Two more refs to PRP papers from mainstream solar physicists

Posted: May 1, 2016 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, Celestial Mechanics, censorship, Electro-magnetism, modelling, Solar physics, solar system dynamics, Tides
Tags: ,

wpid-PRP-Censured.jpgA new paper is in the works from a group of mainstream solar physics theorists who work with dynamo models. It explores the possibility that the Sun’s dynamo is modulated by planetary motion – something we’ve been working on here at the talkshop for the last six years. It finds that the gravitational interaction of the motions of Venus, Earth and Jupiter (VEJ) could be involved with both the 11.07 and 22.14 Schwabe and Hale solar cycles.

I’m not going to post the paper yet, as it is still undergoing peer review at a major journal, but I thought it would be fun to provide a teaser. Here’s part of the bibliography. If you look at the top and bottom references, they are to papers by Nicola Scafetta and  Ian Wilson which were published in our special edition of Pattern Recognition in Physics at the end of 2013.

It’s very heartening to see that despite the suppression of PRP by Martin Rasmussen at Copernicus (the innovative science unpublishers), and the slanderous attack by Anthony Watts and the WUWT pundits, our work is still generating interest in the mainstream solar physics community. Good science shines through the libel and censorship of Martin Rasmussen, Anthony Watts, Willis Eschenbach and Leif Svalgaard. Suck it up fellas.

prp-refs

Comments
  1. Ian Wilson says:

    Rog, thank you for highlighting this new and potentially important paper. Like a Phoenix our censored PRP publication keeps rising from the ashes.

  2. Sunsettommy says:

    I have long believed that the Sun and the Solar system are interconnected. There are simply too many indications to ignore it.

  3. Paul Vaughan says:

    JEV ~= (φ/Φ)/(J+S) is written in stone. We don’t need to entertain debate. Political agents can splash whatever distortion; it’s water off a duck’s back.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Let’s hope it doesn’t get a torpedo from certain quarters for not toeing the party line.

  5. tom0mason says:

    The truth of the matter will shine through…

  6. tallbloke says:

    Paul, there’s no doubt in my mind that the orbital rates of Earth and Venus are intimately linked to the orbital rates of Jupiter and Saturn by the Phi relation. In my second PRP paper I tried to elucidate links between them and the solar differential rotation rate too. A work in progress (on hold until after the EU referendum, when I will withdraw from politics and return to science).

  7. “suck it up” lol

  8. oldbrew says:

    ‘It finds that the gravitational interaction of the motions of Venus, Earth and Jupiter (VEJ) could be involved with both the 11.07 and 22.14 Schwabe and Hale solar cycles.;

    We also know that the number of Jupiter and Neptune orbits in ~22.14 years sums to 2.

  9. pyromancer76 says:

    Congratulations for finding kindred spirits in other real scientists. Enjoy reading here everyday.

  10. auspeterb says:

    Ian Wilson et al earlier work on the Jovian Planets influencing on magma speed at the Sun’s equator begs the question of whether the variation in speed and the changing angle of resultant magnetic force causes eddies in the magma flow. Would eddies be sun spots? Is there any studies on the relation of the changing angles and total influence of the Jovian Planets and patterns in Sun spot activity?

  11. Geoff Sharp says:

    Am hoping Jean-Pierre Desmoulins gets credit for his ground breaking work in 1989 in the upcoming paper.

    Interesting that he predicted a big SC24 based on his theory, his theory perhaps best at determining solar cycle timing only?

    http://jpdesm.pagesperso-orange.fr/sunspots/sun_c24.html

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    “[…] you and I, we’re pioneers […]
    […]
    We will carve our place into time and space
    We will find our way, or we’ll make a way”
    “Wild Things” – Alessia Cara

  13. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, unfortunately not. Did Desmoulins ever produce a formal paper that could be cited? I’m not aware of one. I agree with you that JEV is a better indicator of timing than amplitude, I found the same thing. The other notable is that JEV gets out of synch with solar near the onset of grand minima. Which is why I also agree with you that the gas giants are having an effect. As our phi work shows, the whole system has interconnected timings, with J & S as the biggest shepherds.

    Ulric, fair enough, and good luck with your research. I hope you come back to wow us with a brilliant quantitative model one day.

  14. Canadian Climate Guy says:

    Reblogged this on Canadian Climate Guy.

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    Formality’s cultural and 1+1=2 with or without red tape framing.
    Desmoulins revived exploration pioneered by Bollinger (1952):

    http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v33/v307_311.pdf

    With Bollinger’s (1952) numbers the long JEV cycle has length 164.7208965 years and spatial volatility amplitude cycles temporally at 96.73306851 years. (Compare with numbers I gave in 2 comments near the end of Suggestions-17 based on Seidelmann (1992).)

    Bollinger’s 11.1928695 year cycle is NOT a volatility cycle.
    The volatility cycle has length 11.06536734 years using Bollinger’s (1952) numbers.
    (Bollinger omitted consideration of volatility cycles.)

    There may be some confusion as people try to come to terms with this. The (unnecessary) confusion comes from not distinguishing mean from variance.

    Spatial variances cycle temporally.

    We know this VERY well from the EOP (Earth Orientation Parameter) record. For some reason there’s resistance to acknowledging this SOLID fact in climate discussion. (This is a case where I suspect ignorance more than deception.)

    Probably an article summarizing Bollinger’s sun-planet-climate explorations more than half-a-century ago would inform (and perhaps inspire) TalkShoppers. Here are a few more Bollinger articles:

    http://digital.library.okstate.edu/OAS/oas_pdf/v38/p121_123.pdf
    http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v35/p156_157.pdf

    Maybe when/if time permits I’ll run side-by-side comparisons of volatility loops based on Bollinger’s 1950s numbers versus those based on NASA JPL Horizons &/or Seidelmann (1992).

    I haven’t checked (yet):
    Did Desmoulins cite Bollinger?

    I’m curious to know the extent to which Desmoulins was aware of Bollinger’s explorations decades earlier.

    Regards

  16. tallbloke says:

    Bollinger DOES get a mention in the paper. And you’re right Paul, we should find the time to peruse his work. Important history of science wrt the solar-planetary theory.

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    Another Bollinger article:
    http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v42/p225_230.pdf

    I’m curious to know what else he explored…

  18. Geoff Sharp says:

    Thanks Paul for highlighting the paper from Bollinger, I was not aware of his work. It would seem he was miles ahead of Des Desmoulins…learn something new everyday. It looks like the Journal doing the review, or the authors are up to speed.

    Dollinger picked up the anti phase just before the Dalton Minimum, so he was right on the ball…and too early to know it was going to happen again at 2000.

  19. Oldmank says:

    From PV last link: “This cycle included the devastating “dust bowl” years in the Great Plains”. For this reason alone such research is very important. A repeat today will have extreme implications.

    Quote “in which planetary configurations are assumed, through tidal influence on the sun, to cause cycles in total radiation and hence climate.” The insolation/latitude distribution was constant for the last 5k years, but beyond that I would add another ‘dimension’. Plato called it ‘a declination of the heavens’.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    Oldmank suggested: “The insolation/latitude distribution was constant for the last 5k years […]”

    That would demand some crazy-*ss assumptions!

    Rethink.

  21. Oldmank says:

    @ PV –maybe I did not put it clearly, so I explain. Solar insolation varies with latitude depending on obliquity. It has an effect on climate, fig2 pg3 here :https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-institute/public/publications/briefing-papers/Solar-Influences-on-Climate—Grantham-BP-5.pdf

    Obliquity variation is assumed ( I would say *ss assumed blindly) as 22.5 to 24.5. But there are pointers that that assumption is very wrong beyond 5k yrs. Work out what the effect on climate would be if the obliquity was changed to ~14.5deg. I don’t have a date for that change- someone else had found it– but i have for the value of obliquity then.

    From this: Earth Orientation: Does Solar System Motion Matter? Walter Cruttenden in conclusion “Given the great accuracy of the moving solar system model over the last 100 years, and its ability to explain the difference in local versus non-local precession measurements, we question the static SS model with the same vigor as a certain 16th century astronomer—-“. We should question more than that. JN Stockwell’s calculations of more that 100yrs ago leave out important sections.

  22. fast says:

    “When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager, unsatisfactory kind.”
    LORD KELVIN

    from the forward of Clyde J Bollinger’s ATLAS of Planetary Solar Climate (1960)

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    clear sky?
    random spatial distribution? neither assumption viable

    modelers are bad-*ss, we can agree

    Bollinger on Dust Bowl — we agree = important… (looking into this further….)

    If anyone ever finds an unambiguous statement of the exact average Saturn period Bollinger used in his explorations, please point us to it.

    A lot of volatility calculations are exceedingly sensitive to the exact numbers used. Sensitivity diagnostics are a standard feature of sensible exploration.

    Some of Bollinger’s numbers may look different on the surface, but be conceptually identical. (There’s a project here comparatively sorting out the thinking of the time.)

    Also, has anyone read Bollinger’s book? I had never heard of it before this week. How did we overlook this whole branch of history? Ignorance. Let’s correct our ignorance.

    We’re not (yet) thinking clearly enough about water asymmetry (equator-pole, pole-pole, land-ocean, composite). It shouldn’t be hard to sort out the boundary conditions constraining equator-pole & pole-pole.

    It’s land-ocean that’s challenging us. One could say it’s mocking us. Laughing right at us. how stupid we are to not recognize it.

    We don’t do well with the shapes. It’s like fingers in a chord pattern on the same set of strings. Land-ocean margins aren’t squares. If they were, would they still make a complete joke of conventional vision? Maybe? Probably?

    What simplifying universals can be discovered that are independent of shape and what function is determined by (far from being independent of) shape?

    These are among the glorious challenges faced by driven climate explorers.

    This is about boundary conditions and limits on aggregate properties of turbulence. Turbulence has some freedom to be crazy, but what factors govern spatiotemporal scale-breaks in the craziness level?

    It’s a function of what synchronizing factors are available. Agents of synchronization. It’s spatio temporal synchronization, folded by easterly retardants, westerly accelerants, and obstacles in between. (The sideways-V is just a smear pattern.)

    Some of the agents just rock the spatial balance harder.
    They don’t bias the integral.
    Integral bias is a function of depression by the weight of another mode.

    And so we need to distinguish between factors enveloping the extent of balance swing and factors biasing the amount of time spent on one side or the other.

    Mainstream conceptualization WAS WRONG.

    ENSO’s just a swing. Something can make it swing harder without biasing it’s mean. Something else can bias the mean by interfering with the pace of swinging (without altering the orthogonal envelope of extremes). (Solar cycle length has to be CHANGING to have an effect in this paradigm. Bookmark this thought…)

    This is all directly connected to what Bollinger was saying about the Dust Bowl. He had this piece of the puzzle way back then …and we just didn’t know.

    It’s remarkable how when something like this comes along several things can suddenly just fall into place and force a whole new level of awakening clarity.

    There will be lots to discuss moving forward once everyone’s a little more familiar Bollinger’s paradigm.

  24. oldbrew says:

    Sun tides: an unexplored astronomical approach to climate cycles and trends
    CJ Bollinger – Tellus, 1968 – Wiley Online Library
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1968.tb00381.x/epdf

    It is concluded:
    1. That the orderliness and mechanical stability of the Solar System is reflected in terrestrial weather and climate.
    2. That the sun tide-solar energy hypothesis provides a method of exploring the overlapping twilight zone between astrophysics and geophysics.
    3. That through the development of improved models it may be possible to evolve a numerical system of seasonal and longer range climatic forecasting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s