Gerry Pease: Long Term Sunspot Cycle Phase Coherence with Periodic Phase Disruptions

Posted: October 16, 2016 by tchannon in Solar physics, solar system dynamics

Tim writes,

Gerry Pease has just sent us this link to his arXiv astro-ph.SR paper, co-authored with Greg Glenn, entitled Long Term Sunspot Cycle Phase Coherence with Periodic Phase Disruptions. It details previously unrecognized sunspot cycle phase coherence data, sunspot cycle magnitude correlations, and planetary resonances that could have been very useful in the past to  astrophysicists attempting to predict sunspot cycles, if only they had not ignored the possibility of planetary causation:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1610/1610.03553.pdf

-Gerry Pease

Post by Tim

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    From the paper:
    The period 1968 to 1976 is, for the most part,
    sunspot phase coherent with 1789 to 1797, and also
    quite likely with 1610 to 1618 if the uncertainties of the
    sunspot cycle reconstruction for that time period are
    taken into account.

    Note the gaps between the quoted periods:
    1968 minus 1797 = 171 years
    1789 minus 1618 = 171 years

    The Uranus-Neptune conjunction period is 171.4~ years – coincidence?

  2. tchannon says:

    That is a return period mentioned in other papers, although it isn’t a clockwork repeat, cycles are always different.

  3. Gerry Pease says:

    oldbrew:
    The periods you are referring to are on the left side of the Figure 4, and are just a continution of the pink periods on the right side of the chart. From page 16: “We have also identified and examined two 98 year Jose subcycles of consistent sunspot cycle phase coherence at times of minima and amplitude correlation of maxima. These are SC12 through SC20, 1878-1976 with SC-[5] through SC4, 1699-1797), in which the solar paths remain within one solar diameter distance from the barycenter. Also identified were three 81 year subcycles of predominantly non-coherent sunspot cycle phasing (SC21 through SC27, 1976-2057, SC5 through SC11, 1797-1878, and 1618-1699), in which the solar paths had strayed well beyond one solar diameter distance from the barycenter in the phase disruptive segments. These subcycles alternate and repeat in the 81 + 98 = 179 year Jose Cycle as the Sun moves in a complex but predictable path that continuously repeats at the Jose frequency.”

    The subcycles are more clearly seen on Figure 3, on which, however, the years 1799 1699 and 1878 should have started the left side instead of 1700 and 1879. The chart started a year late because we were charting the “official” SILSO v1 annual sunspot cycles. It is obvious from inspection of Figure 4 that the official SILSO annual cycles should have started in 1799 1699.

  4. Gerry Pease says:

    Correction of my comment typo: the years 1699 and 1878 should have started the left side instead of 1700 and 1879.

    Fixed [mod]

  5. Geoff Sharp says:

    I think oldbrew is on the money, the cycle is 171.4 years and is commonly called the Gleissberg cycle. What Gerry is seeing is the change in solar orbits when U/N are together, which is quite simply the product of the two planets mass as they come together adding to the solar displacement from the SSB that J/S dominates.
    The Jose cycle of 178/9 years is false as anything that relies on the position of the outer 4 planets can’t happen as the 4 planets do not repeat their patterns over this time frame. Check out any solar system viewer to verify my statement. McCracken et al 2014 also agree.
    If there were no grand minima we would see low solar cycles when U/N are apart and high cycles when they are together. Interestingly Archibald and Fix are now saying they have discovered this phenomenon…..

  6. Gerry Pease says:

    I made the same typo in the last sentence. It, of course, should have read “It is obvious from inspection of Figure 4 that the official SILSO annual cycles should have started in 1699.” I need to do a little more proofreading on my comments before posting them!

  7. oldbrew says:

    I wouldn’t say the Jose cycle doesn’t exist. It’s more a question of what if any effect it might have.

    ‘The path of the Sun is actually a loop-de-loop about this point which doesn’t close upon itself like an ordinary planetary orbit. Jose discovered that although this motion is complicated, the Sun returns to roughly its starting position with respect to this point every 179 years, which he noted is 9 times the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn. This means that every 179 years as seen from the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn return to the same spot in the sky. ‘ [bold added]
    http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q923.html

  8. oldbrew says:

    NTZ: Below is a list of 18 peer-reviewed papers published in 2016 that support the position that changes in solar activity are well correlated with warming and cooling periods for the last millennium.

    See: http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/17/18-new-papers-link-high-solar-activity-to-medieval-and-modern-warmth-low-solar-activity-to-little-ice-age-cooling/

  9. Geoff Sharp says:

    oldbrew says:
    I wouldn’t say the Jose cycle doesn’t exist. It’s more a question of what if any effect it might have.

    Jupiter and Saturn nearly return to the same position (conjunction) but it is easy to see Uranus and Neptune move quite a distance away each 179 years. U/N are also big players when together creating roughly the same solar displacement as Saturn, so any cycle around 179 years is going to be very loose with quite different solar orbits each 171.4 years.

    This effect is huge because each U/N conjunction sees J/S in a different place until we get to 4627 years when the pattern repeats (not quite exactly). Because the positions are different we only see repeating patterns of solar behavior across the Holocene at 4627 year intervals, but not at 179 years.

  10. Gerry Pease says:

    Geoff,
    If you examine the Jose Cycle progressions documented in Figures 6-33 and Tables 1-5, please note that values derived from past solar cycle progressions range from 178.4 years to 180.1 years. However, the range is 178.6 years to 178.9 years derived from J, S syzygies since 1613, and 178.7 to 179.1 years derived from planetary synodic resonances other than J, U, which we pointed out is a 4-sigma outlier at 179.559 years. Even including the single resonant outller value from distant planet Uranus, I do not agree that the Jose Cycle we have enumerated as ~179 years is somehow a false cycle in our analysis.

  11. oldbrew says:

    There’s also the ‘question’ of an observed ~2400 year cycle.

    S. S. Vasiliev and V. A. Dergachev: 2400-year cycle in atmospheric radiocarbon concentration.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/s-s-vasiliev-and-v-a-dergachev-2400-year-cycle-in-atmospheric-radiocarbon-concentration/

    I don’t have any theory, but can’t help noticing that this is about 121 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions. Since the 4627 year period is about 233 J-S, the difference is 112. Therefore the difference between these two long periods is about 9 J-S = 1 Jose cycle or 179 years.

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    Suggestion:
    Simplify.

    For example, instead of talking about J-S drift on U-N, just derive it:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/nicola-scafetta-on-the-astronomical-origin-of-the-hallstatt-oscillation-found-in-radiocarbon-and-climate-records-throughout-the-holocene/#comment-120147

    Similarly, instead of talking about phases in relation to amplitude graphs, why not simply measure the phases and trivially graph the 81 + 98 year pattern?? Then the whole paper could be aesthetically condensed into a single, simple graph with no words …and a lot of precious luminary digestion time (it’s in extremely short supply relative to always-staggering competing demands so SOUNDBITES have to capitalize efficiently) would be saved.

    Personally I would even go further. In an information age people are literally drowning on floods of material. You can’t cut through with long-winded messaging.

    Suggested next step:
    Go for the soundbite illustration!

    [ :

    I’ll check back for it.

    I’m genuinely interested and curious, but it will be at least many months before I have time to dig through piles of old files to find the time series I need to run independent checks …but if you present a succinct money-graph, I will probably nearly-immediately rearrange my priorities.

    Regards

  13. Gerry Pease says:

    Regarding Geoff’s statement that “Because the positions are different we only see repeating patterns of solar behavior across the Holocene at 4627 year intervals, but not at 179 years,” If you take the time to examine Figures 6-33 you will see that, in fact, the intricate solar paths do, in fact, repeat like the proverbial clockwork at 179 year intervals despite the changing planetary positions This is one of the more significant (and surprising) findings of our paper, and I believe we are the first to show this in such detail. Carsten Arnholm’s Solar Simulator 2 is a great application. Figure 5 even details the ecliptic Z component of the motion between 1900 and 2040. It accounts for small distortions in the ecliptic projections. The question of why the torque cycles and consequent solar paths repeat so exactly every 179 years is not answered in our paper. It is an amazing consequence of a unique subset of the 10-body problem. As such, it can be considered an unsolved and unproven mathematical challenge.

    PV: If you can crack this one you should be able to get a Nobel Prize.

  14. oldbrew says:

    Doesn’t Table 5 point strongly to the maths of it?

  15. Gerry Pease says:

    Table 5 does indeed show the evolved resonances in the 179 yearJose Cycle, and Figure 2 clearly shows the resulting inner planet torque spikes. The challenge is to find the equations of motion that result in the very complex solar path that repeats itself at the beat Jose frequency. It is clearly a stable solution, so a very high order analytic solution must exist. The JPL DE405 solar ephemeris and Solar Simulator 2 do the number crunching very precisely by numerically integrating the mutually perturbative equations of motion.of the Sun and planets. Translating the numerically integrated solar path through any of the 179 year spans into an analytic expression is therefore possible and, in fact, is actually done in the SS2 step interpolations. Looking at the total analytic expression over a span of 179 years would probably not provide much insight, except to show how closely the initial conditions compare with the final conditions.

    The bigger problem is, of course, to find the physical process by which the planetary resonances might create sunspots. The most straightforward approach would be to see if conventional tidal models can be made to do the job. To test them, one should not impose restrictions in advance on parameters such as energy transfer requirements that back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate are too high. If “impossible” energy requirements work, all that remains is to find out why they work.

  16. Geoff Sharp says:

    When looking at the actual solar path per Jose cycle the differences are large.

    But when looking at a 600 year path overlay separated by 4627 years (3 overlays) it can be seen the solar path is near identical. JPL DE408

    I think the solar path rules and is the complete package when looking at solar cycle modulation and grand minima. The reason the Jose cycle breaks down is because Uranus and Neptune move away each 179 years like clockwork, but eventually come back to the same place every 4627 years.

    I recognized back in 2008 that the U/N conjunction is the important cycle as they have to be together to make change, its like adding another Saturn every 171.4 years. So instead of looking at Jose’s flawed cycle (he didnt have the data we have today) we should concentrate on the U/N conjunction 171.4 year cycle and how the unique positions of J/S across the 4627 year cycle play out.

    Charvatova was onto this but didnt understand the finer detail, and McCracken, Beer and Steinhilber are also in full agreement (2014). Now the late comers Archibald and Fix (2016) are on board, even though they believe they are onto something new.

    Ray Tomes is also on board and actually argued with Landscheidt in person that the 172 cycle is the key and not the Jose 179 year cycle.

  17. Greg Glenn says:

    Oldbrew and Paul Vaughan:
    My calculations for synodic period resonance that were summarized in the paper (Table 5) include both resonance with the ~179 year Jose Cycle and also for the ~2,403 year Hallstatt Cycle. We chose not to include Hallstatt Oscillation data to avoid diluting our points about the Jose sub-cycles. You can see that Uranus does indeed have a resonance with Hallstatt (S-U: 53, N-U: 14 and J-U: 174). Also, there is good resonance with 4 other Synodic periods (J-S: 121, J-N: 188, V-E: 1,503, and M-J: 1,075.1).

    See chart below for details:

  18. Geoff Sharp says:

    2 planet resonances are very different from 4 planet resonances. The 4 outer planets do all the work when considering solar orbit or path as Gerry and Greg are doing.

    Therefore all the outer 4 planets need to be considered together, and the only resonance available is 4627 years. 179 years is not even close unfortunately.

  19. ren says:

    In 2010, Jupiter and Saturn were in opposition. Magnetic activity the sun was low.

    Currently, Jupiter and Saturn are close to each other. The activity of the Sun magnetic quite high.

  20. ren says:

    In 2020 gas planets are close together. Torque Sun will low.

  21. oldbrew says:

    GP – ‘The bigger problem is, of course, to find the physical process by which the planetary resonances might create sunspots.’

    ‘Sunspots usually appear in pairs of opposite magnetic polarity.’
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

    Magnetism has to be a prime suspect?

    NB – RJ Salvador linked to this new paper by Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim:

    The influence of solar system oscillation on the variability of the total solar irradiance
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-22/comment-page-1/#comment-120579

  22. TLMango says:

    The Jose cycle is not defective or weak. And . . we should
    always question those who tell us that something that is visibly
    present does not exist. An important characteristic of the Jose cycle
    is that its ninth J/S alignment does not occur in the same location
    relative to the stars, it rotates ~24.30690529 degrees in a counter
    clockwise direction (based on J = 11.862 . . S = 29.457):

    using . . . . . J = 11.862 . . . . . S = 29.457 . . . . .

    The sun and jupiter have a binary relationship, they always oppose
    each other. If jupiter’s uniqueness among the planets is ignored, any
    related hypothesis could be tainted by false premise. Calculations based
    on false premise can appear to be correct when they are not.

    Because jupiter and the sun have a binary relationship, they both take
    ~11.862 years to rotate 360 degrees around the solar system’s center of
    mass (SSCM). Jupiter maintains an elliptical orbit around the sun but the
    SSCM continually re-positions itself between the two.

    The sun orbits the SSCM in a looping pattern that takes ~19.85899028
    years (J/S synodic period). In this period the sun rotates ~1.674168798
    times around the SSCM or 602.7007673 degrees.

    . . . . . 19.85899028 yrs / 11.862 yrs = 1.674168798 rotations
    . . . . . 1.674168798 deg x 360 deg = 602.7007673 degrees

    Each successive looping pattern of the sun effectively rotates 242.7007673
    degrees in a counter-clockwise direction (117.2992327 deg clockwise).

    . . . . . 602.7007673 deg – 360 deg = 242.7007673 degrees
    . . . . . 360 deg – 242.7007673 deg = 117.2992327 degrees

    Each successive tri-synodic (59.57697084 years) pattern of the sun
    effectively rotates 8.102301762 degrees in a counter-clockwise direction.

    . . . . . 360 deg – (117.2992327 deg) 3 = 8.102301762 degrees

    Each successive Jose cycle (178.7309125 years) is an effective rotation
    of the sun’s pattern that is equivalent to 24.30690529 degrees.

    . . . . . (8.102301762 deg) 3 = 24.30690529 degrees

  23. TLMango says:

    Sorry that’s 1.674168798 rotations x 360 degrees = 602.7007673 degrees

  24. ren says:

    Abstract
    We derive two principal components (PCs) of temporal magnetic field variations over the solar cycles 21-24 from full disk magnetograms covering about 39% of data variance, with λ=-0.67. These PCs are attributed to two main magnetic waves travelling from the opposite hemispheres with close frequencies and increasing phase shift. Using symbolic regeression analysis we also derive mathematical formulae for these waves and calculate their summary curve which we show is linked to solar activity index. Extrapolation of the PCs backward for 800 years reveals the two 350-year grand cycles superimposed on 22 year-cycles with the features showing a remarkable resemblance to sunspot activity reported in the past including the Maunder and Dalton minimum. The summary curve calculated for the next millennium predicts further three grand cycles with the closest grand minimum occurring in the forthcoming cycles 26-27 with the two magnetic field waves separating into the opposite hemispheres leading to strongly reduced solar activity. These grand cycle variations are probed by α-ω dynamo model with meridional circulation. Dynamo waves are found generated with close frequencies whose interaction leads to beating effects responsible for the grand cycles (350-400 years) superimposed on a standard 22 year cycle. This approach opens a new era in investigation and confident prediction of solar activity on a millenium timescale.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283862631_Heartbeat_of_the_Sun_from_Principal_Component_Analysis_and_prediction_of_solar_activity_on_a_millenium_timescale

  25. ren says:

    This may be related? 179 + 179 = 358
    Valentina V. Zharkova writes about the cycle of 350-400 years.

  26. ren says:

    Valentina V. Zharkova forecast:

  27. Gerry Pease says:

    GS writes “Therefore all the outer 4 planets need to be considered together, and the only resonance available is 4627 years. 179 years is not even close unfortunately.”

    We have very precisely included resonant perturbative effects of all the planets. The only quantitatively useful Schwabe sunspot cycle information available is from telescopic observations going back to 1610. Ancient Chinese naked eye sunspot observations only sporadically detected sunspots near solar maxima, and the best proxy information is too spread out over time, noisy, biased, and slow changing to be useful for determining precise times of sunspot cycle minima. Also, the quality of planetary and solar ephemerides degrades slightly going back four thousand years intead of 400 years. The only component of the Halstatt Cycle that is useful for analyzing the last 400 years of sunspot data is the Jose Cycle ~179 year resonance interval, and we have included this for all the planets and calculated corresponding standard deviations . It would be, frankly, ludicrous to suggest that 4000 year old data would be better suited for predicting times of sunspot minima in the next century.

  28. Gerry Pease says:

    ren writes: “This may be related? 179 + 179 = 358
    Valentina V. Zharkova writes about the cycle of 350-400 years.

    Looks and smells like the Jose Cycle. Jose can you see…?

  29. TLMango says:

    using . . . . . J = 11.862 . . . . . S = 29.457 . . . . .

    Yes the 178.7309125 year Jose cycle is important.
    Each of its nine J/S synodics (19.85899028 years each) represents a
    period in which the sun decelerates for 9.92949514 years and then
    accelerates for another 9.92949514 years. Alternating deceleration/acceleration
    gives the Jose cycle and J/S synodic the award for strongest and most visible
    physical mechanism.

    But . . every 178.7309125 years, the sun’s pattern of motion rotates another
    24.30690529 degrees. The 178.7309125 year cycle does not return the sun
    back to its original position on the ecliptic relative to the stars.

    There are cycles that periodically will execute jumps and the Jose cycle
    is one of these. Every fifth Jose cycle (893.6545625 years) it executes a
    jump of one synodic period extending this period to 913.5135528 years.
    The Jose cycle executes more jumps at even longer intervals
    eventually extending this long period average to 914.2305965 years.

    This 914.2305965 year period is important because it returns the sun to its
    original position on the ecliptic relative to the stars. The 914.2305965 year
    cycle is a multiple of a frequency (60.94870644 x 15) that has a 360 degree
    rotation characteristic. What regulates our solar system is the 360 degree
    rotation of the sun’s outwardly directed acceleration.

    The most difficult concept to grasp about this 360 degree rotation characteristic
    is that jupiter and saturn do not align at the exact moment that the sun returns
    to its original position. This is a 360 degree rotation of the sun and not the 360
    degree rotation of aligning planets. Most folks try to add up synodic periods and
    when they don’t add up right they get discouraged and give up.

  30. Gerry Pease says:

    For synodic periods and resonances, planetary orbital periods in sidereal days must be used. Because of mutual gravitational perturbations, all these periiods oscillate slightly over time.

  31. TLMango says:

    Gerry and OB,
    Thanks for bringing up the Saturn orbital period issue.

    The orbital periods for Jupiter and Saturn have some irregularity about
    them, so there is a lot of disagreement about their exact values. Surprisingly
    there really isn’t as much room for tweaking these numbers as some would
    believe. The exact number of days is pretty solid, it’s the additional hours
    that usually cause fights to break out.

    The best values can be found at: nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet
    by author Dr David R. Williams: using sidereal periods S = 29.457 and
    J = 11.862.

    Avoid using: the data at ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par
    This data had a mislabeling problem in which the tropical periods were
    listed as sidereal. An attempt to correct the problem resulted in a
    period of S = 29.447 years sidereal and S = 29.42351935 tropical.

    The Williams data at nssdc.gsfc also had a tropical period of S = 29.424
    years, suggesting that the ssd.jpl sidereal period of S = 29.447 is most
    likely a typo.

    The difference between the sidereal values of 29.447 (ssd.jpl) and 29.457 (nssdc.gsfc)
    would be more than 3 and a half days, an obvious typo.

  32. Geoff Sharp says:

    So what exactly is the Jose cycle of 178.8 years?

    1. Is it the the return of the four outer planets to their original positions in relation to each other?

    No, not even close (Jose clearly states that in his paper and is backed up with recent science)

    2. Is it the return of the Sun to the same position on the orbital clock about the SSB?

    No, not even close (Jose clearly states that in his paper and is backed up with recent science)

    3. Does the solar path repeat itself every 178.8 years?

    No, not even close (Jose states they are nearly identical if rotated 30 deg. BUT this is grossly incorrect as shown in my earlier graph using modern JPL data)

    4. Does the 178.8 year so called cycle equal almost 9 Jupiter/Saturn synodic periods (9×19.858=178.72) and is it close to the Uranus/Neptune conjunction period of 171.4 years?

    Yes.

    We have some insight. This is not a cycle, but you can see why he found it attractive.

    But is there a better way to summarize the SIM dilemma? I think there is, especially with the extra knowledge gained today. J/S are the main drivers of the SIM with very little variance that provide a regular almost 10 year engine to the process. It basically does not change.

    U/N moderates the J/S engine by having the ability to combine their mass and add to the J/S engine in a 171.4 year cycle. Over 171.4 years U/N add and take away a force equivalent to Saturn, which is huge. So it is obvious which cycle to follow, U/N are the only planets that create any real change.

    McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber agree with me and their money graph from their 2014 paper tells a big story.

    This diagram in my view proves that the Charvatova principle is correct, and also that U/N must have control of solar grand minima. McCracken et al are probably the most eminent authors on the 10Be solar proxy, the diagram is vertical stacks of the U/N conjunction period (171.4 years) over the Holocene with the grand minima dates plotted. It clearly shows that grand minima do not occur when U/N are in their ordered phase (30 years each side of the U/N opposition) and only occur in the disordered phase. Svalgaard has no answer for this, but states it’s because the right hand column is bigger …..a pathetic comment in my view.

    This diagram would not work in 178.8 year slices.

  33. oldbrew says:

    @TL Mango

    This is from the JPL ephemerides today. Saturn orbit period is 29.447498 sidereal years or 10755.698 days.

  34. TLMango says:

    OB,
    Accurately estimating the orbital period for saturn is not really a
    scientific endeavor. It only requires that for hundreds of years
    someone has to look up in the sky and roughly estimate the time
    that saturn arrives at a particular constellation.

    . . . . (T_n – T_1) / (n – 1) = P

    For hundreds of years P has closed in tighter and tighter on 29.457 years.
    The difference between 29.457 years and 29.447 years is 3.65 days.
    Now . . . for the latest sample to suddenly change the over-all average by
    3.65 days, would require an actual change of (3.65 x (n – 1)). With only
    7 samples, that would amount to a deviation of 25 days. 14 samples 50 days.
    21 samples 75 days. So . . simple logic tells us that something is seriously wrong.

    If we go to ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par there is a disclaimer of sorts
    about halfway down the page. The tropical periods were originally posted
    as sidereal.

    This error went unnoticed or ignored for years and when an attempt was
    finally made to correct it, we ended up with the 29.447 year number.
    The 29.457 year period that Pierre Bretagnon used in VSOP82 is still used
    today in calculating the ephemerides. The revised object data page is a sad
    reminder that once error becomes official data, a bureaucracy like nasa will
    never be able to correct it.

  35. tallbloke says:

    Geoff S: “the diagram is vertical stacks of the U/N conjunction period (171.4 years) over the Holocene”

    It looks to me like the dashed vertical line is to the right of the 175 year tick mark. That would put it nearer ~179 than 171.4 wouldn’t it?

  36. oldbrew says:

    TLM: ‘For hundreds of years P has closed in tighter and tighter on 29.457 years.’

    Source?

    Update: comparing JPL Ephemeris with NASA Factsheet for Saturn tropical orbit period, they give the same result.

    JPL E: Mean daily motion = 0.0334979 deg/d [= 10746.942 days per 360 deg]
    NASA F/S: Tropical orbit period (days) 10,746.94

    Therefore we need to understand what the conversion method/s is/are that lead to such differing sidereal orbit periods for the same planet.
    JPL E: Sidereal orbit period = 10755.698 d
    NASA F/S: Sidereal orbit period (days) 10,759.22

    The problem doesn’t exist for Jupiter, or is very marginal (0.23 days difference between JPL and NASA for sidereal orbit).

    Quote:
    Sidereal Orbit is a revolution relative to a fixed celestial position.
    Tropical Year (YT) is the period from equinox to equinox.

  37. Geoff Sharp says:

    Tallbloke so says:

    It looks to me like the dashed vertical line is to the right of the 175 year tick mark. That would put it nearer ~179 than 171.4 wouldn’t it?
    ———–
    Good pickup TB, I think it must be a graphical error as they state many times in the text that the new Jose period is 172 years (they rounded it up like me). When discussing the ordered and disordered phases they state 60 & 112 years.

    I can send you a copy of the paper if you don’t have one.

  38. Gerry Pease says:

    Everybody interested in the basis of the Jose Cycle should read http://giurfa.com/jose.pdf. The IBM 650 used at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. in the early 1960’s did not have much computational power by modern standards, but great pains were taken to get the most accurate and precise results possible from the computations. For example, the solar paths were projected on the invariable plane of the solar system, which is inclined 1.57 degrees to the ecliptic (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-orbital-tilt-angle-of-each-of-our-solar-systems-planets-with-respect-to-the-spin-axis-of-the-Sun). This resulted in slightly less distorted path projections than the ecliptic projections generated in our paper, though the invariable plane Z component variations are similar.

  39. oldbrew says:

    Jose refers to 1811 and 1990 (~179 years apart) in his paper as times when ‘the Sun’s angular momentum referred to the center of mass will be negative’.

    Image quality below is not great but hopefully adequate [screenshots from Arnholm solar simulator].
    Dark blue is Neptune. Red lines meet at the barycentre.

    Btw 23 Jose cycles is almost the same period as 24 U-N.

  40. Geoff Sharp says:

    Going back over the McCracken et al 2014 paper some fresh insights came to light. Another great graph shows the influence of U/N on the solar distance from the SSB, the J/S influence and then the combined influence (incl the all important barycentre anomalies).

    The red line for us is the NEW Jose cycle and also lines up with the Gleissberg cycle and my powerwave diagram. The blue line shows the constant never changing influence of J/S as described above, which poses a big question for the the Archibald/Fix paper.

    Why does the blue line from the Fix model Modulate and not follow the blue line on the McCracken graph?

    Perhaps a flaw in the Fix model?

  41. Geoff Sharp says:

    OB says
    Jose refers to 1811 and 1990 (~179 years apart) in his paper as times when ‘the Sun’s angular momentum referred to the center of mass will be negative’.
    ———————————
    There is a very good reason why THAT particular lineup is around 179 years apart.

    When looking at alignments with Saturn opposite Jupiter they will be locked into their 19.858 year synodic period which will keep them inline at around 179 years. 9 x 19.858 = 178.72.

    But notice in your diagram how the positions of U/N have changed in just one 178.72 period. Because of the U/N precession in relation to the 9 x J/S synodic the “zero crossing” as you have shown varies greatly because of the changing U/N position. In fact most of the time it doesn’t go negative.

    Don’t fall for the same trap as Jose.

  42. TLMango says:

    OB,

    ” Update: comparing JPL Ephemeris with NASA Factsheet for Saturn
    tropical orbit period, they give the same result. ”

    . . This isn’t really a comparison between JPL Ephemeris and the NASA Factsheet.
    . . This is a comparison between the Revised Object Data Page and the NASA
    . . Factsheet. The 29.457 year period is still used to calculate the ephemerides.
    . . This is easily proven by plotting the ephemeris for saturn and plotting a planet X
    . . with a period of 29.447 years. They will drift apart by 3.65 days per orbit of
    . . saturn.

    ………………………………………………………

    ” JPL E: Mean daily motion = 0.0334979 deg/d [= 10746.942 days per 360 deg]
    NASA F/S: Tropical orbit period (days) 10,746.94 ”

    . . This is one of the points I made earlier. If the tropical periods are the same,
    . . the sidereal periods should also be the same. This isn’t a quark, this is error.

    ……………………………………………………..

    ” Therefore we need to understand what the conversion method/s is/are that
    lead to such differing sidereal orbit periods for the same planet.
    JPL E: Sidereal orbit period = 10755.698 d
    NASA F/S: Sidereal orbit period (days) 10,759.22 ”

    . . Well . . no an understanding of conversion methods won’t help.
    . . Remember that the author posted the tropical values as sidereal,
    . . and then he abandoned this work for years. Nobody would post their
    . . hard work with errors on a nasa web site and then turn their back on it . . . unless
    . . they knew it was beyond repair.
    . . And . . what are the chances that nasa would update its ephemerides
    . . with an orbital period that lies 3.65 days outside the known average.
    . . A known average that was established over centuries. And knowing
    . . that the work was in error and had not been properly peer reviewed.
    . . No way, it didn’t happen.

  43. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: I’m not disagreeing with you about the influence of UN, just pointing out that the table, as presented, is in 179 year slices not 171.4 year slices. The periods of low solar ‘jump about’ within the ~120 year ‘disordered’ period, and ‘avoid’ the ~60 year ordered period. This supports Charvatova’s contention and vindicates Jose too. I think more analysis such as yours and Gerry’s will produce further insight and better understanding in due course.

  44. Geoff Sharp says:

    Have another read of the the McCracken paper TB, I am sure they have 172 year slices (they state in the relevant text of 172 year slices) otherwise we would not be in the new Jose 59th cycle (172 years). Also there would be a 400 year drift across 59 cycles if they used 179 years which would put some grand minima inside the ordered phase. McCracken’s graph really is ground breaking.

  45. Greg Glenn says:

    ren:
    A DISCUSSION OF SOLAR CYCLES
    In solar physics it is well understood that two 11-year Schwabe Cycles (discovered by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe in 1844) make one ~22 year Hale Cycle. Hale & Nicholson (1925) observed that the magnetic polarity is a dipole and that every Schwabe cycle the sunspots reverse, indicating the primary solar magnetic pole polarity. This means that a complete solar magnetic cycle (sine wave) is approximately 22 years in length, hence two Schwabe Cycles.

    Zharkova, et al, in 2015 in the paper “Heartbeat of the Sun from Principal Component Analysis and Prediction of Solar Activity on a Millenium Timescale” (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689#f2) has described how the aforementioned dual magnetic component waves within the Sun (α − Ω ) can be mathematically analyzed: “Using symbolic regression analysis we also derive mathematical formulae for these waves and calculate their summary curve which we show is linked to solar activity index.” Her analysis shows that extrapolation of the wave functions both backwards and forwards show close alignment with Grand Minimums and Maximums and can be used to predict future solar activity: “These grand cycle variations are probed by α − Ω dynamo model with meridional circulation. Dynamo waves are found generated with close frequencies whose interaction leads to beating effects responsible for the grand cycles (350–400 years) superimposed on a standard 22 year cycle.”

    Gerry Pease and I have observed in our paper “Long Term Sunspot Cycle Phase Coherence with Periodic Phase Disruptions” (https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03553) that the ~179 year Jose Cycle is itself divided into periods where solar activity, as measured by sunspot counts, is either coherent with planetary torque in a 98 year subcycle, or non-coherent in a 98 year period. Specific planetary alignments are seen to occur at the onset of each period and we have specified the dates where coherency has initiated. We can call these restoration points, as they are where the phase restoration periods that we describe, originate.

    We note that two Jose Cycles approximate the length of one ~350-400 year “Zharkova Cycle” and that the restoration points align with transitions (peaks or nadirs) in the Zharkova Cycle. In the following chart (Zharkova Figure 3), one can easily see the sharp 22-year Hale Cycles and longer ~350-400 year cycles. Superimposed are 3 Jose Cycles with the restoration points (dark vertical arrows) in apparent resonance.

    Our first non-coherent phase (left most red arrow) starts near the beginning of the Maunder Minimum. The restoration path (first vertical arrow) is at the Zharkov wave amplitude nadir between the Maunder and Dalton Minimums. Where the First Jose Cycle ends and the next begins (second horizontal red arrow) is the end of the Dalton Minimum. The second restoration point (thick vertical arrow) is near the peak of the wave amplitude cycle, preceding the onset of the “Modern Maximum”. The third restoration point is at the point described as the “end of the Modern Maximum”, when future diminished solar activity is predicted by both us and Zharkova: “Furthermore, in cycles 25–27 and, especially, in cycle 26, the toroidal magnetic field waves generated in these two layers become fully separated into the opposite hemispheres, similar to the two PC waves attributed to poloidal field (Fig. 1, top plot), that makes their interaction minimal. This will significantly reduce the occurrence of sunspots in any hemisphere, that will result in a very small solar activity index for this cycle, resembling the Maunder Minimum occurred in the 17th century.”

    Analyzing the cycles within cycles (Jose within Zharkova), suggests that planetary alignments are in harmonic resonance with the dual magnetic component waves (α − Ω) within the sun. This is fodder for future research to ascertain the exact mechanism involved, such as by Stefani, et al: “Synchronized Helicity Oscillations: A Link between Planetary Tides and the Solar Cycle?” (https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.09335). In the meantime, we now have means for predicting future solar activity.

  46. Geoff Sharp says:

    TB

    From the McCracken paper:

    The times of commencement and of greatest effect of these GME were then determined with respect to the commencement of the Jose cycle, and are displayed in Figure 7. The data have been arranged so that the ordered phase of each cycle commences at T = 0 on the left-hand edge of the figure. The intervals of increasing cosmic-ray intensity (open boxes) and maximum cosmic-ray intensity (black boxes) are shown relative to the commencement of the cycle. The heavy-dashed lines indicate the approximate limits of the ordered phase. The light-dotted lines denote the average location of the barycentric anoma- lies within the cycles. The figure shows that all 20 GME occurred during the disordered phase of a Jose cycle. Typically the intensity started to increase significantly during the first half of the disordered phase, attaining maximum intensity in the latter half. Closer inspec- tion indicates that ≈ 40 % of the GME commenced in the vicinity of the first barycentric anomaly, while ≈ 50 % commenced in coincidence with the second. Frequently the intensity decreased rapidly in coincidence with the commencement of the ordered phase of the next Jose cycle. Taking the duration of the disordered phase to be 112 years, the probability that a GME would peak (at random) during the disordered phase is 112/172 = 0.651. Based on bino- mial statistics, the probability that the 20 GME would coincide with the disordered phase is (0.651)20 = 2 × 10−4 . Allowing for the averaging effects of the 22-year averages, we reduce this probability to 10−2. This correlation persisted throughout the 9400 years of the PCR record, indicating that it is not an ephemeral correlation unassociated with the Jose cycle.

    From this we conclude that the long-term average Jose period is 171.49 ± 0.21 years. Independently, Sharp (2013) has concluded that the Jose period is ≈ 172 years averaged over the past 6000 years. For the purposes of this article, we defined the first Jose cycle to commence at the start of the ordered phase in 10 332 BP. This places the modern era in the 59th Jose cycle.

  47. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, a reminder:

    Seidelmann (1992)
    http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par

    0.2408467 Me
    0.61519726 V
    1.0000174 E
    1.8808476 Ma
    11.862615 J
    29.447498 S
    84.016846 U
    164.79132 N
    247.92065 P

    There’s something wrong with the “fact sheets” as we’ve noted before.

  48. Paul Vaughan says:

    Some of you may wonder why I’m not engaging. I don’t find this stuff interesting anymore. That doesn’t mean I won’t again. Right now there’s only one thing that will cause me to re-engage on this and I outlined it above. I’m setting that as the one and only criterion for re-engagement. It doesn’t matter whether it is or isn’t the holy grail. I don’t care about the holy grail. I care only about efficient exploration. The efficient way to explore this is to DO THE PHASE PLOT. That’s it! Everything else is just noise. A single graph is all that’s needed to show the claimed result. No words are necessary.

    Regards

  49. tallbloke says:

    thanks Geoff. The text is certainly clear, so I wonder why the heavy dashed line is to the right of the 175 year tick-mark. Odd. Maybe I’ll shoot Ken an email and ask him.

  50. tallbloke says:

    Paul has lost interest, Ian Wilson has withdrawn, I’m renovating a home for Kath and myself and trying to make enough money to do that and eat as well…

    Oh well, these things progress in cycles.

  51. Paul Vaughan says:

    I haven’t really lost interest. I just want to see the phase-difference plot. More specifically I’m volunteering (a bit coercively and not veiled at all) as follows: If Gerry and Greg produce the simple graph that eliminates the need for words, I’ll prioritize verification. If on the other hand I’m to be given the run-around with long expositions that beat around the bush of the holy grail I’m saying “f*** the holy grail! who needs it?!”

    [ :

    Please read this good-natured, amicable provocation with a sense of humor …and you can take it seriously too! It’s silly that the one graph that matters is missing. I’m deliberately being a bit of an opportunistic activist by grinding this point in. I’m stubbornly making my meaningful participation in this thread conditional upon it being presented. You can call me the the spoiled brat who wants the succinct communication — the soundbite illustration — ONLY …and let me hasten to add that I respect that Greg and Gerry might choose NOT to present their finding in the most concise way possible.

    Regards

  52. oldbrew says:

    Jan. 2015: Scientists Pinpoint Saturn With Exquisite Accuracy

    The feat improves astronomers’ knowledge of Saturn’s orbit and benefits spacecraft navigation and basic physics research.
    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2015-010
    —–

    Tracking Waves from Sunspots Gives New Solar Insight
    http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/tracking-waves-from-sunspots-gives-new-solar-insight

    A study on these results was published Oct. 11, 2016, in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

    From the Abstract: Are these waves in different atmospheric layers related to each other, what is the nature of these waves, and where are the ultimate sources of these waves?
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/L17

  53. oldbrew says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    October 20, 2016 at 10:40 pm

    Jose was aware of the U-N movement – see p.195 of this document.

    ‘it is observed in Fig. 3 that the position of Uranus and Neptune advance relative to that of Jupiter and Saturn’
    http://giurfa.com/jose.pdf

  54. Geoff Sharp says:

    OB

    Jose I think was very aware that the outer 4 were the only players in the SIM. He was also aware that U/N moved out of sync with J/S every 9 J/S conjunctions. Many have perhaps not looked closely at his paper and assumed more than he put forward, but his main triumph would have to be his recognition that his “not quite correct cycle” was responsible for solar cycle modulation (grand minima excluded).

    If he had better data he may have seen the AM perturbations that align with solar slowdowns…if you look very carefully at his diagrams they are apparent.

    But it is interesting that even today some still think the AM curve that he pioneered is associated with solar cycle timing.

  55. ren says:

    Are the changes of the solar magnetic field confirms predictions?

  56. TLMango says:

    Gerry and Greg,
    I was able to extract the Jose cycle from equations based
    on the orbital parameters of the four gas giants. It’s posted at:

    Weathercycles.wordpress
    ” Earth’s climate linked to Jupiter/Saturn . . ”
    Please check us out.

  57. Greg Glenn says:

    TLMango:
    Thank you for the link to your well organized and interesting web site:
    https://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/earths-climate-linked-to-jupiter-saturn-and-the-solar-system-barycentre-discussion-open/

    It’s chock full of mathematically generated graphs of overlapping cycles.

    I see that you came up with a 178.7338102 year cycle, based on J-S-U-N.
    That is quite close to our calculation.

    Paul:
    We’re looking into generating a phase-difference graph. It may take time. Don’t take that as a phase-indifference.

  58. Paul Vaughan says:

    Good stuff Greg. I look forward to the soundbite illustration and the pleasure of verifying it. Simple is beautiful. Thanks sincerely for the update.

  59. Gerry Pease says:

    PV: I have created an Excel chart that plots the Jose phase and amplitude differences of the known sunspot cycles from 1699 to 2016 plus our projected cycles to 2058, with that sunspot series overlaid. Greg will be doing artwork illustration on it for the purpose of converting it to a non-lucrative money chart, but he’s busy with other matters today. We will post it as soon as we can finish converting it to a comprehensive graphical summary with which Greg and I are both satisfied. I can tell you in advance however that there is no way it will meet your requirement for a chart that says it all. That would be a very busy chart. It would be far too busy to be a money chart but ours will nevertheless show some interesting trends that are bound to stimulate further discussion. Thanks for suggesting we do it, even though it may not be quite what you had in mind.

  60. Paul Vaughan says:

    What I had in mind: the simple phase-difference. It would not be “busy” at all. It would tell the whole story even if the graph wasn’t labeled.

    It’s possible we’re having a miscommunication.

    There’s no rush. I’ll keep checking back for the illustration you’re preparing.

    Regards

  61. Greg Glenn says:

    Here’s the long anticipated Phase Difference Chart showing Jose Cycles and annotation of our coherent and non-coherent subcycles:

  62. Paul Vaughan says:

    That’s a graph of amplitudes, not phases.

    If/when you get around to plotting the phase differences (even if it’s months from now), I’ll take a look.

  63. Gerry Pease says:

    PV:
    You are, of course, correct that the blue line plots amplitude differences between specific time periods. On the chart, the solar minima years of zero amplitude difference therefore correspond to zero phase difference. These are our markers for phase coherence, since we know that the phase offsets and scatter near solar max are large. In due time we hope to produce a continuous phase difference plot that should reveal repetitious patterns of sunspot activity in the Jose Cycle phase domain.

  64. oldbrew says:

    Gerry Pease says:
    October 16, 2016 at 9:19 pm

    “These subcycles alternate and repeat in the 81 + 98 = 179 year Jose Cycle as the Sun moves in a complex but predictable path that continuously repeats at the Jose frequency”

    A purely numerical test shows:
    42 Jupiter-Neptune conjunctions = 3 x ~179 years (178.959y)

    That can be broken down into:
    23 J-N = 3 x ~98 years = ~294y (294.004y)
    19 J-N = 3 x ~81 years = ~243y (242.873y)

    I don’t know if this helps the theory but there it is.

  65. Greg Glenn says:

    PV:
    We decided that the easiest way to show the continuous phase difference is this simple overlay plot. We think it’s a great sound bite. Many thanks for suggesting it.

  66. Geoff Sharp says:

    The simple overlay plot helps, and I can see how using a 179 year framework keeps J/S in sync with U/N moving (although if we had more sunspot records everything would go out of sync). But I am failing to see the predictive power as we know that each Jose cycle however long is different. The general modulation trend will be similar but the grand minima will be different.

  67. Greg Glenn says:

    Corrected phase difference chart (Rev. A): Shifted red series (1878-2058) one year to the right for accuracy. Result: Better coherency in 98 year coherent phase period.

  68. oldbrew says:

    Would it be the case that the next incoherent phase should have started around 1977 aka ‘the great climate shift’?

    http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/climate_shift.shtml

  69. Paul Vaughan says:

    Again, those are amplitude (not phase) graphs.

  70. TLMango says:

    The important thing is that the graph indicates a sudden shift
    that occurs periodically and not gradually. This is the internal
    nature of the sun, to stay in phase with the external acceleration
    for a while and then slip or jump. The sun does this on long time
    scales also, as in the case of the Jose cycle.

  71. Gerry Pease says:

    oldbrew:
    The chart clearly shows that we are presently in the non-coherent phase that began in 1976. Because it shows amplitude as well as phase, it reveals information that is highly prized by physicists, i.e. Symmetry. The increasing solar activity in the first half of the red Jose Cycle is balanced by declining solar activity in the non-coherent part. We also see that solar activity ramped up quickly from 1798 to 1857 (blue cycles), after whiich it stayed at a moderately high level. For both the blue Jose Cycle and the red Jose Cycle, the overall effect is to maintain a state of equilibrium over millenia. It is a result of the state of equilibrium in planetary resonances attained after billions of years.

  72. Gerry Pease says:

    PV:
    The chart plots amplitude on the ordinant and phase on the abscissa. If you would like to use the sunspot series to plot phase on the ordinant, just give me an email address and I will email you an Excel worksheet with that series.

  73. pochas94 says:

    Make a polar (circular) chart with zero representing the start of a Jose cycle and 180 divisions representing the years of the cycle. Mark model activities and observed activities as radials on the chart, and superpose several cycles. I’m pretty sure this would make for a compelling graphic.

  74. Greg Glenn says:

    Moving right along, here’s a chart showing the persistent phase and amplitude coherence of the torque cycles over the entire ~179 year Jose Cycle:

  75. Geoff Sharp says:

    The torque cycle perturbations (Landscheidt PTC event) that are associated with solar slowdowns move out of sync over 179 year layers as Carl Smith showed in his very early graph (PTC events are in the same place as solar radius perturbations). Landscheidt unfortunately didn’t see that the PTC event and solar slow downs were related.

    U/N drag the perturbations out of sync if using the 179 year cycle which is why myself and McCracken et al use the U/N synodic to keep grand minima in sync across the Holocene.

  76. Paul Vaughan says:

    Gerry Pease suggested: “If you would like to use the sunspot series […] just give me an email address and I will email you an Excel worksheet with that series.”

    Sarcasm?

    All the best Gerry. I’m withdrawing the offer I made above and moving on…

  77. TLMango says:

    We use the ephemerides to project forward and backward
    and these coordinates are only accurate for up to about 2000
    years. Using the ephemerides to calculate SSB distance,
    gives us a view that is limited specifically to this current 2000
    year period within this inter-glacial. A view of SSB distance
    within this 2000 year period does not give us a view of the larger
    100,000 year picture.

    An increase in SSB distance is generally a response from the sun
    to the accelerations of the gas giants. Very little increased SSB distance is
    solely attributable to aligning planets. When the gas giants lose their
    eccentricity they also lose their acceleration. When the gas giants lose
    their eccentricity SSB distance is decreased.

    The gas giants align with other planets while they travel in eccentric
    orbits. Which of the two has the most force, alignment or eccentricity ???
    The thread ” Earth’s climate linked to Jupiter/Saturn . . ” separates
    alignment from eccentricity to show that it is the eccentricity (acceleration)
    of a massive sun that generates force in our solar system.

    Please visit Weathercycles.wordpress
    ” The Earth’s climate linked to Jupiter/Saturn . . “

  78. TLMango says:

    Sorry,
    Should say ” Very little increased SSB distance is solely
    attributable to aligning planets. ” [amended – mod]

    When the sun loses eccentricity, its orbit becomes rounder
    and SSB distance is less variable. So, when I say that SSB
    distance is decreased, I’m referring to the larger outer loops
    pulling back and not the inner.

  79. Gerry Pease says:

    Re October 26, 2016, 3:15 am
    Corrected phase difference chart

    Even though Paul Vaughan has bowed out, it is not too late to point out that if the astrophysics community had understood the role of Jose Cycle phasing of sunspot cycle activity, they would have been able to predict that SC23 would have much lower sunspot activity than SC22 and SC24 would have much lower activity than SC23. Because they were all apperently unaware of the link between sunspots and the Jose Cycle docunented in the Astronomical Journal in 1965, they were also blissfully unaware of the consequent ~180 degree destructive interference of the 1996 and 2008 minima with the 1816 and 1830 maxima.

  80. oldbrew says:

    Long-term evolution of the HMF [Heliospheric Magnetic Field] – Cosmogenic isotope records

    The full record suggests that the HMF has been as strong as that of the space age on 24 previous occasions in the last 9300 years, though this grand solar maximum (GSM) is the longest in the record (Abreu et al., 2008). Two of the 24 previous ends of GSMs have resulted in Maunder minimum-like conditions within 50 years (Barnard et al., 2011).

    http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-5/articlese5.html#x8-180005

    4628 x 2 [Two of the 24 previous ends of GSMs] = 9256 (~9300y)

  81. tallbloke says:

    PV: I very much doubt Gerry was being sarcastic. It was a simple offer to send you the data he has used.

  82. oldbrew says:

    Greg Glenn says:
    ‘You can see that Uranus does indeed have a resonance with Hallstatt (S-U: 53, N-U: 14 and J-U: 174). Also, there is good resonance with 4 other Synodic periods (J-S: 121, J-N: 188, V-E: 1,503, and M-J: 1,075.1).’

    Just as a tidy-up we can show the standard synodics:
    N-U: 14 and J-U: 174 means J-N 188 (as shown) — [14 + 174 = 188]
    S-U: 53 and J-S: 121 means J-U 174 (as shown) — [53 + 121 = 174]

  83. Gerry Pease says:

    PV: I definitely had no intention of being sarcastic. The sunspot cycle phase difference information is very important, and needs a closer examination. That is obvious just from eyeballing the overlay chart.

  84. Paul Vaughan says:

    Gentlemen: I don’t need the sunspot numbers e-mailed to me. They’re publicly available and have been for as long as I’ve participated in the climate discussion. Tip: Measuring solar cycle phase (and equivalently solar cycle length and deceleration) with wavelets is a trivial exercise. I’ve had all the data needed to check this work on file since way back whenever I started climate exploration, but there are hundreds of things on the list of things I’ve shelved. I’m sticking to the things that most interest me. There are an infinite number of interesting mysteries in the natural world. We have to choose. I’ll monitor what others are doing. Meanwhile I’ll be doing what I’m doing, which is currently focused on terrestrial aggregation criteria. The amount of free time I have dropped to 10% of what it was a few months ago …and it’s going down again — this time to near-0 — so please carry on independently while I strive to find time to continue my focus on what I see as the very highest priority (the fatal roadblock in climate discussion): aggregation criteria. Even if I see people going seriously wrong, I probably won’t say so because I’m that short on time. I can probably only participate in discussions about others’ research now if the discussion is orders of magnitude more efficient. I never really wanted to do the checks on this work even though that would only take a few minutes. What I really wanted to see is if Gerry and Glen measured the phases. I got the info I sought: No they did not. Tip: Measure the phases and you’ll be able to simplify by orders of magnitude. You’ll have a single graph with like 1 or 2 sentences. You don’t need to attract someone else to do the work. Now: Distraction-filters back on so I can get some of my own work done!
    [ :
    Here’s a sample of the type of stuff I’m currently exploring:

    Cheers

  85. Gerry Pease says:

    We are in the process of evaluating some of the apparent outlier phase difference measurements from our SSN overlay chart and hope to eventually get around to a broader exploration. Thanks for showing how that might be done.

  86. Paul Vaughan says:

    Greg & Gerry, you’ll rediscover the solar cycle length differintegral if you continue on this path all the way to its end.

    I wish you efficiency.

    I’ll watch for updates on your explorations as we move forward.

    Best Regards

  87. […] Gerry Pease has sent me a link to an update of the paper he wrote with Gregory Glenn which we discussed recently. It represents some important and novel work in our field of solar-planetary theory. Of particular […]

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