Length of Day – Solar activity link confirmed

Posted: October 4, 2010 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

‘Watts up with that’ has an important article today on LOD – solar and cosmic ray connections.

The evidence is getting stronger for the planetary hypothesis all the time. My very first article on this blog was also about a connection I found between LOD and the motion of the Solar equatorial plane with respect to the solar system barycenter.

Other’s such as Ian Wilson (Ninderthana) have also independently worked on this, and those people such as Leif Svalgaard who have  attacked us and our discoveries will soon be chewing on the insults and accusations they have made.

Here is the graph I produced at that time:


  1. Tenuc says:

    The link is apparent from the graphs above, and I’ve seen other correlations to slight changes to zonal air circulation and SOI. Also seen correlations to the non-dipole portion of the Earth’s geomagnetic field. With long period variations have being correlated to geomagnetic polarity bias, and short period variations have been attributed to non-dipole induced electromagnetic coupling in the Earth’s crust.

    Now just need to work out how such tiny, tiny changes in LOD can effect weather regime/climate – or could it be some sort of tele-connect with something happening in the sun. Any ideas???

  2. Current Indonesia earthquakes, beginning with the big tsunami in Dec 2004, and 2010 8,9 Chilean earthquake have changed LOD (remember that changes in gravity acceleration occur at this kind of events,and changes in the EM field::GMF ).

  3. @Tallbloke
    It seems that there would be times, when the Sun does not follow the “rhythm”, losses its step, everything varies accordingly. So you were right from the start.
    However the “sound of music” of the spheres it seems to be the frequency of the interstellar “grid”. The holoscience guys should hear that orchestra too. 🙂

  4. That change of rhythm happens first in the Sun, then, as the polar fields of the Sun decreases: (voltage):

    the same occurs in the earth:

    Where that “EM emission prior to earthquake” goes along with a decrease in the local acceleration of gravity. The more EM the lesser gravity acceleration.

  5. Cycles that involves us: Have you ever wondered to what cycle refers this: “The Sun experiences long range cycles of the order (80-120) years known as the Wolf – Gleissberg cycles”
    The answer is obvious: To human life duration.
    This is hard to surface to conscience as instictive fear rejects it….

  6. Tenuc says:

    Also the 200y solar de Vries cycle…

    1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)-(Sporer minimum)
    1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
    1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
    1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
    1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)

    It has been reported that wars of expansion tend to happen more often during warm periods, while civil wars tend to happen during cooler centuries?

    Perhaps, like our climate. the progress of civilisation oscillates to the pulse of the sun.

  7. The green wave, above, obviously shows the inductor’s current, as in a Ruhmkorff coil …we are on one of the secondary coil windings.

  8. Richard Holle said at WUWT
    October 4, 2010 at 5:40 am It deserves to copy it here:

    There are three unstoppable things in nature, truth, true love, and an Idea whose time has come.

  9. Tim Channon says:

    As it happens I am very familiar with the dataset.

    I am sceptical of the result and more so given the usual science inside and backwards words, where little is actually said, a lot of as-if assumptions. The press junk is just that.

    Whatever the authors have done it is _not_ what the web item says.
    Better say what I think it says: the amplitude variation of the 2nd harmonic of the earth orbital encodes the optical solar cycle.

    Since it is trivial here to do a quick and dirty reproduction of the claim, I did, all the data and tools on hand.

    Extract 6 month signal.
    Hilbert transform that.

    No cigar. Only vaguely a match.


    What is strange are their plots, make little sense.

    The ssn data is low pass filtered, they omit to mention this.

    The LoD is claimed to be half year amplitude, an extremely narrow band with given their claim very slow modulation, so why is there so much other junk on their LoD trace? That contains many other periods, ie. it is not what is claimed.

    Okay, the math is trivial, lets assume a fundamental around 9.5 years for the ssn (0.5*9.5)/(0.5 +- 9.5) = 0.475 and 0.527

    Choose 0.475
    Design a compromise filter, knocks out 0.5 enough (about x0.1) and passes plenty around 0.475
    Apply that and then hilbert, not that it is needed, I can see.

    No cigar.

    Try the birdies, chirps.
    Nothing around 0.475. Slight earth 3rd harmonic. There is a slight hump at 0.58

    As so often, no paper available.

    So what did they do?

  10. Michele says:

    Heliospheric magnetic field Vs earthquake http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=11690 🙂

  11. Michele says:
    October 7, 2010 at 8:21 am
    “…nell’intera geologica terrestre gli aspetti elettromagnetici ricoprano, molto più degli aspetti meccanici, un ruolo cardine nelle sue dinamiche”.( In the whole earth geology the electromagnetic aspects recover more than the just mechanical ones, a leading role over its dynamics.)
    Your approach asks, calls for a more integral approach, one which could explain the interaction of what we wrongly regard as different “fields”:
    or in spanish:

  12. Michele says:

    @ Adolfo Giurfa

    Thanks for the post on NIA
    Bye bye…the next article

  13. Brian W says:

    Tallbloke And Mr. Giurfa

    I want to leave you with some food for thought on Lief Svalgaard. I had a conversation
    with him on wuwt about Seyfert galaxies. One in particular NGC7603. It has what is termed analogous redshifts. Meaning the main galaxy is connected by a luminous bridge to another smaller galaxy. Each of these galaxies display very different redshifts but are in the same general vicinity of space. According to the standard model of redshifts this cannot be so. If so most definitely the universe is NOT expanding but in a steady state. To make things worse two more objects were discovered and these too had different redshifts unlike the first two. I referred to the work of Halton Arp and Jeffery Burbidge who I have just discovered has just passed away. If there is a non cosmological component to redshift it basically kills the standard model dead where it stands. It also means that the objects we are viewing are much closer than we are led to believe and the universe is smaller than what we think it is. Leif would have none of it and started to refer to cults. I then threw example after example at him and pointed out newer astronomers were discovering more and more examples. Did we need 100 to convince him. This is what he said “The answer has to be found in the standard model”. No explanation of what we are seeing but the answer “has to be found within”. In other words there is no room for any other option. Determined I even threw the Great Sloan Wall at him to no avail. Here was someone with a vested interest in the standard model whereas I don’t. I am only interested in the truth of the matter. Redshift is the heart of the standard model. I was getting quite ticked at him but now I realize that he has no choice but to take the stance that he does. His job required it and he had no choice in the matter in order to persue a career. Hence consensus retains its foothold in astronomy. I myself years ago discarded both the standard model in favor of the EU paradigm when I first read Velikovsky’s Earth In Upheaval, gradualism went too. Then came Worlds in Collision and the result is a far better understanding of our ancient past.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Hi Brian, and welcome.
    I too have had the redshift argument with Leif in trying to discuss the results of Tift and Narlikar. I have a lot of respect for Leif’s expertise in the field he has focussed on – solar physics. I have no respect whatsoever for his views on many other matters, where his dogmatic approach acts as a barrier to understanding. He is especially ignorant about Earth’s climatology.