Special Edition of Pattern Recognition in Physics

Posted: December 13, 2013 by tallbloke in Analysis, Astrophysics, Celestial Mechanics, climate, cosmic rays, Cycles, Electro-magnetism, Energy, Fibonacci, Natural Variation, Ocean dynamics, Solar physics, solar system dynamics, Tides, waves, weather


UPDATE 23:12;13 – I’ve bumped this post back to the top, as we now have a link to the special edition with all the papers collated in one place, along with our introduction and conclusion. There are still two more papers, from Nicola Scafetta and Ivanka Charvatova, being finalised which will hopefully appear at the same url before the new year. Download and enjoy – Merry Christmas everybody!

This post will help explain why I haven’t been around as much as I’d like over the last couple of months. Thanks to the tireless effort of our handling editor Nils-Axel Morner, the special edition of the journal ‘Pattern Recognition in Physics we’ve been working on is nearing completion. Here’s the cover:


A lot has been happening behind the scenes to pull this together. Some of the papers are already available online, but there are a couple of exciting surprises to be included in the print edition, including a paper from Ivanka Charvatova!

We hope this publication will be looked back on in future years as the seminal work of the paradigm shift to a new understanding of the Solar System and especially the Sun-Earth relationship. With that in mind, we are offering the print edition to readers as a publication they might like to own and cherish. We realise many will be happy that PRP is one of the few journals offering papers for free as downloadable pdf’s. But if you’d like to support this journal by purchasing a copy of the printed publication, we need to let Copernicus, the publisher, know how many we want. Details for ordering below the provisional preface.


There are a couple of late additions to the line-up so expect some bonus papers.

If you would like  copy of the print edition, please use the donate button on this site (top left of the sidebar) to remit 18.50 Euros plus 4 Euros to cover the cost of the journal copy and postage/packing. I will then pass these orders on to Copernicus. Thanks for all your support and consideration.
Back to top

  1. tallbloke says:

    I have to dash,
    I’m in the audience for any questions on Radio 4 at 8pm and then have to get to the airport for 8am to catch a flight.

  2. tchannon says:

    Looks like this might be a link but with a hashed ID, good luck

  3. Tim Crome says:

    Your donate link only seems to work in GBP, minor detail, keep the change!

  4. Great news rog !

    Also I’m working on two paper for EGU 2014

    ” including a paper from Ivanka Charvatova ! ”

    I am very curious! Preview ?

  5. TLMango says:

    This looks really interesting!

  6. Chaeremon says:

    The Solar System seems to include an unknown physical process capable of transferring energy between both celestial bodies (orbital energy) and between orbital energy and rotational energy.

    This is great news, thanks tallbloke 😎 these are the voyages of planet Earth … to boldly go where no man has gone before.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Chaeremon. There are many rich avenues for exploration here. We hope we have put up some useful signposts into some areas of the territory.

  8. Joe Lalonde says:


    That is what I was trying to explain before about energy differences by circumference measuring at the front of the planet compared to the back of a planet. This means the suns particles help to rotate bodies.

    Same system as planetary mapping I did a few years back.

    Click to access world-calculations.pdf

    Click to access world-calculations-2.pdf

  9. Bob Weber says:

    Roger I admire your tenacity and works on planetary theory. I had been wondering what happened to the planetary theory conference you had talked about earlier this year. If it weren’t for people like you, the people of this world wouldn’t stand a chance against constant CAGW fear-mongering.

  10. tallbloke says:

    Vuk: thanks

    Bob: thanks to Niklas Morner’s tremendous effort, this is a placeholder for a conference. I lost my planned venue, and didn’t have enough upfront finances to make it happen.

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    Sidorenkov’s (2009) 0.85 cpd (cycles per day)

    Cycle	Lunar draconic month	Lunar tropical month	Solar Rotation
    Length (days)	27.212221	27.321582	27.03
    / 4 (days)	6.80305525	6.8303955	6.7575
    beat with terrestrial day (days)	1.172323019	1.171514951	1.173686496
    frequency (cpd)	0.853007221	0.853595593	0.852016278
  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    (27.212221)*(27.03) / (27.212221 – 27.03)
    = 4036.561832 days = 11.0517403 years

  13. Joe Lalonde says:


    What makes your work of GREAT importance is that NOW references from your work can be added.
    Lets say you wanted a 3 dimensional model:

    The mapping is the center circumference from the sun and if you map the northern pole out and the southern pole out, you have a corridor.
    Also now distance differences of planets moving out from the sun can be measured.

    It is exciting work!

    Well done my friend, well done!!!

  14. ren says:

    Recent strong fluctuations of cosmic rays may be associated with disruption of the polar vortex. Circulation of clearly slowing down.

  15. Roger

    nice cover.

    However that is a draft. There appears to be some error in the end. For example the papers number 11 and 12 should go after paper #10, I suppose.

    I suppose that there is a need of some editing.

  16. tallbloke says:

    Hi Nicola. The 11 and 12 papers are on the next page. I edited the image to put them all together.

  17. vukcevic says:

    Hi TB
    Here is something that may be of interest to the ‘planetarist’ gang:
    The graph below suggest that the spectrum of the interplanetary magnetic Ap index (daily maximum values, consequence of solar flares and coronal mass ejections -CMEs, and not directly correlated to the sunspot index -SSN) has strong Earth’s annual (365 days) and Jupiter/Earth conjunction/opposition (199 days) components.
    I am inclined to think that if the link is indeed real, it is electro-magnetic rather than Newtonian one.

  18. tallbloke says:

    Vuk: Very nice work, thanks for that. I agree with you that there is something electromagnetic going on. Although I did not dare explicitly speak its name, it is a major conclusion of my papers. Gravity alone cannot explain the degree of coupling observed between spin rates and orbits. Until someone comes up with a better idea, I’m proceding on the hypothesis that the necessary force is being transmitted via the IMF.

  19. Roger,

    sorry. My mistake. I was just very tired of the AGU meeting where I also presented some of this ideas in a talk on Friday.

    good cover.


  20. tallbloke says:

    Nicola, great to hear you have been able to present some of the planetary-solar theory at AGU. You are taking our new paradigm to the world.

  21. Rog, 18.5E + postage is a bit much. Can you put it out as a downloadable E book at about $Aus8-10?

  22. Bob Weber says:

    Roger, just say like it is and let the chips the fall where they may.

    It’s electromagnetic, it’s electric, it’s magnetic – photons, protons, and electrons – charge-in-motion.

    As an electrical engineer, I call what happens “the electric weather effect” because electricity, defined as charge-in-motion from high to low potential, is the driver. Magnetics follow, as per Miles Mathis’ clear explanations on matter. We could call it the “magnetic weather effect”, or the “electromagnetic weather effect” as well, but fundamentally it boils down to charge-in-motion first, accompanied by the spin of the moving charge, which creates the magnetism.

    Notice solar scientists aren’t telling you how those solar particles accelerate out to the edge of the heliosphere. Do they really know?

    As much as I talk about solar “particles”, I think reality is defined by the wave-structure of matter. The question is: waves of “what”?

  23. p.g.sharrow says:

    Bob Weber says:
    December 15, 2013 at 2:16 pm
    “It’s electromagnetic, it’s electric, it’s magnetic – photons, protons, and electrons – charge-in-motion.” hear hear!

    I believe that Gravity is an apparent effect and not a real thing. Electrostatic warping in the aether causes the linear acceleration of matter that we call gravity. There ain’t nothing in space! It is solidly full with (dark matter/energy) Aether. EMF must have a medium to propagate in. If gravity is caused by this warpage then gravity energy travels in the correct direction rather the backwards as is accepted by Newtonian Physics. The planets swim in a sea of energies and not in a empty void.

    Physics is ELECTRICAL! GOD is an electrical engineer and works in applied science. 😉 pg

  24. oldbrew says:

    Something is needed to explain the Van Allen radiation belts too.

    ‘The term Van Allen belts refers specifically to the radiation belts surrounding Earth; however, similar radiation belts have been discovered around other planets.’


  25. Bob Weber says:

    pg sharrow you made my day! I guess I’m in good company.

    I agree that space is full, not empty. The aether you spoke of is Miles Mathis’ “charge field”, and if you take a really really really long time to go through his voluminous number of articles on gravity, electricity, magnetism, light, heat, matter, planet orbits, etc, you’ll find that the “95% of missing matter and energy” in the universe is explained by his charge field. He is a very deep thinker.

    Today I’m not calling heliospheric space weather effects (cosmic & solar) “charge field weather effects” because most people haven’t heard of Miles Mathis or the charge field (yet), and aren’t ready to understand it at that level. People however can relate to electricity and magnetism even if they can’t explain it technically, because technical types do understand photons, protons & electrons.

    Perhaps you’ve heard of Milo Wolff. See spaceandmotion.com for further insights on the wave structure of matter, and how that is the foundation to all of physics.

  26. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Bob Weber: actually I have not read Mathis work. I arrived at my point of view over nearly 60 years of personal study. Check on my title name to reach my web site. I found when I put all of the known facts about the physical world together, the accepted standard model didn’t work. I found myself re-examining how all the parts fit together. To grasp Gravity I found myself at the same place Einstein and Tesla found themselves, Light and EMF. Particle physics just doesn’t work well for these things. The standard model requires wave/particle explanations including exceptions and no one has a grasp as to Gravity. If you want to create an Electrical space drive this is very unsatisfactory. All of Teslas’ work began when he wanted to create an electric flying machine as a secondary school student. Everything that he created was based on work begun then. Every Electrical / Electronic student is taught that “Every Electron in the Universe Feels the Actions of Every Other One” How can EMF and Gravity work, over great distance, without a medium to act through? The problem is in a correct definition of the actions of the medium. Aether (dark matter/energy) properly described, explains mass/inertia effects, gravity, light and EMF. A sea of something that explains everything for me. Useful if you wish to create electrical True Space Propulsion. pg

  27. Great news Roger, many congratulations! Looks like we need to submit an Asynsis principle-Constructal law paper to PRP for some pure geometric-thermodynamics context, but who would be the best person(s) to approach there?

  28. Btw, is the Constructal law invoked in any of this PRP special edition along the lines of your earlier ‘Remarkable Discovery…” post? Many thanks again.

  29. Steven Mosher says:

    cool. not only did you review each other papers ( where the reviewer had the ethical courage to identify himself) but you referenced your own papers that were simultaneously submitted but un published.

    wow, way better than the CRU scams.

  30. Bob Weber says:

    pg – can I go for a ride in your electrical space drive ship?

  31. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Bob Weber; proof of concept is needed first, then we need to develop designs. I’m about to resume work on the test device. Smoke test of the circuits is next! 😎 if it doesn’t blow up maybe real data can be developed to add to the WAG (wild ass guess) of the present. pg

  32. tallbloke says:

    Hi Nigel, You’re too late for this special edition, but you can submit directly to PRP for general publication. Mark it for the attention of Nils Axel Morner. Mosher: I think we managed to reference published or at least accepted papers in this fast developing field of enquiry. Thank you so much for your polite observations. HAND, FOAD ETC.

  33. Bloke down the pub says:

    I see the Chiefio is back in the saddle. He has an interesting post on TSI .

  34. tchannon says:

    Chiefio is back? Good.

    He ought to read the series of stuff on TSI at this site and maybe one on my own site if he wants more on why TSI is a mess. Plenty more I have not written yet.


    Figure 1, daily data. See note [1]


    And the linked (I hope) series starting here

    He needs to follow the instrument bridging attempt too, right now.

  35. Bob Weber says:

    Mr oldbrew – perhaps the Van Allen belts around Earth and similar energetic plasma structures around the other planets are just more examples of Hannes Alfvens’ “double layer” that he insisted be recognized as a celestial object like stars because of their prevalence throughout space.

  36. p.g.sharrow says:

    One possible reason for the failure of the Michelson & Morley experiment was their failure to take into consideration fluid dynamics of the Earths’ movement through the Aether. They believed that the Aether was ridged and it flowed through the matter of the Earth. If mass/inertia and therefor gravity were artifacts of the Aether caused by the matter in it then fluid dynamics is an important consideration. pg

  37. oldbrew says:

    @ Bob Weber

    Interesting point about the plasma double layers. Don’t want to go off topic but I’ll just lift this quote from Alfven himself.

    “We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”


    Climate science take note.

  38. Chaeremon says:

    oldbrew quoted: “We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”

    A couple of friends (physicists) + me are currently finalizing the 2nd Rationale Physics Conference (weekend of April 5-6, 2014, in Salzburg, Austria) in which contact with experiments is main topic. I’ll send the conference poster to tallbloke in hope of getting a frontpage mention on this blog 🙂 Perhaps we can manage to display print copies of the Special Edition of Pattern Recognition in Physics on a table for raising the appetite of conference participants.

  39. Bob Weber says:

    Oldbrew: interesting findings here from today at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/20/scientists-solve-a-decades-old-mystery-in-the-earths-upper-atmosphere/ regarding electrons, plasma, and Van Allen belts.

  40. oldbrew says:

    @ BW – yes, I saw it at Science Daily earlier today but if Watts has it there should be some comments worth a look.


    Talking of pattern recognition, Vukcevic weighs in at WUWT with a graph :


  41. Ian Wilson says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    December 18, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    Steve Mosher is the Benedict Arnold of the Modern Climate Debate

  42. tallbloke says:

    Ian:Three years ago at Lisbon, Mosh told me I needed to provide some numbers to back up our solar-planetary hypothesis. Now we are able to do that, he’s falling back on insult by comparing us to people who bent data and stats methods, intimidated journal editors, removed adverse data, hid sample sizes etc.

    It’s standard fare from the people who have lost the plot on what the scientific method is. They play the man rather than the ball, because their threadbare theory has failed.

  43. vukcevic says:

    In contrast Gavin Schmidt is sensing that times are changing. For many months, he relegated my occasional post to ‘bore hole’ but on the recent thread
    he allowed 3-4 of my sceptical contributions, advocating natural variability. Granted, he calls it numerology, which in a way it is if a clear physical mechanism is not proposed.

  44. tallbloke says:

    Hi Vuk: Give the very poor correlation between their preferred climate ‘control knobs’ and the data, they’re hardly in a good position to be calling us ‘numerologists’. Using poorly understood effects from aerosols as the spackle and caulk to plug the gaps is hardly good science either.

    None of them, Schmidt, Mosher, or indeed Anthony Watts is able to explain the regular 45 yr beach ridges around the Siberian and Canadian coasts where uplift has occurred. Those and the larger ridges at 90 and 180 yrs fit perfectly with our quantified planetary cycles however. Ignoring relevant things you can’t explain with your theory is bad science.

  45. David A says:

    some more food for thought on exploring the origin of the extremely energetic particles known as ultra-relativistic electrons in the Earth’s near-space environment

  46. David A says:

    Dang, I just saw this link already above. I did not know WUWT had a post on it.

  47. Paul Vaughan says:

    Solheim’s Figure 4 illustration of solar cycle phase anomalies is something I shared here & elsewhere in 2009: http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/159/2013/prp-1-159-2013.pdf . Volker Doorman has also shared this with us many times.

    I’ve shown a way to sharpen this result many times since then. Not many have the foundations to communicate about this efficiently. We’re in the busy season at work right now, so inefficient communication is not an option, but I’ll be around for terse, strategic commentary and every now & again there’s a 20 minute block of time when I can put some more meat on a few comments before going hiking or sea-kayaking.
    —- — — –
    A release like this needs theme music — I propose Lana Del Rey — Gods & Monsters, which was included in her recently released (Dec. 6, 2013) short film (27 minutes) “Tropico”, which graphically illustrates (can’t link to it here because it has explicit content, so search it) a subtle-nuance-filled path from darkness to enlightenment — highly recommended for inspiration towards patient transcendence in the face of ubiquitous obstruction — so dark it may lose you at times, but stick with it for the brilliant twist at the end — good propaganda at its best

  48. RichardLH says:

    Does anyone have a reference for the gravitation field modulation and distribution here on Earth from the Sun and Moon (over time)?

    As a vertical and horizontal change plot. i.e. Tidal forces (in G) both lateral and vertical on a Mollweide projection or a true globe.

    This is, I believe, an important inter body force for which I am unable to find good references.

  49. tchannon says:

    Try Aerology on top menu, ask Richard, he might know.

  50. RichardLH says:

    Thanks, I will.

  51. Andrew McRae says:

    This is spectacular. This publication is great news on the cosmic-climate frontline. Well done to TB and all the authors.

    It seems RJ’s formula is being widely cited… despite the vital constants of the paper’s formula being held at arm’s length. I had no idea I was being inducted into an exclusive cabal keeping the secrets of the Sun when I read his freely-available exposé. 🙂

    It’s a bit strange that nobody wants to talk about the poor match-up of the SSN formula with the Solanki proxy data prior to 1780. I guess nobody wants to rock the boat there. Figure 4 shows the two curves and then the main text… says nothing about it. The critics aren’t going to sit on that and say nothing.

    Personally I think the cyclic formula is more believable than the proxy data. Whether it is ice cores or tree rings, the ability of proxies to perfectly record the past has been exaggerated. Since Solanki’s data comes from tree rings it may not be surprising that it has organic non-linear responses. I can venture a repair.
    Here is my hypothesis. The rate of d.14C ‰ increase is proportional to its spallation supply rate, yes, but surely it is also inversely proportional to how quickly it is sucked out of the air by all the other growing plants and by how quickly it is diluted by 12C CO2 outgassing from the ocean… both of which will occur at a higher rate during a time of (literal) global warming.
    We have the issue of why there would be a high 14C retention response to cosmic rays at some times (1550..1650) and not others (1200..1300). It can’t be because cosmic rays don’t affect the climate, since the proxy evidence for that from other places (eg Oman) is too big to ignore and the MWP certainly existed. The world must have warmed during a low cosmic ray + high SSN period, but perhaps the greater the warming the less strong the tree ring record of 14C will be. So if the MWP was as “unusually” warm (on millennial scales) as our CWP (as most proxies indicate) then the tree cores should record 14C supply rate equally poorly (showing lower-than-actual spallation rates) in both the MWP and CWP. Hypothetically, if Solanki’s tree rings were to extend all the way up to 2000 they would suggest average SSN no higher than 80 even when real counts were higher. That would be my prediction anyway, and that could perhaps be tested and falsified if the dendros get onto it.

    Well, just throwing the idea out there anyhow. That seems to be the new Open Science trend.

  52. Paul Vaughan says:

    I would like to see RJ build a model of solar cycle phase — i.e. a model that prioritizes phase accuracy over amplitude accuracy. I appreciate the model RJ has built. So far as I know, no one else has come even remotely close. However, it only took a few seconds to determine that it fails the simplest of phase accuracy diagnostics.

    (Phase is my primary interest since that is what modulates so-called “internal” (a misnomer) spatiotemporal distribution of terrestrial heat & water at a fixed level of solar activity by shifting circulatory pumping & persistence, so it was natural to immediately focus on that.)

    This does not reflect badly on RJ, as RJ’s optimization was amplitude-oriented. (He accomplished exactly what he set out to do.) I don’t doubt for a second that RJ has the ability to shuffle optimization criteria. Who knows what might be learned from such an exercise? Looking at things from another angle, might one see differently?

    Should RJ find the time for such exploration, I promise to be a member of an appreciative, welcoming audience.

  53. R J Salvador says:

    Andrew and Paul, thanks for your comments. A model is not reality and given the near perfect resonance in the solar system, I think this simple model is just one possible representation of a very complex process between the sun and the solar system. I used Solanki 10 year average data to direct the correlation to some time periods of very low sunspot activity. So that is one averaged data point from Solanki per sunspot cycle so you would not expect large peaks and valleys in Solanki’s data. Below is a link to a comparison of the model to Steinhilber’s change in TSI over the past 1000 years reconstructed from 10Be data.

    Rog’s paper “The Hum” really uncovers the challenge and the opportunity in doing work in this area. A billion years of solar system evolution has placed before us a resonator that makes it difficult to determine what is driving what. Rog, Ian Wilson, Scafetta, Jelbring, and Solheim are doing amazing work in this area. I just enjoy reading their work.
    Paul I will have comment to your post later.

  54. R J Salvador says:


    I have no insight in how to do accomplish what you are after, however I did read your Solar Terrestrial Climate 101.

    Click to access Vaughan%20130804%20Solar%20Terrestrial%20Climate%20101.PDF

    You can do more by clarifying this document than anything I can do. I believe what you have done is possibly brilliant but it is very hard to grasp without spoon feeding the concepts to us. I will paraphrase and if you have time next year, please expand on 101 to show where I got it wrong.

    The sun heats the earth and obviously more at the equator than at the poles. This causes an atmospheric circulation pattern to occur between the poles and the equator which distributes heat over time and changes the mass distribution of the earth’s atmosphere (and by wind the ocean) resulting in changes detected in the earth’s length of day (LOD) because of the conservation of angular momentum. The circulation pattern is different in the northern versus southern hemispheres because of the differences in land and ocean mass. In the southern hemisphere there is a fairly direct and smooth response of the temperature profile, over time, to the integral of the sunspot number ( a proxy for the TSI?) because of the large heat holding capacity of the greater ocean mass available there. In the northern hemisphere the temperature response is exaggerated because the land mass has low heat capacity. In the northern hemisphere the temperature profile is driven by the solar cycle acceleration and deceleration (SCAD). It is clear as you have stated that this process depends on “pumping rate and persistence” and that drives climate change. What is not clear is what you mean by a wavelet tachometer and how you calculated this SCAD value.
    You have many graphics which prove this concept and tie the climate to solar system and other earth related events:
    Others (eg: Dickey, Keppenne.) have reported some of these but you have added to show a correlation not only between semi annual terrestrial mid latitude wind amplitude and LOD but also with the solar cycle and therefore with the Moscow neutron count, and with the JEV cycle and with the Jupiter-Neptune beat. The solar cycle is connected by cause and effect. The others maybe connect through the solar cycle cause and effect or occur at the same time because of solar system resonance.

    Now you get really tricky. You bring in ozone concentration which is produce mainly at the equator and distributed by the wind currents. (Is it right that you do this to use ozone as a proxy to show the change the in atmosphere angular momentum and by extension the LOD of the earth within the seasons and the solar cycle??) This shows that the LOD changes throughout the year with the seasons and across decades in time to both heat solar input and other longer-term gravitational influences. (both planetary and solar?)
    What is not clear is how you did it and what the color scheme means. This weave and pattern I think are a major discovery but it needs your expert interpretation to get it across.

    Your last connection between changes in the helio-spheric current sheet and the northern and southern sea surface temperature (SST) is at this point beyond my knowledge base but I follow that you show they correlate and are also correlate to changes in solar plumes and magnetic field.

    What you have done is very important but there is some “splainin to do” for us slow thinkers. If you could take time over six months to add to 101 and expand on your thinking and methods, it would be of great value to us.

    My congratulations to you and best regards,
    Happy New Year,


  55. tallbloke says:

    Paul has updated and improved his 101 document. Watch this space over the next few days.

  56. Steven Mosher says:

    “Ian:Three years ago at Lisbon, Mosh told me I needed to provide some numbers to back up our solar-planetary hypothesis. Now we are able to do that, he’s falling back on insult by comparing us to people who bent data and stats methods, intimidated journal editors, removed adverse data, hid sample sizes etc.

    It’s standard fare from the people who have lost the plot on what the scientific method is. They play the man rather than the ball, because their threadbare theory has failed.”

    No Rog, I’m hold you to the same standard that we hold mann and others to.

    1. Your the editor of a journal and you publish your own papers. In the climategatemails we found similar problems; we found authors who selected journals because they had a guy on the inside.
    Second, we complained because IPCC chapter authors were referring to their own work. Self interest. I can hardly complain about this practice WRT the IPCC and Mann and then let you slide simply because you are a friend. Further, when I was asked for a list of journals to submit to
    I eliminated all journals where our authors served as editors or as emeritus editors.

    2. We complained about climate scientists citing papers that had not yet been published. Look through your references you’ll find the examples. Again, integrity. And yes, you’ll note for example that our AMO paper ( that confirms some of scaffettas work) was held back from publication until all the other papers it cites were published. To do otherwise is to build a house on quicksand.

    3. I missed your policy on archiving data and code. I did note some people giving links as references. Sad. bare minimum would be link with the date accessed.

    Finally, I looked for your numbers. they are still missing. At a minimum I should be able to go to the SI, get the data and run the code to make sure that the charts presented actually come from the method described.

    Since you’re the editor perhaps you tell us how you plan to practice the things we agreed on long ago. Don’t feel bad, folks who think its not the sun get pissed when I tell them to share data and code.. to basically show their work. But you should not be surprised that I would argue that everybody, not just Mann and Jones, should aim for reproducable research. I’ve been advocating it since 2007. Why would I listen to any special pleading from friends. For example, see my comments in july of 2012 on steve mcintyre’s blog where he and Anthony get an earful from me.
    It’s a principle for me.

  57. R J Salvador says:

    TB says, “Paul has updated and improved his 101 document. Watch this space over the next few days.”


  58. tallbloke says:

    Mosh: See? You can make your points without the need to compare us to villains.

  59. Paul Vaughan says:

    RJ, thanks sincerely for providing such detailed commentary. This is very useful — i.e. to see your written interpretation of what I convey visually, informally, & minimally.

    I hope you’ll be around when I have a bit more time to reply at greater length a few days from now.

    Meanwhile, here’s something to chew on:

    Marcia Wyatt is someone who deserves our support. (There’s a lot more to say about this too.)

  60. As usually, Mosher says things that do not make sense.

    In science one can wonder and complain about the way papers are published AFTER that “severe systematic scientific errors” are found in the published papers, not before it.

    Mosher’s complains are nothing but insinuations because he should have found “severe systematic scientific errors” in the published papers first, and then he could argue his general complains about the “publication form”.

    Contrary to Mosher’s complains, there is nothing wrong in science in selecting journals whose editors are not a-priory biased against the author’s work. It is evident that if the editor is a-priory biased the author will not receive a fair review. And there is nothing wrong for an author to reference his own works or works of colleagues working on similar topics.

    In the case of climategate the scandal was not that some authors favor each other publication, but that at the same time they were trying to block the publications of people critical of their opinion up to the point of engaging in intimidation tactics against editors open to scientific debate and defamation tactics against authors that they dislike (e.g. Soon and Baliunas case).

    Moreover, Mosher ignores that this collection was not thought to be an IPCC-like governmental document which had to be written by independent authors, but was a Special Issue of the journal open to everybody but also where various authors were invited to provide a contribution on a specific topic. The collection was evidently thought by the editors as a kind of book with each author writing a specific chapter covering a topic. In this situation it is perfectly normal that the editors of the collection wanted to try to harmonize the papers by, at their discretion, informing the authors of the relevant content present in other papers already accepted for publication.

    For example, my paper with Willson was one of the first papers to be published and does not contain any reference to the other papers of the collection.

    My second paper that will be published soon and that was thought also as a kind of general introduction of the collection was completed very late also because it had to contain some information on the other papers of the collection which are now referenced.

    In the case of the paper by Morner (the editor of the collection), his paper was not edited by Morner himself (as Mosher insinuated) but by S.-A. Ouadfeul, who is the other editor of the journal. According to the policy of the journal.

    About Mosher’s final complain “I missed your policy on archiving data and code.” It seems to me that all data used in the papers are publicly available and codes can be easily written following the equations and the instruction of the authors. It is typical to Mosher that he does not get the point that scientific articles are not tutorials for apprentices like him, but require that those readers who would like to repeat the calculations spend some time doing some homework.

    In the same way, works based on experimental results do not require that the authors make their lab public to everybody. Those who would like to check the experimental results discussed in the paper must build up their own lab and learn how to make the experiment.

  61. Bob Weber says:

    Paul, over at WUWT, somebody else is getting a lot of attention for some similar ideas to yours regarding the earth’s heat engine. I stopped paying attention, but you might look into that if you haven’t already. I’m not sure, but I beleive your work predates his, and if it does, you might want to assert that. Looking forward to your qualitative review.

    Happy New Year Talkshoppers! May 2014 take everyone to new heights of understanding.

  62. tallbloke says:

    Nicola: Thank you. I didn’t have time to rebut Mosh’s comments, and you have made exactly the points I would have made in response. All Mosh needs to replicate my work is the JPL ephemeris and already published LOD data. Does he want me to tie a bib round his neck and spoon feed him too?

  63. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bob Weber (December 31, 2013 at 3:19 pm) wrote:
    “Paul, over at WUWT, somebody else is getting a lot of attention for some similar ideas to yours regarding the earth’s heat engine.”

    No. He didn’t even mention the annual cycle, so what he’s writing isn’t for a serious, sensible audience.

    For superior (by many orders of magnitude) guidance on heat engines, follow the links I give to Sidorenkov (2005 & 2009) from the last page of Sun-Climate 101.


  64. Geoff Sharp says:

    I would normally not agree with most of Moshers comments, but I have to agree the group think on this Journal is not healthy.

    With the exception of Nicola’s work with J/S cycles it is becoming obvious there are very few repeating patterns in the solar system.

    A new paper in print will soon highlight some of these facts, the Julian system never repeats.


  65. tallbloke says:

    “Group think”

    🙂 Thanks Geoff, that insult made me laugh.

    there are very few repeating patterns in the solar system.

    There are thousands.

  66. Paul Vaughan says:

    RJ asked about what the weave depicts & the color scheme. Color’s on an intuitive normalized scale from low (ice blue) through zero (black) to high (fire). The weave’s just an anomaly view of Dickey & Keppenne’s (1997) Figure 3b sorted by time of year. It’s a dead simple, robust pattern.

    RJ also asked about how to calculate solar cycle acceleration/deceleration (“wavelet tachometer”). In both 101 documents I link to “similar methods” (at the top of page 1). As I’ve indicated many times over the past few years: Anyone who can reproduce Figure 4a from the linked “similar methods” article needs only to (a) convert from phase anomalies to a phase differential (since there’s no locked terrestrial clock) (literally simple addition & subtraction) & (b) repeat the exercise on sunspot numbers (instead of north & south sunspot area). (Advanced, serious readers actually doing the calculations 100%-independently can ask me how to damp the avoidable systematic bias in Donner & Thiel’s estimates.)

    Once sensible, capable parties independently do the calculations firsthand, all fog & mystery will vanish (for them).

    Sun-Climate 101 outlines law-constrained geometric foundations of solar-governed “internal” (a counterproductive misnomer) spatiotemporal redistribution (stirring) of terrestrial heat & water at a fixed level of multidecadal solar activity.

    Those with sufficiently deep understanding will recognize this as a 4-dimensional geometric proof.

    The attractor would be the same whether scrambled by white noise, chaos, &/or lunisolar oscillations (the latter stand out clearly in observations).

    The utility of these fundamentals extends beyond generalizing the role of stellar frequency in planetary aggregate-circulation to assessing the vision, competence, functional numeracy, honesty, & relevance of climate discussion agents, including those abusing authority.

  67. Bob Weber says:

    Still absorbing “101” – I think your points need further description for non-specialists, with clearer explanations of terms and concepts. Your audience runs the gamut educationally, and it would help spread your ideas if you would write in a way that an undergraduate could understand as well as the Phd. As a BSEE with some familiarity with the concepts and jargon, I struggled to understand some unannotated charts in “101”. What I ask is not always easy (it is work), but it would be necessary to successfully communicate the significance of your ideas to a wider audience. Otherwise I like what you’ve done here and find it both fascinating and useful. Perhaps a “101b”?

  68. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bob, have you carefully read Sidorenkov’s section 8.7?

    Best Regards

  69. Bob Weber says:

    Getting there…

  70. Bob Weber says:

    Paul, I’m sorry, my fault. Very awesome news here. Big Time. I think “101” helps Svensmark’s (et al) cosmic climate theory, and it helps many in the Earth sciences.

    Last night I had a glass of champagne, which I normally don’t do, not long before I started to read “101”, and after I got done being mesmerized by your graphics, and I got to the two links in the middle of page four, which didn’t work (HTTP404), stopped, didn’t read the pull quotes or anything.

    Too bad those Russian links didn’t work. I hope they weren’t blocked… Hosted somewhere else?

    Can I use a graphic of yours with proper attribution in my debut video on “The Electric Weather Channel” on YT?

    This channel of mine will be a place where I hope to reveal the existence and significance of all possible cause and effect relationships between cosmic and solar sources of photons, protons, and electrons on the Earth’s biosphere, weather, and climate – by highlighting the works of blokes at the talkshop among other places.

    The ozone / cosmic ray / sunspot figure would be the only one I need for the first video, and from what I can see, there’s plenty here to make a presentation explaining this whole thing in one decent video, if you might be interested in doing that.

  71. Bob Weber says:

    Paul, I found a full pdf of Sidorenkov. Obviously I’m nowhere near you guys here at this point in understanding the full everything about his book, your “101” article, or planetary theory. I am still making time for reading dozens of papers on top of everything else.

    Further, I am going to strictly focus right now on making a few points clear as possible first in my present work. One is the frequent apparent cause-effect relationship between short-term solar activity and extreme weather events. Second is helping provide a useful recounting and assessment of Piers Corbyn’s Oct-Dec 2013 WeatherAction forecasts (he knows this), which by the way have been very good, esp December and right now. So I could understand if you were cautious regarding my offer until you’ve seen my work. Fair enough?

    I consider the short-term variations in solar activity and coincident earth weather events to hold important clues to how the Sun-Earth connection works.

    Also, I see from past “battles” discussed at the Talkshop last summer, that many here feel as I do that a certain individual at WUWT makes it his passion to wreck havoc on outsiders in order to maintain their “mainstream” mindset. It’s unfortunate. I saw your post the other day, and couldn’t help but notice the silent treatment you got. Same thing happened to me after I mentioned my honest and earnest support of Piers’ work several times. So I guess I’ve joined the WUWT outcast club (or I got clubbed – whichever).

    Pressing on regardless.

  72. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bob, silence is good.

    • Concise overview of heat engines = p.433 [pdf p.10] here:

    Sidorenkov, N.S. (2005). Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 24(5), 425-439.

    • Elaboration on heat engines = section 8.7 (begins on p.175 [pdf p.189]) here:

    Sidorenkov, N.S. (2009). The Interaction Between Earth’s Rotation and Geophysical Processes. Wiley.

    http://imageshack.us/a/img850/876/f0z.gif (credit: JRA-25 Atlas)

    I wish you enlightenment (and peace).

  73. […] Special Edition of Pattern Recognition in Physics […]

  74. oldbrew says:

    Re this : ‘The Solar System seems to include an unknown physical process capable of transferring energy between both celestial bodies (orbital energy) and between orbital energy and rotational energy.’

    Near-Earth asteroid 4954_Eric is in a 2:3 orbital relationship with Mars. Its rotation period is almost exactly 47:23 with Mars (46:23 = 2:1).


    And asteroid 1998_QE2 goes one better with a 1:2 orbital relationship with Mars (allowing for one ‘extra’ Mars orbit in every 589, i.e. 294:589). No accurate rotation data is available for QE2 to date.

  75. Tim Crome says:

    Very sad to see that this will no longer be published, at least by Copernicus. I hope you manage to find an alternative way to get this out to a wider public.

    [Reply] The Chief Editor intends to move the journal elsewhere, so I hope many people will support him. I know I will.

  76. Jim Coyle says:

    Big Brother is alive and he can read!!!

  77. Bruce Binion says:

    I haven’t checked your blog for a few weeks. It looks like I missed out on some excellent discussion of solar events! I am interested in getting a copy of Pattern Recognition! The concept is great! My one and only paper I presented last year at the AGU conference on the Effects of the Extended Solar Minimum was about recognizing patterns in data.

    I also noted that Michele Casati commented about getting ready for the AGU conference in Austria. My bank account did not allow for my attending that conference. There will be some excellent material presented.

    Anyway, if I could use a credit card here in the USA, I would like an opportunity to purchase a copy of the publication.

    Also, I noted a discussion concerning cosmic rays and solar wind affecting the “polar vortex”. A side note from my work on solar events triggering earthquakes, indicated a relationship of X Class solar flares happening over a period of time and being sustained for more than just an hour or two seeming to impact the weather. Here in Iowa USA it has meant drought, early season change, and high temps. The group of flares this Fall indicated a chance for an early, very cold, and dry winter which it has been here in the midwest. Whether this is a new connection due to other changes (likely), I don’t know, but it has happened in late Winter into Spring of 2012, early Summer of 2013, and Winter of 2013 to 2014.

    I need to stay current with the discussions here in your blog!!
    Thank you for your time,
    Bruce Binion
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa USA

  78. tallbloke says:

    I’ll email you the address of the contact you need to ask about a cc transaction. Failing that, I’ll send you one of my spares. Thanks for your interest and stick around, it’s going to get interesting!