David Archibald’s mysterious model from “Ed Fix”

Posted: May 8, 2011 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Over on WUWT David archibald has published an intriguing graph containing the signed sunspot series from 1914 and a red line which coincides closely, and predicts and interesting solar future. We are assured this is from a “paper in press” by someone identified as “Ed Fix”…

Archibald further states that the model is based on ” forces that dare not speak their name” (On WUWT).

More “barycentric nonsense” (TM Leif Svalgaard) no doubt. 🙂

Leif comments that the mysterious force is “Astrology”.

  1. Gerry says:

    The red line not only closely follows the peaks and valleys of the signed sunspot series, it also closely follows the peaks and valleys of my “barycentric nonsense” Solar angular momentum plot (scroll down to the end of the

    In addition, the predicted 2013 cycle 24 maximum is in agreement with the latest NASA/MSFC prediction:

  2. Douglas DC says:

    What I see here is a potential Dallton type minimum.
    I better than a Maunder, however.

  3. Roger Andrews says:

    Douglas DC: “What I see here is a potential Dallton type minimum.”

    Back in February Tim Channon posted a solar prediction which showed exactly that.


    But I don’t think Tim’s prediction was based on forces that dare not speak their name. Unless “c*cles” really is a dirty word.

  4. Gerry says:

    Douglas DC,

    Look again. The current and Maunder barycentric solar angular momentum plots do not match the Dalton Minimum barycentric solar angular momentum plot at all because the Dalton Minimum “came early,” as explained in the comments to

    It seems true, however, that the peak amplitude of cycle 24 will be close to that of solar cycle 5, whereas a comparable peak was not observed in 1655. Bear in mind, however, that there were very few sunspot observers attempting to record sunspots in 1655, which was not long after the invention of the telescope. Also, the Little Ice Age weather at that time was extremely cloudy for long periods of time in Europe. The observations were also very spotty during solar cycle 5 as well, even though there were many more solar observers in that era.

  5. Tim Channon says:

    “The observations were also very spotty” 🙂

  6. Tim Channon says:

    If there is a problem with barycentre theories it is the regularity of the effect, which grossly mismatches eg. earth observations.

    A good instance is the mimic of ~1815 in 1990.

    If there is a connection there is a large additional term, or perhaps inversion of sense but if so there must be a rational basis. Is this possible? Yes. this might be a baseline undulation as mentioned by Eddy. Doesn’t answer where it might come from.

    It might be news to say I am sitting on what looks like confirmation of part of the Wolf and Patrone paper. If this is confirmed it means there is a barycentre effect on the sun, if not quite as they posit.
    Before anyone jumps, the effect is very minor, of little direct interest here.-

  7. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Dr. Lief’s first reaction in the thread was “astrology” and he has a number of comments since then, but I thought that post would be like the waving of a red cape and cries of “toro! toro!”…. except his replies have been pretty much of the “It’s not TSI, stupid” which most of us seem to accept these days, and nothing of his usual acidic responses to anything David Archibald says. Kinda makes one wonder … and Fred Fix’s comment is a delight.

  8. Gerry says:

    Tidal forces on the Sun from alignments of planets certainly bring to mind the stigma of astrological nonsense. The accusation of “barycentric nonsense,” on the other hand probably refers to the lack of any established theory of Sun-planet spin-orbit coupling, such as tentavely proposed as a hypothesis in

    Perhaps the heliosphere is intended to be the unidentified interplanetary medium? The problem seems to be that the known properties of the heliosphere are not recognized by mainstream astrophysics as being compatible with such a model.

  9. tallbloke says:

    Gerry, are you referring to this plot?

    Tim, I’ll happily publish your Wolff-Patrone observations if you wish. I’m not convinced it captures the whole of the possible effect though.

  10. Malaga View says:

    It’s always good to read David Archibald… even at the cost of wading through the acidic puddles dripping from the Galatic Gatekeeper… talking of which… he was also acting as the Galactic Timekeeper last week in defence of Einstein over at WUWT… so I can only guest he has nothing better to do unless this is really part of his job description.

  11. Tim Channon says:

    TB: Holding off from revealing is probably right and leaves open collaboration. There is more but I can’t figure out how to communicate.

  12. Gerry says:



    is the barycentric solar angular momentum comparison plot to which I am referring.

  13. vukcevic says:

    I think Ed Fix (fix ed) is Archibald himself, with a bit of a humour attached.

  14. Gray says:

    It would be interesting to see that plotted throughout the sunspot record.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Vuk, I doubt it. Some time ago David mentioned a person who had contacted him who had a good correlation for solar activity. I suspect it’s a minor variation on the work pioneered by Desmoulins, and carried forward by Ian Wilson, Ray Tomes, Roy Martin and others here on this blog and elsewhere. My guess is that ‘Ed Fix’ wanted to keep it under wraps but David couldn’t resist using it for a bit more publicity. Whatever, it’s all grist to the mill, and Anthony likes David, so the force which dare not speak its name gets an airing on a blog which still bans ‘barycentric discussion’.

    Gerry: Should we overlay the signed sunspots onto your graph?

    Gray: See what plotted?

    Tim, email me soon.

  16. Tim Channon says:

    Instead use CoM (centre of mass) as a term.

    I’d never heard of the B. word until recently and it took a while to figure out ‘oh that’ ie. nothing.

  17. Tim Channon says:


    The software he published, with Pascal sources
    (dated 1995, will be Borland Turbo Pascal and is for DOS, should be ok under Wine or dosemu)

    I do not see any copyright. This makes for a tricky situation. The intent is pretty plain but legally that is awkward if any derived works were produced.

  18. Gerry says:


    Yes, thank you, I’d like to see the overlay of signed sunspots on my graph, along with the mysterious red plot, but have been too busy to do it myself. I don’t expect the relative amplitudes to agree, but I think the time differences between peaks and troughs might be interesting.

    Maybe I missed something, but do you have any idea what was plotted by “Ed Fix”? Barycentric position or velocity? Perhaps barycentric angular momentum calculated trigonometrically rather than from JPL DE coordinates? Or tidal forces??? The only information I read in Archibald’s WUWT piece was that it uses a solar model based on “the force that cannot be named.”

  19. Ed Fix says:

    “vukcevic says:
    May 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    I think Ed Fix (fix ed) is Archibald himself, with a bit of a humour attached.”

    OK, now I gotta jump in! Surprisingly, I’m not David Archibald–I’ve never even met him. After I wrote the earliest version of this paper, I sent it to a few people (including Leif Svalgaard) for comments or suggestions. David was the only one who responded with any sort of constructive comments. Svalgaard didn’t respond at all.

    Actually, I understand Svalgaard’s position. People have been trying to nail down a planetary solution to the sunspot cycle since Wolf in 1859 with results that range from disappointing to tantalizing, but nothing anyone could really point to and say, “By Jove, that’s it!!” 150 years of promising beginnings was enough to convince solar physicists there just might really be nothing there.

    I also have not found the the definitive answer. After all this mystery and speculation, I’m pretty sure there’s going to be a lot of, “Oh, that’s all?” What I have done is take another first step, but using a completely differrent approach. As far as I can determine, my approach is unique, and I am hopeful that it will prove useful.

    This isn’t an extension of anybody’s work. I certainly didn’t read any of the existing body of literature on planetary/barycentric hypotheses. I was somewhat aware of Landscheit’s work, but hadn’t really read any of it. I just read something about the solar system’s barycenter affecting the sunspot cycle, and decided to crunch some of my own numbers. I noticed some correlations, and wondered, “What will happen if I do this?”, and off I went.

    To answer Tallbloke’s question on WUWT, yes, the “planetary red line” is fully explained in the paper. That’s kind of what it’s about.

    David Archibald really hounded me to get this paper in shape to publish, and even recommended it to Don Easterbrook, who is editing a book for Elsevier, “Evidence-Based Climate Science”. It will be published soon–I just last week checked the galley proof, and sent it back. I’m not really trying to keep any of this a secret. I just need to let Eslevier publish it first before I go into detail in public. Even then, under the copyright agreement, I don’t believe I can just publish the paper on a website. Elsevier owns the rights. I do believe I could, however, send a copy to a few selected friends…

    Anyway, David is really, really enthusiastic about what this model has already done (if there’s any doubt, read his May 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm comment on WUWT). I am enthusiastic about what this approach might do when it grows up, but right now, it’s still in it’s infancy. Maybe it’ll stay there. I don’t know, but I am cautiously optimistic.

    David didn’t breach any confidentiality by publishing this plot. He asked my permission to use it in his book, and he is using it in presentations. I understand he used my name there (I haven’t seen the book), but the reaction to that plot on WUWT has been, um, interesting. I guess the lack of detail makes it more intriguing.

    For reasons explained in the paper, I don’t actually think we’ll have two short cycles ending in 2025, as the above plot shows. I think it’s more likely there will be one weak, longish cycle, possibly with a double peak (like cycle 4). This plot indicates a sunspot magnetic polarity reversal around 2017, but I don’t think that will happen. There. I think I’ve covered my bases, so I can say, “See, I was right” no matter what happens. I learned that “trick” from the warmists.

    Gerry mentioned something about the signed sunspot series. I used the monthly sunspot numbers from the NOAA ftp server. I arbitrarily assigned the current (in 2008) cycle as positive and inverted the sign of every other cycle back to the beginning of the dataset. If you want, I can go into why I did that.

  20. Ulric Lyons says:

    2013 to 2020 is only 7yrs maximum to maximum, that needs Fixing.
    Taking the astronomical center for each maximum (J/E/V syzygies) and comparing to the actual cycle maximums, we see that weaker cycle maximums peak after the tightest syzygies, and cycles that ramp up fast and strong, max earlier than the astronomical centers. This may be cumulative to an extent. Rounded off to the nearest year, here is a check list with the number years the actual maximum is before (-) the best alignments, and after (+) them:

    C1 +1
    C2 -1
    C3 -4
    C4 -5
    C5 +1
    C6 +1
    C7 +3
    C8 -1
    C9 0
    C10 +1
    C11 0
    C12 +2
    C13 +1
    C14 +3
    C15 +2
    C16 +1
    C17 -1
    C18 -1
    C19 -2
    C20 -1
    C21 -3
    C22 -3
    C23 -3

    C24 and C25 astronomical centers are roughly early 2014 and early 2026.
    I would say, given the apparent amplitude of C24, that it should max around 2014 or even 2015 being a lower cycle. C25 max may come a little early, but nowhere as early as 2020.

  21. tallbloke says:

    Ed, welcome to the talkshop and thanks for dropping by. Incoming questions I expect! By the way, I’d love to be one of the lucky few to get a preprint copy. 🙂

    Tim, Desmoulins has posted comments to this blog and is happy to see his ideas being developed by us. COM or SSB, same thing, different forces implied. To me, COM is about mass – angular momentum – velocity etc. SSB is more associated with gravity, tides etc.

    Gerry, I could only do a rough side by side as the backgrounds to both graphs prevented an overlay.

    There are obvious similarities and differences.

    Ulric: Thanks, that requires some study to see how the timings relate to amplitudes. I’ll try to represent the info visually to see if it sheds some light.

  22. tallbloke says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    May 9, 2011 at 6:00 pm
    tallbloke said:
    Likewise I hope Ed Fix’s forthcoming paper will clarify how the red planetary curve has been constructed and provide a similarly testable prediction.

    Ed was kind enough to send me a draft copy some time ago that may have changed but without giving too much away the primary input looks to be solar velocity measured from the SSB with some tweaks. Some of the model output is very close to the angular momentum output performed by Carl Smith in 2007, but interestingly Ed’s model does not hindcast the Maunder Minimum suggesting perhaps that further work maybe required.

  23. Gray says:

    Hi Tallbloke

    For clarity, I was asking whether the red plot from Ed Fix’s work had been plotted further back, particularly to the Dalton period. Geoff has just somewhat answered that. I guess from Ed’s post we’ll just have to wait for the paper and full explanation.

  24. vukcevic says:

    Hi Ed
    Nice to here from you, hope you were not offended. Thanks for the details. Looking forward to see more.

    here is the graphs superimposition:


    In past we heard of the Raffaele Bendandi’s work from Michele Andreozzi ( http://www.sarelf.it ) This is very relevant:

  25. tallbloke says:

    Nice job Vuk,
    my ‘paint’ voodoo failed early this morning. My take is that the sun is going into an anomalous phase and the curves generated from planetary data won’t match as well as they do in the hindcasts since Dalton. It’s as if there”s a threshold below which the sun dithers in ways not directly indicated by planetary motion.

    Nicola Scafetta is into Bendandi too, along with our occasional contributoe Michele. But according to your link, Bendandi never made a prediction for tomorrow in Rome.

  26. Ed Fix says:

    Gotta to to work, so don’t have a lot of time this morning.

    First, for Vukcevic:

    Certainly no offense taken. David archibald has been a lot more vocal about this model than I have, so it’s not surprising people might wonder who I am, or even doubt my reality. I just pinched myself; I can assure you I’m real. Probably. I am also aware my name is a little unusual, and lends itself to plays and puns on it. You’re unlikely to come up with any I haven’t heard or used before. For instance, that particular one you used (Ed Fix–>fix ed–>fixed); the last time I heard that was from one of my classmates when I was about 13 or 14. And he wasn’t particularly bright–so far you’re not doing all that well 😉

    Gray asked about the Maunder Minimum. Well, Gray and just about everybody else, including me. No, this model doesn’t replicate it. While that would have been cool, it’s not surprising. There are specific, known limitations of this model that make it unlikely to replicate a Maunder-like event, if the underlying hypothesis is correct. This paper describes a proof-of-concept of a specific approach. It’s not a fully developed construct. In other words, there are aspects of the underlying paradigm that this simple model intrinsically cannot model. It’s not done yet.

    Folks have been doing curve overlays, and having problems due to the nature of the graph David posted. When I get some time, I’ll put together a more useable graph and csv data so you can to your heart’s content.

    After publication, I’ll make available supplemental material with all the calculations, etc. I’m afraid, after all this hoop-la, it will seem shockingly simple. That will have to wait a bit, but the sun has been out there for some 5 billion years, give or take, so a month or two more won’t really make any difference.

    Now, gotta get to work.

  27. Tim Channon says:

    The sun is very likely variable, akin to TSI, how active it is. Impressing a timing causal onto this is likely to lead to what we see, absence of sunspots, not because the timing process has ceased but because the solar energy level is too low.
    (I think this could be demonstrated in a fictional model)

    Short term variation such as the visible sunspots are not the same thing.

    An accepted explanation for the timing of sunspot cycles would be huge progress.

  28. Michele says:

    Bendandi :

    January February March April May

    11 March —–> 190 !

    May 20 official conference theory


    Next weeks new documents
    personal and Bendandi

    Bye Bye

  29. Michele says:

    May 11

    Day fake …
    Media …..INGV … … blaa … blaa …
    Discredit the work of Bendandi
    Do not mind new electric universe theory..

    I think the conference …. I repeat Galileo …

    “E pur si muove….”


  30. Gerry says:


    Thanks for the great superposition job. The orange curve is still somewhat of a mystery until we find out exactly if or how solar velocity was tweaked to get it.

    Thanks also, Ed Fix. I think it may turn out that you are being too modest about your work. We will just have to be patient and give you time to write it up. In the meantime, I’m sure you can count on Tallbloke and his commenters to not launch any vitriolic attacks against what you have done!

  31. vukcevic says:

    OT again :
    Today’s EQ record in LOYALTY ISLANDS is very reminiscent of Japan’s Honshu build-up. Pacific islands and Australia should be on tsunami alert. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.php

  32. vukcevic says:

    Well it was not Italy, it was Spain strongest for 50 years. Coincidence? it would be to much to expect, that Bendandi if he predicted it, to predict location as well.

  33. Tim Channon says:

    Note to folks on this thread.

    I might have taken focus off this thread too soon by putting up a new thread. This was just how things fell out. The subject of Ed Fix, Archibald and so on is important. Hope it will resurface in it’s due course.

    At some point I will headline a discussion about what kind of thing, how often, new items should appear and so on about the blog. This is about me understanding what you want.
    Not here and now.

  34. Gerry says:

    For those who would like to see the signed sunspot series, barycentric solar angular momentum series, and solar distances from the solar system barycenter plotted through the Dalton Minimum (1795-1830), these can be seen in

    Figures A1 and A2 plot these series from 1750 to present. Whereas the solar angular momentum series at the start of the current solar minimum (2008) correlates very well with the solar angular momentum series at the start of the Maunder Minimum (1650), it is seen that the angular momentum and postion plots at the start of the Dalton Minimum around 1795 correlate equally well to the angular momentum and position plots around 1980, but not at all to 2008. In addition, the phase of the signed sunspot series in 1795 is maintained in 1980, and 2008 occurs 1.5 signed cycles later.

    I conclude that the current solar minimum has an apparent dynamical resonance with the Maunder Minimum that is not seen with respect to the Dalton Minimum.

  35. […] The plot below, courtesy Vukcevik, is a combination of my plot of the barycentric solar angular momentum from 1948 to 2058 (blue) superimposed on my solar angular momentum plot from 1590 to 1700 (red).  Also superimposed, in green, is the signed sunspot series and the orange curve, generated by Ed Fix and David Archibald:https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/david-archibalds-mysterious-model-from-ed-fix/#more-2193 […]

  36. Dan says:

    I was always under the impression that the planetary electromagnetic field strength when looked at in terms of barycentre motion was the dominant force in governing solar polar magnetic field strength.
    This then determines the magnetic field currents as seen within the sun, and by extension the sunspot cycle.

    How does one determine cause and effect in a system such as this?

    Do we simply look at the biggest and most obvious things in a closed system and then work our way down adding in more and more detail from any contributing factor we deem noteworthy? Or do we play with the data until it begins to replicate our observations?

    I have noted that Ed’s data models always seem to be quite smoothed and somewhat lacking in detail, I hope that he incorporates some added avenues of detail when the time comes that he publishes his work. I look forward to more people such as Ed and David having their work acknowledged. The correlation in data certainly suggests that they are on the right track.

  37. […] has been back in touch about his solar activity simulation model. Ed couldn’t reveal too much last time around as the paper was pending publication in an Elsevier book. My thanks to Ed for being true to his […]