![The Sun and the gas giant planets [credit: Wikipedia]](https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/sun_gas.jpg)
The Sun and the gas giant planets [credit: Wikipedia]
Interesting recent research from Norway on solar-planetary theory introduced by one of the authors, Harald Yndestad.
H/T Tallbloke
The planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune affect irradiation variability from the sun
Published: 20.aug. 2016 New Astronomy
By Harald Yndestad a), og Jan-Erik Solheim b)
a) Norwegian University of Science and Technology Aalesund, Aalesund 6025, Norway
b) Department of Physics and Technology UiT The Arctic, University of Norway, Tromsø 9037, Norway
Highlights
Deterministic periods: Data series of total radiation (TSI) from the sun, has stationary periodic changes over 1000 years.
Cause: The periods are controlled by the four giant planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
Explanation: There is a mutual gravitation between the sun and the planets that change circulation in Sun’s interior dynamo.
Harmonic periods: Planets periods and combination resonance between periods produces a range of stationary periods from about 11 to 500 years, and more
Impact: The sum of the period affects the sun’s surface and alter the radiation from the sun and climate on Earth.
Historic Climate Change: The identified periods explains known cold climate periods Oort (1010-1030), Wolf (1270-1349), Spurs (1390-1550), Maunder (1640-1720) and Dalton (1790-1820)
Modern climate: We have had a modern maximum period (1940-2015) with radiation.
Prognosis: We are entering a period with less radiation, a “colder” sunny, with a calculated at a minimum of Dalton-level of approximately (2040-2065).
Background
My interest in the subject dates back to the defense of my doctorates in 2004. I was then asked to elaborate on the expected development of Arctic climate. The task was solved by a study a Greenland data series, which showed temperature samples since the year 555. In this data series I found stationary periods showed minimum temperature in the 1800s and a new minimum around 2040.
A minimum of 1800 figure was no surprise. There was a cold period all climate data series I had studied. But what happened in the 1800s, which started the development of a warmer climate? A development that has lasted until today. Meanwhile, there was reason to believe that the stationary periods will continue in the years ahead. The question was then, can we expect a new cold period, similar to what we had in the 1800s? It will however have major consequences for energy and food production on Earth.
Cause of causes
The work on this article has roots back in spring 2014, when I met Jan- Erik Solheim and others at University of Oslo. Here I told them about my analysis of data series from Greenland, and the question whether there is an underlying cause of climate change. A Cause of causes. The question was not accidental. The Cause of cause is a term from Aristotle, and which relate to the sun and planetary periods.
Research question was therefore whether there is something predictable in radiation from the sun. For if one can not find anything predictable in radiation from the sun, one can only explain the past and no mathematical models can say for certain about the future. One can then neither can say anything with certainty about future climate on Earth. Then Jan-Erik and I started to find a possible Cause of causes, which eventually became to this article in New Astronomy. A work that lasted for more than two years .
The research
The activity of the sun has been linked to counting sunspots, discovered by Galileo Galilei. Solar scientists have been studying sunspots since the 1700s. Data series for sunspots therefore represents one of the world’s longest continuous data series. There has been a prevailing opinion that there is a correlation between sunspots and climate periods. How this relationship really is, has been unclear. In my doctoral work, I found no traces of sunspots in data series of climate indicators. My students have not found such a correlation, when they learned to analyze data series. I was therefore skeptical about the idea of sunspots as climate indicators. But the relationship eventually came forward after the data series for Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) was analyzed. Then it turned out that TSI and sunspots was rooted in Uranus’s period of 84 years, and that there was a correlation between TSI solar radiation and sunspots for periods of about 210 years. This confirmed for the first time a long-term relationship between sunspots and solar radiation.
Data series for TSI also had its challenges. Direct measurement of radiation from the sun started first in 1978. The data series backward to the year 1700 and the year 1000 is based on estimates from inter alia ice samples (10Be and 14C). Furthermore there provided multiple data series with slightly different weighting of estimates. All data series were therefore analysed. Results showed that all had the same periods but somewhat different amplitude. It was then decided to use the longest two data series that was based a physical estimate representation of radiation.
The reference for a stationary period in the data series, was that period also should have a known stationary source, a Cause of causes. The choice was the oscillating solar system. In the solar system there is a mutual gravity between the planets and the sun, causing the sun’s position to oscillate around a virtual point. Data series for sun oscillation around this point was chosen as reference for planetary oscillations around the sun, and as a reference for an identification of stationary periods in the data series. The stationary periods in the data series were identified with a new method to study wavelet specter data series. It turned out that this method was very accurate and confirmed at the same time the quality of the data series.
Further work
The article provides a basis for further work within the themes :
– A New Perspective on the sun’s inner dynamo
– Developing better models calculating the historical and expected future radiation from the sun
– A better understanding of current and future climate change on Earth
References:
Journal: Yndestad H, Solheim, JE; (2016) New Astronomy 51 (2017) 135–152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2016.08.020
Click to access JP-NA-TSI%20160828.pdf
Presentation: EGU-2016, 20.04.16. Vienna.
Source: The Climate Clock
– – –
Also : The influence of solar system oscillation on the variability of the total solar irradiance
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1384107616300847
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
The relationship with TSI is all important. Looks a good thing.
From the abstract of the linked [see post above] paper:
‘We find that a stationary component of the solar variability is controlled by the 12-year Jupiter period
and the 84-year Uranus period with subharmonics.’
A ratio of 8 Jupiter-Uranus conjunctions to 5 solar Hale cycles is quite a good match:
J-U * 8/5 = 22.1~ years
NB Hale cycles (= 2 magnetic polarity reversals, N>S + S>N) vary in duration so Hale cycle duration is a supposed mean value.
TSI is very interesting. But, patterns within patterns. Parts not quantified. Relationships not connected.
Everyone stops at a piece of a puzzle, and looks at it. One piece of our puzzle is the measurement and proxies of tsi. It involves many more items that are not counted. From the position of where we are, in space, to the location of the baricenter of the sun, to the cosmic ray intensity, to clarity of the strata between the earth and the sun(dust bunnies) and the temperature output of the sun, to ….. And more. That, is, part of tsi. But it is counted as a set number. But each is a variable number. Good hunting.
The proper question is, why are scientists today so desperate that they pursue chimerical correlations and “frequency matchings” (which only multiply “causes”–one for each “frequency match” claimed–and hence ignore, nay trample over, the long-known dire warning of Occam’s Razor) instead of quantifiable, known physical effects (in this case, gravitation)? You all already know where this has gotten climate scientists in their chase after “global warming” (of which there is no proof, and the strongest contradicting evidence).
Gravity varies as m/r^2 (m over r-squared). Compare M/R^2 (M,R = Sun’s mass and radius) with m/r^2 (m,r=Jupiter’s mass and distance from the Sun) to get an idea of the relative gravitational force on a tiny portion of the Sun’s radiating mass near its surface, due to the rest of the Sun’s mass, vs. that due to the distant Jupiter. Jupiter is the nearest of the gas giant planets to the Sun, and the most massive; all the others would have much less effect. You are dealing with a very large mass at very small distance, versus a very small mass at a relatively very great distance; Jupiter’s distance from the Sun is over a thousand times the Sun’s radius, and it only has roughly a thousandth of the Sun’s mass, so its gravitational effect is only on the order of one billionth of that of the Sun itself. That is MUCH TOO SMALL to be effective in any way (notwithstanding glib claims about the Sun “oscillating about a point”–which is not only very small but very slow, and hence irrelevant to the Sun’s bulk energy output, which is utterly stable, i.e. in equilibrium over the relatively long “oscillating” period).
The solar cycle can’t cause itself.
Devilish sun-climate belief-policing has been rejected and the world is being reordered because of it. The next step is to make sun-climate belief-policing illegal and set a minimum 10 year jail term to underscore defense of enlightened freedom as a matter of principle. The purpose of the law is to bring justice. The law will only target dark agents employed in persistent harassment spanning years.
It’s good fun asserting that we’re free to be enlightened by our sun.
NASA says:
‘Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.’
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
I tend to agree with jim, it is a long complex paper, it contains hand waves, little reproducible result.
The early content contains an error which throws the whole into question with me. It gives three dominant solar cycle period components (in a Fourier sense) when I know there are four. One of the three is actually two so closely spaced that normal decomposition software will fail to separate the two.
Giving a necessary distinction, there is the Fourier Transform and there is the Wavelet Transform, as well as other domain conversion routines. (domain here means a data representation in some particular units/scales, a Transform does an exact convertion between domains, rounding errors excepted)
A claim is made about an exotic variant of the Wavelet implying a superiority over all else. If that is true then why the failure to state there are four dominant components re: above, which were identified by an exotic Fourier?
Pure Fourier and pure Wavelet are extremes on a continuum, although in between cases rarely exist. The problem is one of discrimination, the capability where there is ambiguity. In the most trivial case there are only pure, or perfect, things to work with. When there is as happens in real life a myriad of irrelevant or upsetting noises in addition to the pure, these Transforms tend to fail.
Put another way and as a minder: you can know one out of two. You cannot know two.
I’m cautious over accepting the claims.
Some comments deal with the improbability of a tiny effect causing much at all. Whilst I too subscribe to this idea I also know there is a vast amount of self-ignorance. I wish I did know. For example, the sun might have a solid core or perhaps some state of matter beyond our present dreams. Similarly, tell me about the surface of Jupiter? We neither know that it has, nor do we know it hasn’t.
We can say with superb confidence that you and I can see the solar cycle so somehow there is a mechanism for cyclic behaviour, as is the case with a steam geyser.
[…] Hifast note: Excellent comment thread at Tallbloke: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/the-planets-have-control-of-solar-variability/ […]
This looks like JEV theory.
We might have finally figured out the mysterious force that controls the Sun’s magnetic field
What’s influencing our Sun?
FIONA MACDONALD 7 OCT 2016
‘…thanks to the principle of resonance – the build up of an effect – the planets could actually be having a profound effect on the Sun.’
http://www.sciencealert.com/a-strange-force-is-messing-with-our-sun-s-activity-and-scientists-might-finally-know-what-it-is
– – –
The solar cycle is a magnetic cycle (magnetic reversal marks start/end).
It is periodic within a range but duration varies from cycle to cycle.
Anything influencing the cycle is presumably related to magnetism.
They mention a sun system which is marginal on stability or perhaps actually unstable, fair enough except I wouldn’t call this resonance. This could synchronise by means of a minuscule external “force”. The planets possess robust timing, inertial. I assume the sun, within reason, could respond over a very wide range of stimulation rates.
A simile is a superregenerative radio receiver, much the same idea was used with MRI scanners. The system is deliberately operated in an unstable region, is forced in and out of oscillating. The effect is extreme sensitivity as the system approaches oscillating (is deliberately unstable).
A moving magnetic field means there is also the complementary electrical current. Chicken and egg with this.
There will be some degree of direct or indirect electrical current between the planets and the sun, perhaps magnetic too. Here are candidate mechanisms for solar control from a distance.
If any of this is right then I expect there is a combination of methods. Life is rarely dead simple.
What we do know is that the Sun has north and south poles and rotates at a regular rate, like the planets.
The fact that the solar cycle averages about 93% of the Jupiter orbit period (but can also exceed it) is probably a clue.
See an examination of seismic data:
or
for just the graphic rendition.
You will see the indication of a solid core, a fusion level at about rad.3, a fission level at about rad.65 and the real surface at rad.75 The accepted “surface” is the conduction/radiation Tropospause of the solar atmosphere at rad 1.0.
The baracentric stirring of those active levels changes the local density to energy ratio and the rate of reactions in them. It takes many years for resulting energy created to rise to the real surface and become a part of the convection/radiation from the Solar atmosphere tropospause “surface”…pg
While I believe that the barycenter movement of the Sun that causes differential torque forces inside the Sun which is driven by the big gas planets is a main cause of temperature variation on Earth, I would caution against that this effect is caused by large changes in TSI, except for variations in the UV-TSI component.
As mention in the article, no value of TSI exist before satellite measurement that started in 1978. The proxy value of TSI going back in time assumes that TSI can be estimated from a combination of temperature data and radioactive proxies. I’m critical to that idea or at least agnostic.
An alternative view is that the temperature variation is caused by variations in solar wind and variations in Earth’s magnetic field which is driven by the Sun and that is this cause large variation in the waviness in the Rossby waves or Jetstream and that these swings cause changes in Earth’s albedo and changes in its cloudiness.
As I have myself found in my analysis, variations in solar wind and changes in Earth’s magnetic field has as a direct short term effect on Earth’s temperature.
In the 4th paragraph of the paper, Yndestad-Solheim state the new Dalton minimum period is between 2040 & 2065 AD. Half way between is 2052.5 AD.
In Dr Thomas Brophy’s The Origin Map he pinpoints the solar system’s “precession” (binary star companion) periapsis at 10,909 BC. Half that orbital period is 12,960 years from periapsis to apoapsis, or 2051 AD.
Is it a coincidence that the sun’s radiance is at a minimum when it is at the farthest distance from its binary companion? If the “gas” giants have the proposed effect on the sun’s cycles, imagine what being in close proximity to its companion would do. Perhaps a detailed inspection and analysis of ice core plots would be revealing.
JB – current equinoctial precession period is said to be 25770 years approx.
25770 / 2 = 12885
12885 – 10909 = 1976
The 76/77 climate shift
http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/climate_shift.shtml
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
Gerard Bond,1
* Bernd Kromer,2 Juerg Beer,3
Raimund Muscheler,3 Michael N. Evans,4 William Showers,5
Sharon Hoffmann,1 Rusty Lotti-Bond,1 Irka Hajdas,6 Georges Bonani6
‘The results of this study demonstrate that
Earth’s climate system is highly sensitive to
extremely weak perturbations in the Sun’s energy
output, not just on the decadal scales that
have been investigated previously, but also on
the centennial to millennial time scales documented
here. The apparent solar response was
robust in the North Atlantic even as early Holocene
vestiges of the ice sheets continued to
exert a climate influence and as the orbital
configuration shifted from that of the Holocene
optimum to the quite different regime of the last
few thousand years. Our findings support the
presumption that solar variability will continue
to influence climate in the future, which up to
now has been based on extrapolation of evidence
from only the last 1000 years (25). If
forcing of North Atlantic ice drift and surface
hydrography is fundamentally linked to the Sun
and begins in the stratosphere, then atmospheric
dynamics and their link to the ocean’s circulation
are much more important for interpreting
centennial and millennial time scales of climate
variability than has been assumed.’
Click to access Bond_2001.pdf
oldbrew says: January 20, 2017 at 10:10 am
The Bond paper is here compared to an earlier one. The various proxies in the Holocene Max have marker points that correspond to events known from elsewhere. Here: https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.729796877195120.1073741865.430211163820361/729797117195096/?type=3&theater
The 2345bce and 4375 are similar events recorded also in tree-rings. 6200 is also known and appears to be a similar event. 3500 is a reverse event, and there should be another at 5800-6000, but has not been identified with any confidence yet.
The 3195 is the Piora Ocs and known from tree-rings and archaeology. Proxies indicate that 5200 is an earlier such event. Both seismic and destructive in the Med.
Do the dates correspond to anything planetary?
Bond et al say:
‘However, the solar-climate links implied by our record are so dominant over the last 12,000 years that it seems almost certain that the well-documented connection between the Maunder solar minimum and cold decades of the LIA could not have been a coincidence.’
Interesting, as we approach a solar minimum of some sort.
– – –
oldmanK – Do they know if these ‘events’ were all of the same type i.e. should have the same cause?
@ Oldbrew
I have come across several figures for the precession length. I’m certainly in no position to dispute which is accurate. Brophy’s chronology is the first detailed report I’ve encountered explaining the methodology used. If there are other papers of equal calibre I’d surely love to examine them. I have yet to finish reading the Y-S paper to ascertain the source of their dates. You will have to read Brophy’s book to understand why he used the 25,920 figure (12 zodiac ages each 2160 years avg & etc.). His dates are connected to the Giza monuments and their geometrical relationships. Having mentioned this, there is plenty of room for an error of < 0.3% (75 yr difference) in dating the peak of apoapsis. I will be on the lookout for an error factor in the Y-S paper.
I'm not sure how the 76/77 climate shift has anything to do with apoapsis directly. That effect could easily be explained by planetary movement alone. If one were to define the period of apoapsis by the same criteria EEs use to measure waveforms (10%-90%), the period of apoapsis would be several hundred years long. Therefore, something else in addition to entering apoapsis would have to account for the 76/77 shift. I'm not a rigid constructionist; the actual dates are not as significant to me as what they infer. It was the appearance of the TSI period in the Y-S paper that recalled Brophy's examination to mind. In this case, a significant impending solar minimum coincident with the peaking of apoapsis, suggesting that solar system variability, however influential it is on the sun's activity, is not the major influence on its radiance nor activity. What is exciting to me about the Y-S report is its contribution to clarifying our understanding of the solar system and its behavior within the cosmos.
I enjoy your posting of these interesting articles. I think you're doing a fantastic job with it.
oldbrew, from evidence in archaeology and the mathematical design parameters, the following refers:
2345bce: design alteration to increased obliquity; — corroborated also in – Dodwell; polar temp increase/ equatorial decrease, tree-ring date; (possibly repercussions appear in the 2200bce civilisations collapse).
4375: as 2345 — from polar temp; tree-ring; calendar design.
6200: as 2345 — from polar temp and known as a date of the sinking of northland/doggerland (but not in the calendars-too early)
3500: rebuilding and new-build to lower obliquity at several sites.
3195: new calendar/s (two started but work aborted early — civil collapse??; old abandoned at this time) built to new orientation, evidence of major seismic event.
5200: an earlier orientation change known from calendars, but only identified somewhat date-wise from the proxies in the Bond and D’Andrea et al “Glacier response to North Atlantic climate variability during the Holocene” papers. (there is other evidence here but still being collated- evidence of loss of coastal area of unknown size now under water). What I had surmised some years ago seems to have been correct.
Link to D’Andrea paper here, published late 2015. https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Balascio_ClimateofPast_2015.pdf
The above is event plus evidence. What the initial driver/s was or were still a mystery.
Thanks JB, if we get more people interested that’s good. The 76/77 thing was speculation 🙂
Wikipedia says ‘about 25770 years’ at present, and I found a Moon-Earth match at 25763 sidereal years (= 25764 tropical years). There seems to be a well-defined quarter precession in terms of the numbers.
I should add the period of the precession of the equinoxes is known to vary but the mechanism is not defined. A binary sun theory may offer one but we haven’t seen the evidence so far. If such precession can shrink and expand in duration some forcings must be in play.
– – –
oldmanK – thanks for the info.
Possibly of interest:
http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-nabta-playa-circle-demolishes.html
oldbrew tks. I had seen this site (nabta-playa) before but could not make out much that is beyond chance or cult. The first time I got something beyond cult was from Portugal — horse-shoe enclosures with equinoctial alignment.
Click to access 10_234-240_Pimenta,_Tirapicos.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/10668424/MOON_SPRING_AND_LARGE_STONES_LANDSCAPE_AND_RITUAL_CALENDAR_PERCEPTION_AND_SYMBOLIZATION
Technically that had possibilities as a calendar. I was then only looking for a reliable agrarian calendar on which much ancient lore necessarily was built on. The horse-shoe in the megalithic temples of Malta then became very obvious — and a central feature of the several sites. The horse-shoe was technically feasible, it was exact dimensionally at all site, and it worked as a model. Intention and purpose are 100%.
It was the anomalies however that say much. Geological changes in the Med (for a site near the Malta escarpment and in a seismically active area, — and archaeo/geologically obvious– geologists have put these at ~5M yrs ago but now dated reliably to ~7-8Ky). However the biggest nut was obliquity — why most were set to a low obliquity. I checked over 18 sites and all agree — ruling out fraud/trickery, chance, or cult.
Note that, like the agrarian lore, the science was widespread and diffused (whatever that might imply).
@ oldbrew
For those who do not know, Brophy’s book is a composite analysis of both Bauval’s archaeoastronomy work on the pyramids, and his own analysis of the Nabta Playa stone calendar as well as the buried stone features nearby as reported by Wendorf. The implications are “staggering” as he wrote it. After I was able to assimilate all the data and relationships I was blown away. The book is inexpensive, and takes <150 minutes for a skilled reader from intro to appendix. When I learned of the site's dismantling and storage in Cairo I was enraged. In the name of "protecting " the site the Egyptian government (Haw-ass) executed the ultimate destruction of what is likely to be the most significant site and antediluvian connection to our ancestry on the planet.
I read the Wikipedia entry and didn't observe any explanation for how the 25,770 figure was arrived at. Maybe it's in the reference section. My impression of these various figures (like those in your earth-moon claculatons… which BTW I was intrigued with) are based on short term observations, and perhaps more importantly, an assumption that the precession period is constant. Of note is that the 25,920 figure is based on several thousands of years of observation of specific stars by "Egyptian" astronomers, representing at the time of building the pyramids their conclusions. The one aspect of the pyramid age, and what Brophy points out in his book, is the level of precision by the civilization(s) that made the measurements and established the numerical relations. To this day they still exceed the precision our current astronomers are able to achieve, not only astronomically and geodetically, but our constructional abilities as well. If Brophy's analysis is correct, they also had a command of what mass really is, which defies current theoreticians and is the Achilles heal of present day astronomical measurement.
In Arp's book, Seeing Red, he proposed a cosmology that fits well the implications of the Nabta Playa calendar circle. While Chip briefly discussed galactic evolution, there is a lot yet to be sorted out on that topic. My impression from his writing is that a galaxy's evolution resembles a sigmoid function ("S" shape). My opinion is that the Milky Way is somewhere in the earlier portion of the linear part of the evolution curve. The point here being that the period of binary star orbit is slowly lengthening. At the same time, there surely are proximal influences in our galactic arm which could influence the precessional rate short-term.
It seems to me in any examination of the solar system's behavior and its impact on local weather, it cannot be evaluated in isolation. Our solar system must be viewed within the context of the dynamic behavior in which it resides. An example of this for me is the question of what causes the ~120K year periodicity in the Vostok ice core plot of temperature O18, and why is it there is an increasing amount of small scale perturbation in the plot over the 400K year period? If the "short-term" amplitude deviations are representative of the solar system dynamics (which I believe they are, for now), there is some extra-solar influence or cycle in the million year period scale affecting the planetary conjunctions now under discussion. That is, if the ice core dating technology is accurate….
‘how the 25,770 figure was arrived it’
It’s the time taken for the difference between the number of tropical years and sidereal years to equal 1.
If the equinox precesses by around 50.29 arcseconds a year that’s the number you get. (1296000 / 50.29)
Earlier TSI
Do the planets affect the sunspot cycle? – by Dr. Sten Odenwald [1997]
Fairbridge and Shirley…note that the interaction between the planets and the Sun which modulates the sunspot maxima cannot be tidal because the tidal forces of the planets at the solar surface is one TRILLIONTH of the gravitational force at the Sun’s surface. They speculate that there must be some direct, inertial coupling between the Sun’s motion about the barycenter and its internal convection pattern which generates the 11-year cycle.
At the present time, this is somewhat of a mystery. It doesn’t point to any non-gravitational forces, but to some very interesting gravitational or inertial interactions between the sunspot cycle and the Sun’s position ( actually the first and second time derivatives of its angular momentum) with respect to the barycenter which can be located anywhere from inside the Sun, to 2 times the Sun’s radius from its center.
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q923.html
He also refers to Jose’s 179 year period.
@ Oldbrew
It’s a losing battle. I’ve seen those numbers before. It’s terrible to be reminded how much one has forgotten.
In Allen and Delair’s book, Catastrophe, p15, reference to certain studies there determined the earth’s obliquity was 30º more than at present. (The articles referenced were found in Nature v253 pp705-6, & Secrets of Lost Races x+228pp) This would account for the tropical plants being consumed during the sudden freezing of the woolly rhinoceros and mammoth of Siberia. Their date for the catastrophe is 10,178 BCE.
Also on p197 they present the addition of the sign Libra to the zodiac AFTER the Deluge. (See “Radiocarbon Ages” Quat Res v5 pp263-273)
Wolkiewiez et al have tried dating the Lascaux cave paintings using astronomical computer simulation, but the articles I found did not mention accounting for the additional tilt, and she was not very congenial when I tried to gather update on her efforts. Perhaps it was the French, and/or a non-colleague behind the laconic response.
From our “illustrious” Hancock’s two books there are also these curious statements:
E. A. Wallis Budge, formerly keeper of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum: “The goddess Nut, wife of the sun god Ra, was beloved by the god Geb. When Ra discovered the intrigue he cursed his wife and declared that she should not be delivered of a child in any month of any year. Then the god Thoth, who also loved Nut, played at tables with the moon and won from her five whole days. These he joined to the 360 days of which the year then consisted. On the first of these five days Osiris was brought forth; and at the moment of his birth a voice was heard to proclaim that the lord of creation was born.” P257 Fingerprints
“…the ancient Egyptian calendar was based on 360 days plus five extra or intercalary days which they called ‘the days upon the year’ (epagomenae in Greek). During these five days five Neters or gods were said to have been born, two of whom -,Osiris and Isis – were identified by the ancient Egyptians with the constellation of Orion and the star Sirius (also called Sothis).” P174 Keeper
Sirius is one of those stars that disappears briefly during part of the year. This passage would suggest that before the Flood it was not seen at all in Egypt.
According to 1296000 arc seconds (360*60^2) of motion in a 360º circle, 25920 years of precession is 50.0 arcseconds.Taking the Egyptian god Myth as a metaphor of the “creation” that took place near periapsis (Egyptian historian Abd’El Hakim Awyan before his death emphatically stated the Egyptian Gods were not real personages but metaphors), this would explain the presence of 25920/2160/72/30 numbers showing up in the pyramid and plateau plat. After the celestial conflagration and Deluge, the sun’s orbital speed apparently advanced, slowly increasing to today’s 50.29 arcseconds, along with an axial shift (undoubtedly affecting the obliquity of the other planets), causing the northern hemisphere to grow colder including a shorter summer. Such changes to me seems to fit with the truncated increase in global temperature in the ice core plots.
In Carl Munck’s Code, he suggests the Tropical Year = 365.020081 days when the pyramid was built. My opinion is it was built when the Tropical and sidereal years were equal, OR, were built just after to encode the celestial conditions before and after the changes. Abd’El Hakim Awyan placed the construction of the Sphinx at 66KBCE, and the Great pyramid somewhere around 33KBCE. Brophy’s best dating for the Playa calendar is 31.33KBCE, but he also does not account for a greater obliquity. There’s certainly plenty of investigation to be done here. As I’ve explained to others, pyramids in Norwegian culture are dubbed “memory halls”; they are places where the past is chronicled, especially those of world significance.
Perhaps someone with some experience with elliptical math and curve fitting could fit these two arcsecond figures to an ellipse to determine if there is some validity to the figures extracted from the old stories? I do good just to convert from polar to rectangular form and sexagesimal numbers.
A couple of comments on JB’s post above:
Allen’s et al book is a good read with important material. However here also, the first problem with ‘established science’ is to abandon the dogma that obliquity is limited to 22-24 deg (but more later).
When it comes to Egyptian mythology -especially the Osiris myths, plus his mother and sister, Isis and Nefthys, the three rolled into one personality- one need to look at the wider picture. Osiris was a grain deity, at basic no different than any of the parallel myths from other sources, particularly Mesopotamia. Except that in Egypt the myth has no roots; it came at a later date from elsewhere as Diodorus says. (the pharaonic idea of incestual marriage and its rules -tutankhamun’s DNA- is likely from copying the gods)
For those interested compare “the lamentations—” :
https://www.ancient.eu/article/878/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammuz_(deity)
–the roots of that agrarian lore go much earlier. In Egypt calendar science by then was already a mess, with the religious priestly calendar out of sync with nature (in Egypt the cereal cultivation -the basis of the myth-[from JB – (Egyptian historian Abd’El Hakim Awyan before his death emphatically stated the Egyptian Gods were not real personages but metaphors) ] was ruled by the Nile inundation.).
[don’t mean to blow any horns, but IMO the best you’ll find to date is here: https://www.amazon.com/Two-Queens-Megalithic-Temples-Identity/dp/1500530476/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485072603&sr=1-2 the earliest and most identifiable evidence ]
Note that once the limitation on obliquity is abandoned, then the length of the day may change substantially.
We seem to be drifting away from solar variability here?
– – –
CURRENT SOLAR CYCLE 3RD WEAKEST SINCE OBSERVATIONS BEGAN IN 1755
Date: 22/01/17 Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt, No Tricks Zone
http://www.thegwpf.com/current-solar-cycle-3rd-weakest-since-observations-began-in-1755/
I suppose I should take some burden of reproof on subject drift. My point is simply that solar variability cannot be fully understood without including the context of its larger environment. As the planets and sun evidently interact with each other impacting our “short-term” weather, so the sun interacts with its neighbors, influencing our long-term climate changes. I have noticed the data referred to in these solar cycles is limited to detailed observations of at best a few centuries. The farther into the past, the fewer the references, and of course, the less precision in observation.
The Y-S report, whatever its errors and misapprehensions, is a key piece (for me) to grasping the cause of short-term variances in the ice core plots. For the first time I have encountered a break down of the orbital resonances which make up the “noisy” solar radiance plots. Intuitively I knew it was there, but their analysis has distinguished the main contributors. A half Great Year ago something dramatic happened to the solar system, and the climate variability caused by planetary position became significantly enhanced over previous ages. IMO, it is a mistake to assume a uniformitarian view of the solar variances under present investigation. The tendency is subtle, and can be found in Brophy’s calendar study. With the study of these orbital cycles we should keep in mind that the galaxy is evolving.
Two items about the plot have struck me odd and nagging: the fact that in this latest 120K year age, the excursion into a warm period of roughly 3º is missing, while the small amplitude variability is the highest over the entire ice record. What accounts for that? How does this change affect the current investigation of planetary influence? Is there a long-term cycle that tends to augment/suppress the influence of our planets on the sun?
At http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/climate/earthorbit.html there is a Milankovic cycle applet that allows the viewer to examine the influence of eccentricity, precession, and obliquity in a dynamic way, similar to the Y-S report does in a static manner.
My foray into the solar system’s Great Year orbit has been an attempt to collate as much data as reliable to characterize the precession cycle and its influence on solar system behavior.
Ygnestad points to Uranus as a significant contributor to contemporary observed variability. Uranus is unique among the planets because of its 98º obliquity. Surely this quality is contributory to its unusual influence. Historically, there is some thought that at the time of the Flood Uranus and Neptune swapped orbits. That possibility is worth keeping in mind when evaluating these cycles, especially with long-term characterization.
I hereby assume the bigger share of the blame for the drift in subject. But make no mistake, it is in some ways connected. We have inherited much knowledge that is good, but even more that needs to be re-interpreted and supported with enough evidence too. Here’s why:
JB’s last post has an interesting link. It is impressive (in a way that new-fangled tech is more believable than religion), but it is faulty – no proof. Then again none of the Milankovic secular earth orbit changes can account for the abrupt changes – say the Dryas period -; particularly obliquity is questionable. Like in the ancient myths (which were at some point passed dumbed down), the basic assumptions are wrong. Another example from what JB above says “Historically, there is some thought that at the time of the Flood Uranus and Neptune swapped orbits.”. I ask: which Flood and when? All the dates in the link in the above/my post January 20, 2017 at 11:25 am are likely a source of cataclysmic flooding and worse.
New Paper: 14 Scientists Affirm Solar Forcing, Not CO2, Is ‘Dominant Control’ For Modern Climate Change
http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/23/new-paper-14-scientists-affirm-solar-forcing-not-co2-is-dominant-control-for-modern-climate-change/
These references are linked to Jupiter’s perihelion [at its closest orbital point to the Sun]:
Timo Niroma: A speculative hypothesis to explain the Jupiter effect [written before 2011]
‘According to my theory the Jupiter’s perihelion very much regulates the sunspot cycles. The last Jovian perihelion occurred just during those days in May 1999, when the Sun appeared to behave abnormally. But the effect does not include only those few days, it affects the whole cycle.’
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#spreason
– – –
NASA: The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared
‘From May 10-12, 1999, the solar wind that blows constantly from the Sun virtually disappeared — the most drastic and longest-lasting decrease ever observed.’
https://web.archive.org/web/20160812100435/http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
– – –
Perihelion: ‘Jupiter was closest to the sun on 1999-May-20 10:16 UT, at 740.57916639E+6 km’
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110221111450AAvF2au
‘The coronal cloud around Jupiter is exactly opposite to that around the Sun. At the Sun there are polar coronal holes, whereas at Jupiter the coronal cloud is most prevalent over the magnetic poles.’
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Jupiter#Coronal_clouds