.
Thank you for your comments, and interest in our work. Obviously there will be disagreements. The statisticians will have great fun at our expense. Some of my professional colleagues are after my scalp. But somewhere down there in the data there are important truths. Yes- some of us think we can see those truths “through a glass, darkly”- but statistical proof and a robust, quantitative physical mechanism is what we need now. The new synthesis of 10Be data from 12 ice-cores and the most recent 14C record that we have used (Steinhilber et al (2012)) is the best that the world has had, by far, and hopefully they will give us the statistical evidence that we have all been seeking. Or they will point us in another direction. That’s science.
Ken: Thanks and welcome to the talkshop. The mark of a good scientist is one who can promptly admit errors. In any case, this one does no harm to the principal findings of your excellent paper. On the subject of recognition for pioneering efforts, we realise you can’t cite blog posts in peer reviewed literature. But you can in blog comments. I’d just like to draw your attention to this plot my co-blogger Tim Channon produced way back in early 2011 after the 2009 10Be based solar reconstruction was published by Steinhilber, Beer and Frohlich. Tim uses some clever software he wrote to find cycles in complex envelopes:
From this post:
Where he successfully replicated Lean’s 2005 TSI reconstruction to an R^2 of 0.99 from a combination of 7 cycles.
Please keep an eye on our blog and feel free to drop by with comments any time.
Here’s the full list of periods Tim’s software found in SBF 2009
Some very familiar numbers pop up, like 710yr and 1470 (bond cycle) 2200 (shorter Halstatt cycle)
period phase amplitude
9081.166 2.940 0.152
351.106 5.737 0.119
2196.850 5.343 0.098
206.887 0.162 0.096
979.331 4.017 0.096
104.844 0.645 0.083
500.983 5.391 0.077
175.919 2.308 0.065
91.405 2.176 0.061
709.062 2.773 0.059
230.298 1.378 0.058
86.316 1.644 0.053
87.573 0.595 0.049
134.065 0.715 0.045
97.948 1.884 0.045
182.269 1.408 0.043
1472.062 3.162 0.040
46.778 1.094 0.036
10.540 1.779 0.005
10Be & 14C records appear misinterpreted.
A spatiotemporal record is being interpreted as if strictly temporal. Spatiotemporal aggregation fundamentals are ignored, as if the problem is strictly temporal.
This has resulted in some severe cross-disciplinary misunderstandings.
r^2 goes arbitrarily high (effectively 100%) and the allocation of variance between components shifts qualitatively if spatial phase-reversals are not ignored.
Circulation is a factor in aggregation. This cannot be sensibly ignored.
I’ll be sending Tallbloke some animations today to encourage far more careful attention to spatial asymmetry.
Regards
Thanks TB. (You may wish to edit some of this out-it is a bit long) Tim Channon’s results are very interesting . You and your readers may be interested in a comparison of the periodicities > 40 years found individually in two separate 9400 year 10Be cores, and in the 14C data records It goes without saying that it contains all the “usual suspects”- as reported by innumerable investigators in the past- starting with de Vries (1962???); Stuiver; Sonett; Damon; and Uncle Tom Cobley et al. We, fifty years later, simply have the advantage of better data, and the insights provided by our forebears. This is the pre-publication version of Table 1 in McC et al (2014); as derived and given in greater detail in several tables in McC, Beer, Steinhilber and Abreu, “A Phenomenological Study of the Cosmic Ray Variations over the Past 9400 Years, and Their Implications Regarding Solar Activity and the Solar Dynamo”, Solar Physics, 2013. (Abstract given below)
Some explanations
(1) modulation potential (function, parameter) is a quasi-empirical measure of the degree to which the interplanetary magnetic fields have reduced the intensity of the galactic cosmic rays reaching Earth- more active Sun- stronger interplanetary fields- less cosmic rays- less 10Be and 14C. The effects of the changing geomagnetic dipole have been removed in the calculation of this parameter.
(2) The 9400 year record consists of 22 year average data, so the Nyquist period is 44 years, and periods <44 years are not computed.
(3) Q(14C) is the computed value of the production rate of 14C in the year it was produced. The variations in the 14C data obtained from tree-rings – usually written “delta 14C” – are typically 100 times smaller due to storage effects in the oceans (roughly equivalent to a low pass filter). A mathematical model of that process is used to compute Q(14C) from delta 14C.
THE TABLE.
The more prominent periodicities in years in the 10Be, 14C, and
modulation potential [Φ] data for the interval 40 – 9400 BP (assembled
from Tables 2,4,5, and 7 in McCracken et al, 2013) . Tc is the “consensus”
period: ΔT is the line resolution in years. All rows except the first two are
derived from a ≈ 9400 year record; those two are estimated using
shorter records resulting in the larger figure for the line resolution
(indicated by an asterisk).
10Be Q14C Φ Tc ΔT
65* 65* 66* 65* 2*
75* 74* 74* 74* 2*
86 88 87 87.3 0.4
104 105 104 104.5 0.6
129 130 130 129.8 0.9
≈145 150 150 148 1.3
207 208 208 208 2.4
231 232 232 232 3
349 351 351 350 7
498 517 508 510 15
710 705 710 708 28
975 978 974 976 53
1130 1125 1125 1126 71
1311 1298 1298 1301 96
1771 1783 1736 1768 174
2300 2320 2300 2310 304
Abstract of McCracken, Beer, Steinhilber and Abreu, Solar Physics (2013)
Two 9400-year long 10Be data records from the Arctic and Antarctic and a 14C
record of equal length were used to investigate the periodicities in the cosmic radiation incident
on Earth throughout the past 9400 years. Fifteen significant periodicities between 40
and 2320 years are observed in the 10Be and 14C records, there being close agreement between
the periodicities in each record. We found that the periodic variations in the galactic
cosmic radiation are the primary cause for periods 250 years. The spectral line for the Gleissberg (87-year) periodicity
is narrow, indicating a stability of ≈0.5 %. The 9400-year record contains 26 Grand
Minima (GM) similar to the Maunder Minimum, most of which occurred as sequences of
2 – 7 GM with intervals of 800 – 1200 years in between, in which there were no GM. The
intervals between the GM sequences are characterised by high values of the modulation
function. Periodicities <150 years are observed in both the GM intervals and the intervals
in between. The longer-period variations such as the de Vries (208-year) cycle have high
amplitudes during the GM sequences and are undetectable in between. There are three harmonically
related pairs of periodicities (65 and 130 years), (75 and 150 years), and (104
and 208 years). The long periodicities at 350, 510, and 708 years closely approximate 4, 6,
and 8 times the Gleissberg period (87 years). The well-established properties of cosmic-ray
modulation theory and the known dependence of the heliospheric magnetic field on the solar
magnetic fields lead us to speculate that the periodicities evident in the paleo-cosmic-ray
record are also present in the solar magnetic fields and in the solar dynamo. The stable,
narrow natures of the Gleissberg and other periodicities suggest that there is a strong “frequency
control” in the solar dynamo, in strong contrast to the variable nature (8 – 15 years)
of the Schwabe (11-year) solar cycle.
Ken: Thanks for sharing data. I’ve seen the papers referenced as I’m lucky enough to have had institutional access, but it’s great to see info normally tucked behind the paywall added to the sum of free knowledge for everyone to work with. Kudos to you.
Along with my co-researcher Stuart Graham, I’ve been working on the possibility that resonance is the long sought after physical mechanism which can potentially explain the correlations between planetary interaction periods and solar variability. Some of our observations along with my speculative ideas are contained in our special edition of the journal ‘Pattern Recognition in Physics axed in January by Copernicus (the Innovative Science un-Publisher), and now re-opened by chief editor Sid-Ali Ouadfeul. Although the journal was axed, Copernicus did not have the temerity to withdraw the papers, which are still available for open access download at their site here: http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Among them is a solar variability model by R.J. Salvador which may be of interest to you.
Dr. McCracken
I am normally skeptical of the 10Be data being an accurate representation of the solar activity on the account of factors: precipitation and more importantly the ‘leftover’ modulation by the Earth’s magnetic field.
I compared the Steinhilber’s solar spectrum with geopolar* magnetic spectrum as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoSolar.htm
the top graph shows superimposed spectra of geopolar dipole and solar magnetic field.
Considering limitations of the proxies based on the GCR’s cosmogenic nuclide production, there appears to be good agreement at the centennial rate.
The lower graph shows what happens if terrestrial spectrum is shifted by 1/65yr in the frequency domain; again, there is a relatively good agreement at the centennial rate of change.
Any comment will be appreciated.
* geopolar magnetic dipole – Korte CALS7k data: radial intensity Bn – Bs (at geomagnetic poles http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/polesfig1.jpg and http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/polesfig2.jpg )
Hi Vukcevic, You have every right to be sceptical. Stated differently, we have a real problem if people are not sceptical about these phenomena that are operating over much longer time scales than we have experienced in the “instrumental measurement” era. We have to think of all the nasties, and determine their effect before we use them. To answer your question…
(1) As you imply, both the 10Be and 14C vary as the geomagnetic field changes. Using the archeomagnetic record, we can compute the “geomagnetic cut-off rigidity” for times in the past, and from that compute the temporal variations of both radionuclides due to this cause. Snowball and Muscheler (2007) conclude that this effect is small. McC et al (2012) take the conservative position that “For longer periods (>500 years), the accuracy and temporal resolution of the archeomagnetic measurements cannot preclude some periodic variability”. See below.
(2) Climate change also affects both 10Be and 14C. For 14C (whose periods are probably the more reliable in an absolute sense) the expanding and shrinking extent of the polar ice caps during cold periods (eg., the Dalton and Maunder Minima) introduces variations into the storage (filtering) effects of the oceans. McC et al (2012) estimated that the “climate-driven” component of the Gleissberg periodicity (87 years) would be < 6% of the observed amplitude – that is- approx 94% of the observed amplitude is due to variations in the cosmic ray intensity out in space well removed from Earth- that is- directly under solar control.
In summary, taking both the geomagnetic and climate effects into account, Mc et al (2012) concluded….. “We found that the periodic variations in the galactic cosmic radiation are
the primary cause for periods 250 years”. (This statement applies to both 10Be and 14C)
In that light, your plot is very interesting and could quantify “minor” in the above statement . What are the units of both quantities on the Y axis. Are these amplitude or power spectra. In particular, do you have the percentage amplitudes of the spectral lines in the dipole strength for T > 500 years. That would allow us to compute the periodic changes in the geomagnetic cut-off rigidity (see (1) above), and from that, compute the amplitudes of the periodic variations in 10Be and 14C due to the secular changes in the geomagnetic field. That would be a very useful finding.
Ken
Dr. McCracken
Thank you kindly for your prompt and detailed reply. I will write few more details and forward to you. For spectral analysis I use method based on correlation factor (someone developed and we used in electroacustics, but it does a good job for any continuous stream of data with equidistant data points).
In the earlier Steinhilber’s paper there is a reference to temperature records (Dongge cave – China) which show similar comparison results
I’ve done a bit of work in the geomagnetic area, which if correct may highlight some further aspects of the current climate debate, but according to those in the know (e.g. Dr. Svalgaard et al) amounts to no more than numerology. I suppose that for the most of the time experts are correct.
Thanks again.
Ken McC: In that light, your plot is very interesting and could quantify “minor” in the above statement . What are the units of both quantities on the Y axis. Are these amplitude or power spectra. In particular, do you have the percentage amplitudes of the spectral lines in the dipole strength for T > 500 years. That would allow us to compute the periodic changes in the geomagnetic cut-off rigidity (see (1) above), and from that, compute the amplitudes of the periodic variations in 10Be and 14C due to the secular changes in the geomagnetic field. That would be a very useful finding.
Vuk: Thank you kindly for your prompt and detailed reply. I will write few more details and forward to you. For spectral analysis I use method based on correlation factor (someone developed and we used in electroacustics, but it does a good job for any continuous stream of data with equidistant data points).
Science advanced through courteous scientific debate at the talkshop. Gentlemen, you have made my day, thank you both.
Frequency analysis data on the Be10 and C12 proxies yields different sequences for different authors. In the interest of better “consensus” science a concordance of all of these frequency series would be useful, so that a recognized sequence can eventually be obtained. Out of idle curiosity I did a comparison of Tim Channon’s sequence above with the McCracken et al sequence, also given above. The match% column is the percentage difference between the Tc column (McCracken) and the “period” column (Channon).
The Lower Gleissberg (87.3), Upper Gleissberg (104.5), DeVries (208), are a match, and the Hallstatt (2310) is close (2196.85). There is a series of close matches between 230 and 980 years. The Jose cycle (179) is absent.
Tallbloke, could you give the original reference for Channon’s work?
Hi Pochas: With Tim’s work, what you see is what you get. He used the Steinhilber, Beer and Frohlich 2009 data, which is available online. Then he fed it into his own software, which processes the data, and works out the periods, phases and amplitudes.
It would be interesting to see how close the matches are with McCracken et al 2013 data.
As Ken said above, the 2013 data is the state of the art, and now confirms to a higher precision the correlations we saw in the data back in 2010.
The Planetary theory’s time has come. All the ‘astrologer’ and ‘numerologist’ jibes should now be withdrawn. We have been vindicated. As Ken also says in the paper, a physical mechanism is still to be defined and quantified, but the evidence is now strong enough to warrant the elevation of the hypothesis to the status of theory.
Hi Pochas. Very interesting. Your table shows that the agreement between Tim Channon’s periods and our “consensus” periods are absolutely as good as signal processing theory allows. That theory tells us that the line resolution ( half width) of a spectral peak is determined by the inherent line half width which is given by (T squared)/2L years, where L is the length of the data record and T is the period of the spectral line. Thus for a 9400 year data record, the uncertainty in the Gleissberg line (87 years) is 87×87/2×9400 = 0.40 years. (plus or minus). For the 600 year annual 10Be data we use for some of our work, that formula gives 6.3 years for the same periodicity because the data record is shorter. The fifth column in our table, delta T , gives these half widths in years. Expressing them as percentages of the line period, they are all greater than the percentages you compute. Which is what theory says it should be. We cannot expect better agreement. As you can see from the formula, the half widths increase rapidly as T increases. So when comparing periods computed by different people, look very carefully at the length of the data record, and the period itself. And don’t even try to seek periods if the data record is shorter than four times the period you are wanting to find ( we are at that limit for the Halstatt period in our 9400 year data record). Some of the lines in Tim’s table that are not in ours are probably (not checked) modulation sidebands (Sonett, Damon, Ian Wilson ), where the longer periods associated with the Grand Minima (>500y) have resulted in amplitude modulation of the <200 y lines such as the Gleissberg (87y) and the 104y line.
TB- lets not be too cocky yet. It will be a long hard road. Old habits die hard. It is very important that we do not "over-sell" it yet . Perhaps- just perhaps- there is some other explanation. The challenge remains to continue to test the hypothesis to our utmost ability, and I welcome all contributions to that end.
Ken: A fair admonition, but I also think it’s fair at this stage that those who call us rude names should offer equally good alternative hypotheses or mind their manners a bit more carefully. 🙂
Did you spot the other C14 paper I posted the day before yours?
Their analysis of the ‘ modulation sidebands’ is rather interesting. They are working with an older C14 reconstruction, but it’s still worth a look to contrast Russian thinking with our own. Direct pdf link: http://www.ann-geophys.net/20/115/2002/angeo-20-115-2002.pdf
Their fig 3 is where the action is:
Yes TB. I know it well. There is a lot of good thinking scattered through the literature. I just forgot to mention it off the top of my head. It is an interesting exercise to look at all the smaller lines in McC et al Solar Physics 2013) and see how many (lots) lines up with predicted sideband. I might get it written up some day.
Ken
Ken: As a Historian of science I’d like to build a database with a comprehensive planetary theory literature bibliography. Maybe that’s something I could email you about?
I’ve not been paying much attention to the blog recently, too much else going on, some of which will I hope appear to great surprise.
The transform on the SBF2009 haunts me, not at all happy that the result is useful.
As time has progress I am increasingly distrustful of data, from a low base. In this case on a variety of counts, including the poor data timeline. A lot of background here on why, best not name names.
Assuming the data is valid: –
I expect there is a lot of modulation therefore there is non-linearity in one or more related processes.
Usually with these analysis I use novel software which approximates Fourier transform or similar with the twist this is non-discrete, with a number of useful properties for post processing. Whilst this can handle irregular sampling it’s often not very satisfactory, also rather incomplete on development.
Whilst automatic is fine for many uses interactive guided is needed for very detail work, done in conjunction with conventional windowed DFFT. Technique here is tell it to go “knock out” a specific item, which mean lock to it and subtract. Working on residual this uncovers conventionally hidden items, go get rid of that too. Etc. A point here is that multiple items in a conventional DFT “bin” might be identified. This is a matter of heuristics and ambiguous situations, pushing past what is conventionally possible. But I can’t prove it is right. If useful to me, good. Publishing is a different matter.
I mentioned useful properties. One is the production of a written out numerical synthesizer where a live version is design for spreadsheet import.
It is possible to include modulation, a variety of schemes are implemented. Experience suggests that these are rarely useful. There was a wish to continue development, one of those heavy bite-the-bullet and rewrite the core (which is high speed) to included a matrix of interconnections. This is the goal for meaningful analysis of eg. solar. This would implement arbitrary modulation, including using external stimulation data. Given my age, health and finances, I doubt it.
Okay, looking on disk lets show something, assume junk. (don’t know the parentage)
No modulation.
Here I have switched off all but 3 generators, fastest item is 200y. (see enable row)
have fun, bundled .ods (original) and exported portable .xls
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/sbf-2009-a.zip
Expect I’ll regret showing this. 🙂
Tim : Very nice, thanks! I think you meant ‘active’ row rather than ‘enable’, row 19 on the ‘synth’ sheet.
Some day, when our theory has gained acceptance, we will be able to assist in the recalibration of the proxy data by using the well defined planetary periods…
Yes, active.
It is permissible to change
fs, — sample rate, in this case 0.2 is 1 / 0.2 which is 5 years per output point
origin — is obvious
In this case you will want to replot. Lots of things can be done. For example it is perfectly valid to drop an irregular timeline into column A. (fs sets the A column step size, all very simple)
Plenty there to get you into a pickle. Go outside of the input dataset range for extreme dodgyness. Nothing whatsoever has been done on predictive ability.
The results are dubious. This can be seen by looking at recent time. A toy.
[…] McCracken Beer & Steinhilber: Evidence for Planetary Forcing of the Cosmic Ray Intensity and Sol… […]
TC, thanks for sharing. I have lots of dubious results in this area. The graphs below are interesting but would never stand up to cross examination. I have curve fits to 2000 (r^2=0.82) and 4000 (r^2=0.61) years of Steinhilber updated dTSI using the frequencies of the VEJ and Spin orbital coupling theory plus the Uranus one quarter. I modulate using them using the one half and twice Hallstatt cycle frequency plus the Jose cycle. I have clearly tweaked the elephants trunk and jumped the shark and any other expression you can think of. I made a fit using a 22 year trailing average of the correlation to the interpolated data. I interpolated the data with a straight line between data points to provide yearly data. While it is based on solar planetary modulated thinking, I only put it forward to stimulate thought. If I could get a stable fit to 9000 years of data, now that might be exciting. But not yet.
Here are three graphs for 2000 year.
The fit
The prediction
The shape of the solar cycle with the dTSI
Here are three graphs for 4000 year
The fit
The prediction
The shape of the solar cycle
R.J.: Wow. Nice work and thanks for sharing the graphs. Can you tell us a bit more about how different this model is from the one you used to make your previous plots and predictions? From your description, it sounds like you’ve now restricted yourself to using modulating periods which are themselves well known planetary periods. That goes some way to dealing with those who scream about numbers of ‘free parameters’ Johnny von Neumann style…
TB: all the frequencies are taken from the VEJ and SOC theories of Ian Wilson as described in his paper in Copernicus and further clarified on his web page plus Spark’s one quarter Uranus and G. Sharp’s
2 times Hallstatt but calculated from Wilson’s 575.518 times 8 = 4604.144
The base frequencies are:
22.136 and 19.5234 from VEJ theory
22.38 and 19.859 from SOC theory
21.005 from Sparks
and the modulating frequencies are:
178.8 Jose cycle
2 times 575.518 =1151.036 from Wilson and equal to half the Hallstatt of 2302
8 times 575.518 = 4604.144 from Wilson and G. Sharp’s work.
Yes I am only using frequencies which come from astronomical calculation. The basic format of the equations is essentially the same as my Sunspot model.
Hi R.J.: Thanks for the clarification. I think this is an important step forward. These are not ‘free variables’ or ‘free parameters’ in the sense Von Neumann meant. We have here a fully harmonic system which fits the data going back 4000 years. Congratulations. I’ll write up a fresh post for this. It’s a milestone in my opinion.
What nudges if any did you make between the 2kyr model and the 4kyr model?
to TB: No nudges. I used the same model and the ability of the model to fit the 4000 yr span drops from R^2 0.82 to 0.61 So either my model needs improvement or M. Vukcevic concern about data drift is a factor or both. Probably both. The fact that we can easily get a model to fit 1000 year of data with some confidence and predictive ability but have trouble the further we go back in time suggests to me that data drift could be an issue. But that issue is still open. I will try some ideas with the full 9000 yr data set when I get some free time.
R.J.: Thanks. Can you tell whether the drift is systematic in any way by eyeballing the plot? Your amplitudes are admirably good on the 2Kyr plot. Do they give any kind of roadmap for a fit-with-lag as you go back beyond 4kyr?
TB: Off hand I don’t see a way to determine any possible drift from the model. The modulation will cover over any drift until it can’t do it. From his comments above to K Mckracken, M Vukcevic may have some ideas on this.
If Dr. McCracken is still about
Relative intensity strength of spectral components (at frequencies below 1/250yr) for GeoPolar magnetic dipole
Period yr relative strength
1127 …… 9.2%
930 …… 7.9%
800 …… 2.7%
721 …… 2.4%
640 …… 5.2%
548 …… 3.2%
494 …… 3.3%
442 …… 1.2%
408 …… 2.0%
379 …… 1.3%
348 …… 0.6%
331 …… 0.3%
315 …… 0.7%
299 …… 1.0%
283 …… 0.6%
268 …… 0.7%
256 …… 0.6%
GeoPolar is derived from data by Korte & Constable’s (Helmholtz Centre Potsdam) CALS7k
5000BC-1950AD at 10-year resolution
http://earthref.org/ERDA/413/
GeoPolar data file can be emailed if required.
more info about my analysis and comments
Click to access GCR-etc.pdf
tallbloke, McCracken: I am in no position to accuse anyone here on Dr. Charvatova’s paper was not cited, and I was merely echoing the sentiment with Paul Vaughan that the paper was not widely cited in the mainstream papers for it to be broadly known. I wished I had came across that paper long ago. Many apologies for my comment had cause you all to go into great length to explain the situation.
BTW, after mulling over Dr. Charvatova’s paper, I think I have found the mechanism that governs the SIM precession cycles of ~10 year, ~50 year and 178.8 year periods.
Here is my findings:
The ~59.3 year integral solar cycle of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn with a slight prograde motion of approximately 10 degree phase shift, balanced up in three cycles would generate a ~178 year prominent half precession cycle; this mechanism with other longer period factors can explain the ~178.8 year solar inertial motion cycle that was discovered by Dr. Ivanka Charvátová. The ~50 year period trefoil-like trajectory of the Sun as discovered by Dr. Ivanka Charvátová, heuristically is a periodical manifestation of solar inertia motion in part of a resonated and balanced up ~59.3 year integral solar cycle with five ~10 year half precession cycles of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn in conjunctions, which are formed within a ~59.3 year integral solar cycle and the ~178 year prominent half precession cycle. And the remaining period with two not resonated periods of ~59.3 year integral solar cycle at before and after the balanced period for around ~118.6 years (2 x 59.3 years) in the ~178 year prominent precession cycle, manifest the chaotic patterns of solar inertia motion.
For the details of this finding, please scroll to “”Other vortical phenomena of the Sun in:
http://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20sunspot.htm
The mechanism for the ~59.3 year integral solar cycle of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn is elaborated and illustrated there.
If this piece of info makes sense, can someone bring this to the attention of Dr. Charvatova and team? It was stated that at the end of the paper of Dr. Charvatova that “The mechanisms are so far not known”. I believe UVS can elucidate the mechanisms.
I think I also found the mechanism that governs 220 year long range solar cycle discovered by Dr. Timo Niroma. The ~20 year solar cycle of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn, combined with the ~11 year half integral solar cycle, would generate a 220 year prominent precession cycle for the Sun (20×11).
In December 1650, when the Maunder Minimum event occurred, the Solar System arrangement was a superior conjunction with almost aligned Saturn-Sun-Jupiter-Uranus-Neptune. In 1850 the Solar System arrangement was aligned Jupiter-Sun-Moon-Earth-Saturn-Uranus-Pluto. This is essentially a superior conjunction of Jupiter, Sun, and the barycenter of these other Solar System objects in a precession cycle with Earth also aligned. In December 2031, the arrangement of Solar System objects is a superior conjunction of almost aligned Uranus-Saturn-Earth-Sun-Jupiter; this is a catalyst for manifesting a Little Ice Age event on Earth in 2031 that synchronizes with an expected period of low solar activities.
It does look like Earth is heading toward a period of Little Ice Age and would reach its coldest climate in 2031 as suggested by Dr. Timo Niroma.
[…] https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/mccracken-beer-steinhilber-evidence-for-planetary-forcing-… […]
Vincent wee Foo’s place (post above) looks amazing
http://www.uvs-model.com/index.htm
and his forum
http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-toe-theory/3570-the-universal-vortical-singularity.html
oh to have the time to delve