Zharkova uses solar-planetary theory in new paper predicting Earth temperature rise to 2600 following imminent Grand Solar Minimum

Posted: June 25, 2019 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, Celestial Mechanics, cosmic rays, Cycles, Solar physics, solar system dynamics
Tags: , , ,

An important new solar paper by Prof Valentina Zharkova and co-authors S. J. Shepherd, S. I. Zharkov & E. Popova  published in ‘Nature’ has incorporated the solar-planetary theory we’ve been researching and advancing here at the talkshop over the last decade. As well as further developing her previous double dynamo theory which now accounts for the last several millennium’s solar grand minima and maxima, she includes discussion of Fairbridge, Mackey, Shirley, Charvatova and Abreu et al’s work. Central to the new hypothesis is the motion of the Sun around the barycentre of the solar system, described as the Solar Inertial Motion [SIM].

Left plot: the example of SIM trajectories of the Sun about the barycenter calculated from 1950 until 210034. Right plot: the cone of expanding SIM orbits of the Sun35 with the top showing 2D orbit projections similar to the left plot. Here there are three complete SIM orbits of the Sun, each of which takes about 179 years. Each solar orbit consists of about eight, 22-year solar cycles35. The total time span is, therefore, three 179-year solar cycles31, or about 600 years. Source: Adapted from Mackey35. Reproduced with permission from the Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Inc

Following my discussion with her at dinner following her talk in London last year, Zharkova now agrees with us that the SIM induced by planetary motion affects sunspot production and solar activity levels.

However, in the light of newly discovered double dynamo effects in the solar interior6 the planets can surely perturb properties of the solar interior governing the solar dynamo in the outer layer, such as solar differential rotation, or Ω-effect, governing migration of a magnetic flux through the outer layer to its surface, and those of α effect, that can change the velocity of meridional circulation. This leads to the dynamo waves in this outer layer with the frequency slightly different from that than in the inner layer, and, thus to the beating effects caused by interference of these two waves and to grand cycles discussed above6.

In addition, Zharkova discusses the effect of SIM on the Sun-Earth distance observed by Shirley and develops the theme to account for differential warming of Earth’s hemispheres and the planet as a whole over long time periods. An observed anomaly which confounds the mainstream GHG theory of climate change. She characterises the irradiance received at Earth due to this SIM induced variation as the Baseline Magnetic Field.

Top plot: the close-up view of the oscillations of the baseline magnetic field (dark blue curve) in the current and past millennia with a minimum occurring during Maunder Minimum (MM). The irradiance curve (magenta line) presented from Krivova and Solanki27,28overplotted on the summary curve of magnetic field (light blue curve)6. Note the irradiance curve is slightly reduced in magnitude in the years 0–1400 to avoid messy curves. The dark rectangle indicates the position of MM coinciding with the minimum of the current baseline curve and the minimum of the solar irradiance27,28. The scale of the baseline variations are shown on the left hand side of Y axis, the scale of the summary curve – on the right hand side. Bottom plot: variations of the Earth temperature for the past 140 years derived by Akasofu26 with the solid dark line showing the baseline increase of the temperature, blue and red areas show natural oscillations of this temperature caused by combined terrestrial causes and solar activity. The increase of terrestrial temperature is defined by 0.5 °C per 100 years26.

Going into further detail, Zharkova says:

If during SIM the Sun moves closer to perihelion and the spring equinox (positions 2), thus increasing the Earth orbit eccentricity, the distance between the Sun and Earth will be the shortest at perihelion approaching about 1.44 × 108 km while at aphelion it will increase to 1.55 × 108 km. This means at these times the Earth would receive higher than usual solar irradiance (that can lead to higher terrestrial temperatures)26,43,44, while approaching its perihelion during its winter and spring (warmer winters and springs in the Northern hemisphere and summers and autumns in the Southern one). 

Here are the paper’s conclusions, including predictions for future temperatures in full:

Until recently, solar activity was accepted to be one of the important factors defining the temperature on Earth and other planets. In this paper we reproduced the summary curve of the solar magnetic field associated with solar activity5,6 for the one hundred thousand years backward by using the formulas describing the sum of the two principal components found from the full disk solar magnetograms. In the past 3000 years the summary curve shows the solar activity for every 11 years and occurrence of 9 grand solar cycles of 350–400 years, which are caused by the beating effects of two magnetic waves generated by solar dynamo at the inner and outer layers inside the solar interior with close but not equal frequencies6.

The resulting summary curve reveals a remarkable resemblance to the sunspot and terrestrial activity reported in the past millennia including the significant grand solar minima: Maunder Minimum (1645–1715), Wolf minimum (1200), Oort minimum (1010–1050), Homer minimum (800–900 BC) combined with the grand solar maxima: the medieval warm period (900–1200), the Roman warm period (400–10BC) etc. It also predicts the upcoming grand solar minimum, similar to Maunder Minimum, which starts in 2020 and will last until 2055.

A reconstruction of solar total irradiance suggests that there is an increase in the cycle-averaged total solar irradiance (TSI) since the Maunder minimum by a value of about 1–1.5 Wm−227. This increase is closely correlated with the similar increase of the average terrestrial temperature26,43. Moreover, from the summary curve for the past 100 thousand years we found the similar oscillations of the baseline of magnetic field with a period of 1950 ± 95 years (a super-grand solar cycle) by filtering out the large-scale oscillations in 11 year cycles. The last minimum of a super-grand cycle occurred at the beginning of Maunder minimum. Currently, the baseline magnetic field (and solar irradiance) are increasing to reach its maximum at 2600, after which the baseline magnetic field become decreasing for another 1000 years.

The oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field are likely to be caused by the solar inertial motion about the barycentre of the solar system caused by large planets. This, in turn, is closely linked to an increase of solar irradiance caused by the positions of the Sun either closer to aphelion and autumn equinox or perihelion and spring equinox. Therefore, the oscillations of the baseline define the global trend of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance over a period of about 2100 years. In the current millennium since Maunder minimum we have the increase of the baseline magnetic field and solar irradiance for another 580 years. This increase leads to the terrestrial temperature increase as noted by Akasofu26 during the past two hundred years. Based on the growth rate of 0.5 C per 100 years26 for the terrestrial temperature since Maunder minimum, one can anticipate that the increase of the solar baseline magnetic field expected to occur up to 2600 because of SIM will lead, in turn, to the increase of the terrestrial baseline temperature since MM by 1.3 °C (in 2100) and, at least, by 2.5–3.0 °C (in 2600).

Naturally, on top of this increase of the baseline terrestrial temperature, there are imposed much larger temperature oscillations caused by standard solar activity cycles of 11 and 350–400 years and terrestrial causes. The terrestrial temperature is expected to grow during maxima of 11 year solar cycles and to decrease during their minima. Furthermore, the substantial temperature decreases are expected during the two grand minima47 to occur in 2020–2055 and 2370–24156, whose magnitudes cannot be yet predicted and need further investigation. These oscillations of the estimated terrestrial temperature do not include any human-induced factors, which were outside the scope of the current paper.

The paper is currently open access, so grab a copy now!

  1. JB says:

    Seems to me this update supports the notion that the so-called “Goldilocks Zone” is much narrower than previously proposed, something I’ve long had a hunch is the case but without argument.

    If it turns out the Zharkova etal analysis does indeed predict warming trends through the next millennium,this will be a major departure from the GISP record (assuming THAT analysis is correct), and indeed, the Sumerian story of a major change in the planetary composition DID take place around 12KBCE. Compared to previous 100K year cycles, the Holocene temps have been relatively flat. It would be interesting to plot these same effects including another planet about half the mass of Uranus (35x that of Ceres for one std G) orbiting in the asteroid belt zone.

  2. oldbrew says:

    the increase of the terrestrial baseline temperature since MM by 1.3 °C (in 2100) and, at least, by 2.5–3.0 °C (in 2600)

    Assuming no geo-engineering.

  3. tallbloke says:

    Or big volcano action.

  4. The change in the Earth-Sun distance caused by SIM is ~ 500 kilometers. This is much less than the 5 million kilometer difference in the Earth-Sun distance caused by the annual movement of the Earth from Perihelion to Aphelion. In addition, it is much smaller than the ~ 2500 km change in the Earth-Sun’s distance caused by the motion of the Earth around the Earth-Moon Barycentre. How can the change in insolation caused by SIM be a major factor leading to changes in the Earth’s atmospheric temperature?

  5. Drew says:

    My neighbor Billy Bob is a good ‘ol country boy that generally asks me to dummy-down stuff I learn and kinda put it into a perspective that he better understands. In short, I guess I’ll tell him the following….

    Billy Bob, in the few years leading up to 2600 Earth is gonna be hotter then hell. Dont worry though, because by that time “Evil” (his dog) will be dead and “Hope” (his daughter) will already be long-gone, and you will be but a memory. On the other hand, upcoming Florida Winters might become a little cooler so why not spend the few dollars and properly fix that ‘ol 15 year-old reverse cycle Central Air-heater”.

  6. oldbrew says:

    In the current millennium since Maunder minimum we have the increase of the baseline magnetic field and solar irradiance for another 580 years. This increase leads to the terrestrial temperature increase as noted by Akasofu during the past two hundred years.

    Which implies little or no role for human-caused atmospheric ‘effects’ as proposed by the IPCC.
    – – –
    See also: ‘Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres’ on p.9 of the paper.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Ian, I’d be interested to know how your 500km figure is calculated. The Sun’s motion relative to the barycentre varies up to 2.2 solar radii from memory. I also vagualy recall having a discussion with Leif Svalgaard about how much the apparent diameter of the Sun would vary if Earth’s orbit continued unperturbed as the Sun swings around the barycenter. Would the change be observable with our current instrumentation or not?

  8. William j Dwyer Ii says:

    So activities of man could not have been a factor

  9. Robert Christopher says:

    Who is going to tell the UK ‘caretaker’ PM, Theresa May, that her recent commitment to extend our green policies look suspect?
    And will she listen? Or even understand?
    We are living in a madhouse.

  10. J Martin says:

    So upcoming temperature dip isn’t large but the one in 200 years time is pretty big. Ties in with what Landscheidt said.

  11. Cjones1 says:

    A Maunder Minimum like period beginning in 2020? That sounds cool! Actually cold. Has anyone confirmed that increased cosmic rays increase seismic activity?

  12. Excellent article. Considering implications of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, a supplemental article seems appropriate.

  13. E.M.Smith says:

    That 350 to 400 year cycle is very interesting.

    Looking at the history of empires, collapse, famine and drought: I saw a strong Bond Cycle at about 1500 years, a 1/2 cycle pattern at about 750 years, and even some issues at the 1/4 cycle of 350 to 400 years….

    Would be interesting to plot good and bad times in Egyptian Pharonic times, Roman & Greek empires, etc. against that graph of solar state… I suspect it will show some match.

  14. hunterson7 says:

    Interesting. A lot to ponder.
    I look forward to reading more.
    Your steady work on this is much to be admired.

  15. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Hi from Oz. I am a layman regarding this type of science, but looking at the spiral ‘core’ plot at the beginning of this paper, I am struck by the fact that the sun is shown as ‘active’ when its spiral path gets ‘looser’, and ‘inactive’ when the path gets ‘tighter’. Is this path ‘tightening’ and ‘loosening’ a cause, or an effect?

  16. Starr says:

    To those trying to politicize this eventuality: Man made climate change and solar divergence climate events are not mutually exclusive. Both can be happening at the same time. We will be worse off for it having eaten away at our ozone. We must implement changes that we cant even predict yet. 2020 however is fast approaching. As Zharkhova has suggested repeatedly…. believe her or not, we won’t have long to wait for answers. Buckle up! Grow food. Crop failures imminent.

  17. tallbloke says:

    BoyfromTottenham: The ‘tightening and loosening’ of the path is an effect caused by the motion of the planets. Imagine an olympic hammer thrower twirling two hammers at different speeds. When they’re both on one side of him, he has to lean back to counteract their mass. When they’re on opposite sides, he’s more upright and makes smaller circles as he turns. That’s analogous to the path the Sun takes relative to the barycenter (centre of mass of the entire solar system) as Jupiter and Saturn move from conjunction to opposition. Add in two more hammers to represent Uranus and Neptune and it gets more complex, but you get the general idea.

    Now consider the Sun is also spinning on its axis as well as orbiting the barycenter, and you can see why there will be an orbit to spin coupling affecting the rate of rotation of the bands of plasma on the solar surface, in turn affecting activity levels.

  18. pochas94 says:

    We’ve survived all of it and will survive 2600 as well (the Romans did). What we should learn from this is that it is all refined guesswork. Intemperate and premature action is the danger.

  19. Gamecock says:

    ‘predicting Earth temperature rise to 2600’

    Celsius or Fahrenheit?

  20. oldbrew says:

    On ‘the example of SIM trajectories of the Sun about the barycenter calculated from 1950 until 2100’ (see blog post diagram), each inner loop is followed by an outer arc, and this process repeats.

    Jupiter and Saturn are always on exactly opposite sides of the Sun about halfway round each inner loop, and on exactly the same side about halfway round each outer arc. At the crossing point from loop to arc (= arc to loop) they will be at a ~90 degree angle to each other, relative to the Sun.

  21. oldbrew says:

    Cjones1 says: June 25, 2019 at 11:25 pm
    – – –
    The paper below is mentioned here:

    Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber (2011)

    We note the possibility that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was triggered by the same mechanism: an increase in cosmic-ray flux triggered by Typhoon Yunya, as a decrease in atmospheric pressure results in an increase in cosmic-ray flux.


  22. tallbloke says:

    Pochas: Yes. If you find 2C too much to bear, you can always move a few hundred miles polewards to cancel it out.

  23. PetterT says:

    Compared to the ice ages every ~100 000 years, and we are on overtime now, is it possible to predict if and when a new one will take place?

  24. Rocky says:

    Whether you believe it or not God is in control.

  25. stpaulchuck says:

    Well the grand minimum is supposed to last some thirty years. That would put me over 100 and so the warming follow-on has no meaning for me.

    Having said that I don’t think my air con could keep up with a temperature this high – “predicting Earth temperature rise to 2600” Whew! that’s hot.

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Would July 4 me?”
    – “Burden in My Hand”
    – Washington’s Sound Garden

    1 / 0.615197263396975 = V
    1 / 0.615197069188456 = (5/3)E-(φ/3)J+(ΦΦ/3)S

  27. oldbrew says:

    increase of the terrestrial baseline temperature since MM by 1.3 °C (in 2100) and, at least, by 2.5–3.0 °C (in 2600).

    How many decades/centuries before they discover that ‘decarbonisation’ is delivering no useful climate results?

  28. John says:

    Incredible story if true we are all in for it.
    Even if you got south it would be every man for himself.
    Something wicked this way cometh.
    Let’s hope they made a miscalculation.

  29. pochas94 says:

    Tallbloke wrote: “Pochas: Yes. If you find 2C too much to bear….”

    I live in Michigan and I have to keep explaining why I don’t move to Florida.

  30. tallbloke says:

    Pochas: Global warming wasn’t happening fast enough for me. I’ve bought a bit of growing land and a small house to renovate 8 degrees further south where it’s 4C warmer.

  31. tallbloke says:

    Paul: Nice formulation. What’s with the provocative link to the Mayan calendar?

  32. stpaulchuck says:

    we Minnesotans welcome three to four degrees of warming. I’m sure we’ll be able to tell the difference between twenty-seven below zero and twenty-three below. Or not.

  33. ren says:

    Tallbloke says:
    ” Now consider the Sun is also spinning on its axis as well as orbiting the barycenter, and you can see why there will be an orbit to spin coupling affecting the rate of rotation of the bands of plasma on the solar surface, in turn affecting activity levels.”
    In 2020 there will be conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn.

  34. pochas94 says:

    Not only that, but the plasma density near the chromosphere is much lower than the average, so torquing from planetary alignments will be more effective nearer the surface, helping to tension the toroidal lines of magnetic force which then reconnect and generate the sunspots we love to count. Pay no attention to those who say that tidal affects from planetary alignments don’t matter.

  35. pochas94 says:

    The Mayan elders tell me that the most recent Baktun just ended and the God Bolon Yokte ‘Ku simply descended from the Milky Way and began a new Baktun, preventing the end of everything, as always.

  36. Gamecock says:

    “Incredible story if true we are all in for it.”

    Nah. Not me. I’m planning to be completely, irrevocably dead by 2600.

  37. Geoff Sharp says:

    The NASA JPL database shows no SIM effect on the Earth/Sun distance. How did this paper get past the reviewers?

  38. Geoff Sharp says:

    The Holocene solar proxy record shows no recurring Maunder type minimum every 350-400 years, another major flaw.

    Charvatova discovered that Solar Grand Minima only occur during the Disordered phase of the SIM, but all disordered phases are different ( within the 4627 year cycle repeat of the outer 4 planets). This paper along with Charvatova need to drill down and explore these differences.

  39. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, glad you’ve weighed in on this. I remember you went to a lot of trouble to carefully check the Jupiter-Sun distance too. Did you find any SIM effect there?

  40. Geoff Sharp says:

    Hi Rog, as expected the data shows each planet orbits it’s own planet/Sun barycentre. When the Sun moves the planets follow..surprised this one got through.

  41. ren says:

    The strength of the polar solar field drops again.

  42. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: each planet orbits it’s own planet/Sun barycentre
    Sun – planet pairs don’t exist in isolation. This is a many body problem. I don’t think the variation will be as big as Zharkova assumes, but there will be some.

    I’ll hang back on making judgements until I’ve got a copy of the Shirley- Fairbridge paper Zharkova cites in relation to her 3.5% TSI variation.

  43. tallbloke says:

    I’ve read the Shirley-Fairbridge paper and it doesn’t say what Zharkova thinks it does. I’ve emailed her for clarification.

  44. dscott says:

    I find it hard to believe Earth’s temperature will get higher by the year 2600 given the declining obliquity. Using this obliquity calculator, we are currently at 23.43° (23° 26′ 12.326) in the year 2019, it will be 23.36° (23° 21′ 40.796) in the year 2600.

    http://www.neoprogrammics.com/ OBLIQUITY OF THE ECLIPTIC calculator

    Geologic history has shown that regardless of the sun’s historical distance from the Earth, the obliquity effect more than offsets this difference. Here is a classic case of “all things are NOT equal” when all the variables are not considered significant by under weighting their importance and over estimating the weight of the (human-centric biased) preferred variable.

    In the historic record, there is NO case where during the declining trend of the obliquity cycle below 23.5° results in higher temperatures. This paper is conflating a solar medium length harmonic carrier rhythm riding on the back of the long term rhythm affecting earth’s climate.

    The bottom line here is during one of the upcoming solar minima, Earth will not exit the planetary cooling phase until the upswing of obliquity back to it’s maximum of 24.5°.

  45. Geoff Sharp says:

    Just in, interview with Zharkova re this paper.

  46. Geoff Sharp says:

    At around the 13 minute mark Zharkova states the planets orbit the SSB and not the Sun. This part of her paper is obviously very wrong.

  47. Aequitas says:

    Surely all the planets and the sun revolve around the center of mass and when it moves they move.

  48. Geoff Sharp says:

    The SSB doesn’t move..it is the gravitation centre of the solar system. The Sun moves around the SSB because of the planets, and the planets move with the Sun. Each planet has an effect on where the Sun is in relation to the SSB, but each planet orbits around their planet / Sun barycentre. That’s what the JPL data shows along with solar observation and metrics measured.

  49. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: I agree. This aspect is wrong.

    Aequitas: There are a number of inaccuracies and misconceptions in that video.
    A few are:
    It’s not their gravity which forces the Sun to move WRT the barycentre but the planets angular momentum.
    The Jupiter Saturn conjunction-opposition cycle is not 11 years but 9.93.
    The planets do not individually orbit the solar system barycentre, but their individual Sun-planet barycentre (with small perturbations caused by the other planets).

    See Geoff’s EMB-SSB-Sun plot above.

  50. Aequitas says:

    NASA is not in agreement with your statements about the barycenter.

    “Our entire solar system also has a barycenter. The sun, Earth, and all of the planets in the solar system orbit around this barycenter. It is the center of mass of every object in the solar system combined.

    Our solar system’s barycenter constantly changes position. Its position depends on where the planets are in their orbits. The solar system’s barycenter can range from being near the center of the sun to being outside the surface of the sun. As the sun orbits this moving barycenter, it wobbles around.”


    Yes, the statement in the video about the Jupiter Saturn conjunction-opposition cycle being 11 years is factually wrong.

  51. tallbloke says:

    Which do you believe? NASA’s woolly words written on its science for kids webpage authored by who knows who, or the JPL DE4 ephemeris?

    It would be more accurate to say that the planets orbit the sun as the sun orbits the barycentre.

  52. Aequitas says:

    I believe in physics and the theory of the gravitational curvature of space. Now the mass of the earth is so small relative to the sun that the ephemeris can ignore the small difference between orbiting the sun and the barycenter but that doesn’t mean the planets don’t orbit the barycenter. Just because NASA wrote it for kids doesn’t mean its wrong and there are numerous sites on line backing up the physics involved.

  53. dscott says:

    Surprising Summer Chill Baffles Global Warming Alarmists


    Experts are divided on what this cold phase actually points to. It might be just a one-off, localized, short-term weather phenomenon, or it might reflect a longer, global-scale climate shift.

    Either way it contradicts alarmists’ claims of a warming world. If it were a mere weather phenomenon, then it would mean global warming would result in cold phases (like those in June, May, and earlier months this year), not warmer phases, as claimed by the alarmists. That means climate change will result in cold phases like the ones we’ve been observing in the past two years.

    In contrast, if these cold phases are an indicator of a longer climatic shift, then there is no drastic warming but a global cooling.

    We might be headed to what NASA describes as a period of “solar minimum,” with temperatures akin to the Little Ice Age that froze Northern Europe in the 16th century.

  54. tallbloke says:

    Aequitas says: Now the mass of the earth is so small relative to the sun that the ephemeris can ignore the small difference between orbiting the sun and the barycenter.

    Sure. What’s the odd 700,000km between friends?

  55. Aequitas says:

    Ha! In that case maybe it is time to make the ephemeris match the physics.

  56. Geoff Sharp says:

    Zharkova uses 35 years of data to produce a 120,000 year solar model that has regular grand minima at 350 years and super grand minima at 2100 years. But this in no way reflects what the actual Holocene proxy record shows us.

    We know the outer 4 planets do not repeat their positions in relation to each other for 4627 years, so instinctively if her model is SIM driven we should not see such a regular pattern as she portrays. Rather she should have seen a repeating pattern every 4627 years with grand minima of DIFFERENT strengths occurring roughly every 172 years (N/U synodic) and LIA type clusters of grand minima every 2100 AND 2400 years. This is what the Holocene and planetary record shows. Her model does not represent reality so is totally worthless.

    If Zharkova and Charvatova looked deeper they would see what drives grand minima that occurs during EVERY disordered phase of the SIM.

  57. Geoff Sharp says:

    Zharkova’s model does not hindcast the Sporer Minimum, one of the longest and deepest grand minima of the Holocene.

    To overcome this criticism she invokes a supernova that is responsible for the downturn in the solar proxy record…crazy stuff?

  58. oldbrew says:

    NASA animation…not sure if this helps.

    If a star has planets, the star orbits around a barycenter that is not at its very center. This causes the star to look like it’s wobbling.


  59. I won’t bet on that animation as correct. The small planet will orbit the barycentre as the focus of its orbit (circular or elliptical). But the big mass ‘likely’ does not move – due to its immense inertia. The time it takes to begin to nudge that large mass from it centre-of-mass to barycentre, the small planet would have made half an orbit, and the barycenter would have shifted 180deg. The time element is ignored there. The gravitational field in the region would be a different matter.

    No expert here, but I find that there is no match between the graphs from the Zharkova video to Eddy cycle (whatever its source) roots that correspond to the well-corroborated holocene events.

  60. oldbrew says:

    An obvious issue with the animation is that the Sun doesn’t exactly move around in the way it shows. Instead it does loop-arc-loop-arc repetitions where each loop or arc averages just under ten years, but no loop or arc is the same as the one before or after it.

    This relatively slight irregularity should be reflected in the planetary orbits, but may be too small to be easily detectable. Also it’s not in 3D, but the NASA link does include a side view version of it.

  61. pochas94 says:

    For two bodies as shown, ok, perfect circle. But once you add more planets to the picture, the barycenter for a given planet depends on the position of all the other planets as well as the sun, so the precise barycenter at a given time is different for each body in the system. Am I wrong?

  62. oldbrew says:

    I propose:
    At any given time the barycentre for a particular planet and its Sun has to be on a straight line between the two of them. But that line will itself be a moving target (because the two bodies are always moving), and the true barycentre point for that planet and its Sun *at the given time* will be somewhere on that moving line.

    Now add in several other planets all doing the same, some with more influence over solar motion than others 😎
    – – –
    R. Mackey (2007): Rhodes Fairbridge emphasised that
    the sun’s spin-orbital resonance can be further amplified by the
    planets’ own spin-orbital resonance. Additionally, he reported
    that the distance of the sun from the earth varies as the sun orbits
    the barycentre. He calculated that the distance could vary by
    about 1 per cent.
    Rhodes Fairbridge noted that this variation could
    have climate change consequences in a similar way as happens in
    Milankovitchs’ theory.
    [bold added]

    Click to access fairbridge.pdf

    Is there a later calc with a different result?

  63. tallbloke says:

    Aequitas says:
    June 30, 2019 at 2:06 am
    Ha! In that case maybe it is time to make the ephemeris match the physics.

    Feel free to link to or describe the physics as you understand them. I think the physics used by the emphemeris isn’t perfect (it uses heuristic equations derived from observations to resolve inequalities, rather than resolving all motion from first principles), but it’s not far wrong either. Certainly not 700,000km wrong, otherwise we’d be observing the Sun occulting stars in the background field other than those predicted by the ephemeris, and cyclic waveforms in the TSI record which are not observed (however, there are cyclic peaks linked to inner planet – jupiter syzygies as Shirley & Fairbridge noted, and Scafetta & Wilson confirmed).

    melitamegalithic says:
    June 30, 2019 at 10:29 am
    I won’t bet on that animation as correct. The small planet will orbit the barycentre as the focus of its orbit (circular or elliptical). But the big mass ‘likely’ does not move – due to its immense inertia.

    The accurate measurement of the wobbling is exactly how astronomers are working out the mass and orbital periods of the exoplanets of distant stars. It is observed, and does happen. ‘Immense inertia’ is overcome by huge forces. The Sun has 98% of the solar system’s mass, but the planets have about 96% of the system’s angular momentum.

    Geoff: Her model does not represent reality so is totally worthless.

    I think Zharkova has realised that she can’t extrapolate so far back solely with her short period of solar observations, and that’s why she’s moving towards incorporating our planetary theory. That’s to be encouraged rather than dismissed in my view, because it aims to unify solar based models with solar-system models. So let’s give her two cheers here, and some useful constructive criticism and pointers to improvement, rather than outright rejection.

  64. murrayv says:

    From my blog post here “AGWnot.blogspot ,com Climate and Solar Regularities and Global Cooling”
    “2300 year Hallstatt cycle – seen in C14 tree ring data. Wilson notes that it takes 121 Jupiter/Saturn synodic periods or 2403 years for the alignment to return to the same position with respect to the stars, which doesn’t seem very meaningful in climate terms. Charvatova notes that every 2400 years the Jose cycle drops to 160 years for a period of about 370 years, which does seem meaningful. The next occurrence will be between 2240 and 2610. Strangely the 370 years is very close to one 363 year DGM period”. Geoff Sharp’s 4600 year cycle would be two Halstatt cycles. I have no idea how these occur, but it is interesting. I have also noted what seems to be a phase shift as the Jupiter/Saturn relationship goes from a leading to a lagging relationship, that may be connected with Charvatova”s dropped Jose cycle. Clearly the complex planetary motion relationships have not yet been fully understood, so both Sharp and Charvatova may be right

    [Mod note] Rescued from Spam, sorry for the holdup. TB

  65. Geoff Sharp says:

    If you are going to understand long term solar patterns over the Holocene and longer and use a SIM theory, I think it is important to know what the 4 outer planets are doing.

    My research shows that the 4 planets don’t repeat their positions in relationship to each other for 4627 years…so over that span the solar path around the Sun is different every 10 year orbit around the SSB (inner loop and outer loop). It is very easy to prove the solar path is identical (almost) every 4627 years.

    Here I have plotted the distance of the centre of the Sun to the SSB, this is the solar path. The data is taken from JPL and has 3 periods of 600 years separated by 4627 years plotted together. The solar paths overlay each other almost identically.

    LIA type Clusters of grand minima need the outer 4 planets in the right position, and one might think these clusters might only occur every 4627 years. But at a point not quite in the middle of the 4627 year cycle (2100/2400 years) the planets do come back to a position somewhat close to the pattern observed during the LIA, this is the base of the Hallstatt cycle.

  66. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, we’re in complete agreement on the 4627yr long cycle. I just tried slicing my integration of the 10Be solar reconstruction at that period and the result is interesting.

  67. Justin Flynn says:

    This is great information, and important work!

    I have added all the numbered solar cycles minimum and maximum dates against SSB maps, and the set of emergent patterns is telling.

    There is even a pentagram in there formed from cycle 8-13 minimums.

    Here are the solar cycles max/min dates on SSB maps, for those interested:


    The axes you will see on these maps where originally formed from the 5,9 year LoD oscillation dates (Holmes et al, 2013), but these are actually Planetary Resonance Axes (both the same actually, plus other things).

    These axes align with historical supernovae dates, Atlantic hurricane intensity, earthquakes, Newton’s big G, and so on. The interested part is the question we can ask: is the obvious correlation between the movement of the planets and solar activity the primary causation, or is there a galactic “dark force” that influenced the original mass and orbital position of the planets at solar system formation. The why phi work on your blog here will be important to help answer that question for exo-planetary systems, I suspect.

    Note on maps: the observer is looking at the south pole of the sun, rather than the standard north pole view. SSB maps created by our old mate, P.E Semi.

  68. Geoff Sharp says:

    Rog, I think we can advance SIM theory to the point of being accepted as mainstream, with acknowledgement of the 4627 year cycle of the 4 outer planets being a big step.

    Nils contacted me some weeks ago, he had just read my paper and was very encouraged. If we could just get Charvatova to recognise the detailed (AMP) events that drive her disordered phase and solar grand minima… I think we would have a very strong platform based on solid data that we could all move forward on and successfully challenge the internal dynamo crew.

  69. tallbloke says:

    Sounds good. Pleased to hear Nils has been in touch with you. Let’s discuss the shape of a possible series of papers covering SIM, AMP, and integrated solar proxies. Better to feed it into the literature in bite sized pieces rather than a huge mouthful they can’t swallow I think. Then follow up with a co-authored review paper which pulls it all together.

  70. Geoff Sharp says:

    Happy to collaborate with that idea, especially if Charvatova is involved.

  71. tallbloke says:

    Maybe we can get her to be a co-author on the review paper by liberally citing her in our papers. 😉

  72. tallbloke says:

    We’ll get Stuart (oldbrew) involved too. He posted this diagram of the 4627yr cycle synods back in 2013

    Linked in this post

  73. Geoff Sharp says:

    All good, and perhaps Ken might be interested and could expand on his fabulous diagram.

  74. tallbloke says:

    Justin Flynn: Welcome. Thanks for the link to your blog.

  75. tallbloke: Can you pls give more info re the figure TSI calibration interval at your July 4, 2019 at 4:37 am ?
    I find there are interesting correlations with this (see added fig bottom with TSI curve superimposed) here: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/ at 5200bce 4375, 3550, 3200; and either/or or both for the 2800 and 2345bce (the latter date is Dodwell’s and there markers for that date in other proxies; but my initial tendency was for 2800 from archaeological evidence, but could be two separate events).

  76. Geoff Sharp says:

    Justin Flynn

    Hi Justin, fantastic blog and an immense array of data. My area of research centres on what you call the “mini-me” cycles which I call AMP events.

    These events only occur when N/U/J are together with S opposite and look to correlate with all known periods of solar slowdown (solar grand minima). Check out my blog and paper for more info.
    Here is a teaser that sums up the theory and how the mini-me orbits can be quantified:


  77. […] Zharkova solar-planetary theory predicting Grand Solar Minimum temperature rise 7 by olivermarks | 0 comments on Hacker News. […]

  78. tallbloke says:

    melitamegalithic says:
    July 4, 2019 at 3:49 pm
    tallbloke: Can you pls give more info re the figure TSI calibration interval at your July 4, 2019 at 4:37 am ?

    I’m hoping to publish a paper on this so I’m not revealing too much at this stage. Basically, it’s an attempt to create a proxy for ocean heat content using the Steinhilber et al solar variation reconstruction based on the 10Be proxy. I’ve integrated and filtered the data such that it fits the ‘training period’ of the last 800 years. Zooming in on that period, we can see a good correlation between the integrated solar data and Michael Mann’s temperature reconstruction (which avoids the peak of the MWP). 😉

    I’m hoping that the earlier period back to 7500bce will match up with other proxy reconstructions such as the ones you’ve provided on your graphs. Thanks for posting, I might be asking you for a copy of that Kilimanjaro series, which I haven’t seen before.

  79. tallbloke: thanks, understood (melitamegalithic is oldmanK, but the replies get mixed occasionally).

    The source of the proxies is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png The ‘data sources’ lower down identifies the colour and the source. Its what I had as info available some 5 yrs ago. I teased the three graphs for Vostok Gisp2 and Kilimanjaro (all oxygen isotope) to compare polar and equatorial trend; they oppose most times. But note Gisp2 is shown lagging behind some 1100yrs which I figured was wrong; all should correlate at YD abrupt increase at about 11k5yrs. That has been confirmed from other sources.

    I am only actually interested in the 6k to 2kbce range. I have found the correlations when superimposed to be beyond chance.

  80. tallbloke says:

    I guessed it was you when I saw the image of the Maltese sandstone complex at the head of the page. So have you corrected the GISP2 lag in your plot?

  81. oldmanK says:

    Yes it is corrected.
    Getting the individual traces was a hassle as the colours happen to be similar. I opened it in photoshop and altered the colour to the selected trace until it was enough distinguishable. First put some mark like a small square so later one can align them again.
    Vostok and Kilimanjaro were ok, but gisp2 made little sense. Gisp2 site has trace showing it in step with Vostok. I was following the logic that a tilt increase would increase insolation beyond the tropics and reduce it in between (my grail?). It was immediately evident at 2345bce or thereabouts. Five years ago I had 2345, 3195, and 4375 from tree rings to work with. 5200 came later. All fit, so my adjusting was to be corroborated. Your trace is an addition, something to be explained.
    The chronological axis for the different proxies in Wiki is not reliable since time lag varies.

  82. tallbloke says:

    Do you mean increased tilt will increase insolation beyond the tropics for the summer hemisphere (and decrease it for the winter hemisphere)?

  83. oldmanK says:

    Increased tilt increases insolation beyond tropics (new tropics) and decreases in between. Applies for both hemispheres simultaneously.

    Look at fig 5 here : http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/ecp/pdf/EC0301.PDF

    Then see in my link above ‘Searching evidence 2’ what happens at 2345bce between polar and equatorial.

  84. Aequitas says:

    From Spaceweather.com JUly 8th, 2019.

    ANOTHER SUNSPOT FROM THE NEXT SOLAR CYCLE: Solar Cycle 25 is coming to life. For the second time this month, a sunspot from the next solar cycle has emerged in the sun’s southern hemisphere. Numbered “AR2744”, it is inset in this magnetic map of the sun’s surface from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory:

    How do we know this sunspot belongs to Solar Cycle 25? Its magnetic polarity tells us so. Southern sunspots from old Solar Cycle 24 have a -/+ polarity. This sunspot is the opposite: +/-. According to Hale’s Law, sunspots switch polarities from one solar cycle to the next. AR2744 is therefore a member of Solar Cycle 25.
    Solar cycles always mix together at their boundaries. Right now we are experiencing the tail end of decaying Solar Cycle 24. AR2744 shows that we are simultaneously experiencing the first stirrings of Solar Cycle 25. The transition between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 25 is underway.
    Shortlived “ephemeral sunspots” belonging to Solar Cycle 25 have already been reported on Dec. 20, 2016; April 8, 2018; Nov. 17, 2018; May 28, 2019 and July 1, 2019. Today’s sunspot is more important than those earlier examples because it has lasted long enough to receive a numberical designation: AR2744. Record-keepers will likely mark this as the first official sunspot of Solar Cycle 25.

    This development does not mean Solar Minimum is finished. On the contrary, low solar activity will probably continue for at least another year as Solar Cycle 24 decays and Solar Cycle 25 slowly sputters to life. AR2744 is an important sign, however, that the solar cycle is progressing.

  85. Justin Flynn says:

    Rog, thanks mate. I have learned a lot from your blog over the years. Your instinct is on point.

    Geoff, I know your blog. Great content! Australians clearly have some infatuation with the sun haha.

    Thanks for the positive feedback. Indeed 1472(.6) falls smack in the middle of a “mini me” cycle, with Barycentric Perihelion (another made up term 🙂 dated 1467.7 and 1477.5 (9.8 years rather than the standard 15-24 year solar orbital cycles around the SSB). I haven’t looked specifically at the planetary alignments in this particular case. These short “false cycles” are definitely longer term tertiary oscillations that “ruin” the otherwise clean solar double oscillation around the SSB (around 2 * J-S). There is a longer term solar/SSB orbital cycle that kicks in with a mean of 358 years ( 2 * 179), with some variation. This comprises two consecutive long orbits of the sun around the SSB. I’m not sure what the planetary alignments are that cause this additional longer term cycle. If you are interested, here is a link:


    My long standing theory is the solar cycles are generated from displacement of the core of the sun from the perpendicular, where the sun’s core is geometrically a semi degenerate matter octahedron. Since the core is far more dense the the outer layer, there is differential inertial motions between the solar core and the entire sun as a solid body. It may be possible your mentioned planetary alignment takes much of the wobble out of the solar core and it takes some time to get its moves back on, and hence the extended periods of sunspot sleepy sleepy time.

    You can see from the Zharkova’s paper here that the wider solar orbits generate more sunspot activity than the smaller radius orbital loops. Solar core wobbles from perpendicular is my way to explain this.

  86. Aequitas says:

    Below is Geoff Sharp’s graphic image coloured to more easily see the repeating SSB patterns.

  87. Aequitas says:

    I didn’t expect the watermark. Perhaps the site moderator could replace the image.

  88. Justin Flynn says:

    Geoff’s pattern looks good.

    4627.25 / 233 = J-S

    = 19.86

    233 * J-S = the Sharp Cycle 🙂

    233 being a Fibonacci number seems rather appropriate for this site.

  89. Geoff Sharp says:

    The repeating patterns are separated by approx 172 years, but each repeat is slightly different over 4627 years as the 4 outer planets move through their individual relationships with the other 3.
    The line seen in the plot is in fact 3 lines if you look closely, the plot is 3 individual solar paths stacked on top of one another (600 years long each), with each path separated by 4627 years. Very solid proof of the 4627 year cycle.

    The green columns showing the AMP events (mini-me orbits) that occur when N/U/J are together with S opposite that coincide with grand minima. The green columns only appear during Charvatova’s disordered phase.

  90. Geoff Sharp says:

    I may have been the first to plot the solar path in 4627 year intervals from JPL data, but the said cycle has been known for decades.

  91. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ignorance is Bliss

    An AzTech recently suggested explosive revelation with know revolutionary guard May Encode incrementally piece-full release.

    Paralleling 4 decades 4 millennia, what’S pain couldn’t burn was recorded symbolically for just a few well-hidden eyes to grasp in enlightened scilence.

    “You know the art isn’t gone…” — Queens of the Stone Age

  92. Paul Vaughan says:

    1 step back
    2 steps forward

    39 Suggestions delay U-N masking 4 SunEV-VEnuS Hale Love.

  93. Paul Vaughan says:

    Parallel Stability

    Start with Hale derivation.
    Keep size-order but replace:
    1. J with U-N
    2. E with S
    3. V with J

    171.406220601552 = (164.791315640078)*(84.016845922161) / (164.791315640078 – 84.016845922161)
    19.8650360864628 = (29.4474984673838)*(11.8626151546089) / (29.4474984673838 – 11.8626151546089)
    35.5560006640083 = (29.4474984673838)*(171.406220601552) / (29.4474984673838 – 171.406220601552)
    12.7446413437009 = (11.8626151546089)*(171.406220601552) / (11.8626151546089 – 171.406220601552)
    169.216371777979 = (9.93251804323141)*(9.38183132238388) / (9.93251804323141 – 9.38183132238388)
    84.6081858889893 = (4.9662590216157)*(4.69091566119194) / (4.9662590216157 – 4.69091566119194)
    harmonic of 169.216371777979 nearest 19.8650360864628 is 169.216371777979 / 9 = 18.8018190864421
    351.291236535931 = (18.8018190864421)*(19.8650360864628) / (18.8018190864421 – 19.8650360864628)
    harmonic of 169.216371777979 nearest 9.93251804323141 is 169.216371777979 / 17 = 9.95390422223403
    4622.95453880858 = (9.95390422223403)*(9.93251804323141) / (9.95390422223403 – 9.93251804323141)
    harmonic of 84.6081858889893 nearest 9.93251804323141 is 84.6081858889893 / 9 = 9.40090954322103
    175.645618267965 = (9.40090954322103)*(9.93251804323141) / (9.40090954322103 – 9.93251804323141)
    harmonic of 169.216371777979 nearest 4.9662590216157 is 169.216371777979 / 34 = 4.97695211111701
    2311.47726940429 = (4.97695211111701)*(4.9662590216157) / (4.97695211111701 – 4.9662590216157)
    harmonic of 84.6081858889893 nearest 4.9662590216157 is 84.6081858889893 / 17 = 4.97695211111701
    2311.47726940429 = (4.97695211111701)*(4.9662590216157) / (4.97695211111701 – 4.9662590216157)
    harmonic of 169.216371777979 nearest 16.9122914926352 is 169.216371777979 / 10 = 16.9216371777979
    30622.0095694168 = (16.9216371777979)*(16.9122914926352) / (16.9216371777979 – 16.9122914926352)
    harmonic of 84.6081858889893 nearest 16.9122914926352 is 84.6081858889893 / 5 = 16.9216371777979
    414.247267646081 = (351.291236535931)*(2311.47726940429) / (351.291236535931 – 2311.47726940429)
    504.695341202381 = (351.291236535931)*(207.123633823041) / (351.291236535931 – 207.123633823041)
    130.29867452265 = (351.291236535931)*(207.123633823041) / (351.291236535931 + 207.123633823041)
    260.5973490453 = (351.291236535931)*(207.123633823041) / ( (351.291236535931 + 207.123633823041) / 2 )

    Start with Hale derivation.
    Keep size-order but replace:
    1. J with 5S-2J = 1 / 835.546575435636
    2. E with S
    3. V with J

    For concise presentation, skip repetitive (same equations, different inputs) detail.
    Summary of framework thus derived:
    178.266850068776 = (208.88664385891)*(96.182947090028) / (208.88664385891 – 96.182947090028)
    65.858196326942 = (208.88664385891)*(96.182947090028) / (208.88664385891 + 96.182947090028)
    131.716392653884 = (208.88664385891)*(96.182947090028) / ( (208.88664385891 + 96.182947090028) / 2 )

    The analogy with JEV’s 44 in this case is:
    65.858196326942 years = 24054.7062084156 days

    The analogy with JEV’s 491 in this case is 1460.75717890921.

    Knowing the difference between what’s exact and what’s symbolic to spin memory of what’s exact requires some orientation and instinct.

    27.03 days ~= 27.030339974764 = (24054.7062084156)*(27) / (24054.7062084156 – 27)

    It’s a quick decode at all levels once the calendar structure’s well-understood.

    Whole System First Order Based on Roots of Primorial Construction

    18.6167484624705 = (2^(2/4))*(2*3*5*7*11*13)^(1/4)
    6.40217174588736 = (2^(3/4))*(2*3*5*7)^(1/4)
    8.84758375100207 = (Φ√5)(2^(3/4))*(2*3*5*7)^(1/4)
    22.1391697297859 = (2^(3/4))*(2*3*5*7*11*13)^(1/4)

    Starting with just one of those you can derive the whole system (Solar and Earth-Moon) in a few seconds. The first step:

    (22.1384769776823)*(6.40251662869238) / (22.1384769776823 – 6.40251662869238) = 9.00751932770552

    Relations of some of the symbols:

    52 = (65)*(260) / (65 + 260)
    65 = (260)*(52) / (260 – 52)
    208 = (260)*(1040) / (260 + 1040)
    260 = (1040)*(208) / (1040 – 208)
    260 = (65)*(52) / (65 – 52)
    365 = (1460)*(292) / (1460 – 292)

    It was very easy to hide in plain sight what couldn’t so easily be burned.

    Compare 351s (J,E,V axial with U-N,S,J synodic). Note that Seidelmann has them sharply aligned. Also take a minute to ponder how the Mayan code matches 1992 but not 1952 Bollinger. It’s a rich ground for exploration of nature, including individual and collective nature.

    Other levels in the JEV axial hierarchy reveal Seidelmann’s model tuned to 5156 years, which you’ll find buried in a Mayan calendar analysis focusing on primes but not primorials.

    Civilizing the Mayan Benchmark 4 Stability

    In the balance of trust hangs model stability. During the first round there were linear models. Recall that the JPL model was cracked years ago. The 1992 model was next-level, with nonlinear aliasing and axial reference frame. Both models tune to the same framework, by different means (sharpening past symbolic placeholders on a revelationary path).

    With civil hindsight how anyone could overlook primorial balance will be a political mystery of simple proportions.
    6: Jupiter nodes
    30: Saturn
    210: de Vries
    *11: positive side
    2310: Hallstatt
    *13: negative side

    Click to access 625.pdf

  94. tallbloke says:

    Paul V, thank you for that and the suggestions 39 comments. Plenty to keep us puzzling there. The primorial link to the key solar system periods is startling, and the golden angle links give food for thought.

    I’ve been thinking for a while that the perturbations evident in paleo-climatic records around 208 and 2310 are manifestations of the impossibility of attaining non-resonance in a dynamic system which requires SOME resonance in order to maintain long term stability. Your pointers to the primorials help me understand how they are nonetheless the minimum possible resonances.

  95. tallbloke says:

    Justin Flynn: My long standing theory is the solar cycles are generated from displacement of the core of the sun from the perpendicular, where the sun’s core is geometrically a semi degenerate matter octahedron. Since the core is far more dense the the outer layer, there is differential inertial motions between the solar core and the entire sun as a solid body.

    Well the Sun is supposed to be in freefall about the barycentre so IN THEORY, there won’t be much differential inertial motion. However, THEORY applies to rigid, billiard ball like bodies and the Sun sure isn’t one of those. It’s a wobbly mass of roiling plasma layered over a possibly metallic hydrogen core, with energy pouring from core to surface at a prodigious rate.

    You might also consider displacement of the core IN the perpendicular, since the outer planets spend years at a time above or below the solar equatorial plane, rather than having their gravitational effect cancelled out over the 27 day rotational period. Ray Tomes calculated that over decadal periods, the core might be displaced a couple of kilometers up and down. Doesn’t sound like much, but when you consider the huge pressure gradient from core to surface, this might lead to significant flows at the surface.

  96. tallbloke says:

    Paul V, your chirp of the Steinhilber data posted on suggestions 39 is remarkable.

    I don’t know how reliable the big hump at ~9-10kyr is since it’s almost the length of the dataset but it’s maybe worth noting this period is around 1/3 of the next primorial after 2310 which is 30030.

  97. oldbrew says:

    Paul Vaughan says: July 9, 2019 at 10:02 pm

    Summary of framework thus derived:
    178.266850068776 = (208.88664385891)*(96.182947090028) / (208.88664385891 – 96.182947090028)
    65.858196326942 = (208.88664385891)*(96.182947090028) / (208.88664385891 + 96.182947090028)
    131.716392653884 = (208.88664385891)*(96.182947090028) / ( (208.88664385891 + 96.182947090028) / 2 )

    This looks a lot like 6:7:13:19 where Jose cycle is 7, de Vries is 6 and the period is 63 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions. See Rick Salvador’s PRP paper re ‘1253 years’ (which I think should be 1251.5y):

    Click to access prp-1-117-2013.pdf

    Then 65.8582~ is 19, 96.183~ is 13 and 131.7164~ is 19/2.
    6 + 7 = 13
    6 + 13 = 19

    1251.5 years (Salvador = 1253) is half of 2503 years = 126 J-S.

    From: Why Phi? – Jupiter, Saturn and the de Vries cycle

  98. oldmanK says:

    Today, a link from ‘Climate Etc’ – Week in review – science edition ultimately landed me at this discussion. Very interesting.

    It is important to note that there appears to be present disagreement on how orbiting masses with great differences in mass behave.

    A second twist came with the mention of Milankovitch. Since his theory assumes only the Stockwell/Newcomb secular tilt change, I hold any back extrapolation past 2345bce (at least to 5200) erroneous. The correlations to archaeology and geology are looking more reliable.

  99. Geoff Sharp says:

    Thanks OldmanK, wish I new about this earlier, what a great opportunity to challenge and peer review..will take me a couple of days to catch up

  100. oldbrew says:

    From Wikipedia…

    Caption: ‘Two bodies with an extreme difference in mass orbiting a common barycenter internal to one body (similar to the Sun–Earth system)’ [Images are representative (made by hand), not simulated.]

    – – –

    If one of two orbiting bodies is much more massive than the other and the bodies are relatively close to one another, the barycenter will typically be located within the more massive object. In this case, rather than the two bodies appearing to orbit a point between them, the less massive body will appear to orbit about the more massive body, while the more massive body might be observed to wobble slightly. This is the case for the Earth–Moon system, in which the barycenter is located on average 4,671 km (2,902 mi) from Earth’s center, 75% of Earth’s radius of 6,378 km (3,963 mi).


    Note the ‘on average’.

  101. Geoff Sharp says:

    On average because the orbit of the moon is not exactly round.

  102. oldmanK says:

    The wiki demonstration of baricentre shows the barycentre as the ‘node’ or balance point of the two forces from large masses but with no apparent inertia. If inertia is taken into account then my guess is the bigger mass moves much less under the influence of the smaller orbiting body; the instantaneous barycentre point is itself orbiting the bigger mass; and a phase difference may exist between all three (the big mass motion is shown lagging a fixed 90deg precisely behind the force vector; that might change).
    But I am out of my depth here.

  103. oldbrew says:

    oldmanK – yes, the Earth on its own isn’t going to make any difference worth mentioning to the moving position of the Sun, or to the Sun-Earth barycentre either.

    But the giant planets do make the Sun gyrate somewhat as is easily shown on a solar simulator. The Sun-Earth barycentre has to continually adjust to that solar movement somehow, whether by some kind of deviation in the Earth’s orbit, or speed variation, or some other mechanism(s) including or excluding the ‘above’.

  104. oldbrew says:

    Comparing Earth’s perihelion-aphelion variation with Jupiter’s:
    Earth 5.01 million km.
    Jupiter 76.1 million km.


    For scale: 76.1 million km. is half the maximum distance between the Earth and the Sun. Relative to its average distance from the Sun (semi-major axis), Jupiter has nearly 3 times more variation at the limits than Earth:
    5.01 / 149.6 = 0.0334893 (~3.35%)
    76.1 / 778.57 = 0.0977432 (~9.77%)

  105. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew – this is from this SSS here http://www.arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/

    “The original simulator used a Heliocentric view where the Sun was stationary and the barycentre moved in the view. It is perhaps more realistic to present things as they are perceived by an observer looking in a fixed direction. That is achieved by using a barycentric coordinate system, where the barycentre is at the centre of the view and the Sun moves around it.”

    It is how its configured; does not mean that either is exact.

  106. Bob Weber says:

    It also predicts the upcoming grand solar minimum, similar to Maunder Minimum, which starts in 2020 and will last until 2055.

    We are not in a Grand Solar Minimum right now and won’t be unless we reach Maunder levels, something we won’t even know for sure for about three more years.

    Dr. Zharkova has a chance to be right if the SC25 monthly v2 sunspot average doesn’t reach 40 within three years after this solar cycle minimum, which would then be much lower than at 3 years into the Dalton minimum cycles. If v2SN maximum monthly is between 50-100 at the SC25 three year point, then it’s Dalton territory or higher.

    I presently tend towards Leif Svalgaard’s SC25 prediction method based on his success for SC24 using the sun’s polar field strength at the last minimum, where he is calling for nearly the same to slightly higher than SC24 activity.

  107. oldbrew says:


    See: oldbrew says – June 30, 2019 at 3:28 pm

  108. tallbloke says:

    OmK: If inertia is taken into account then my guess is the bigger mass moves much less under the influence of the smaller orbiting body

    Does mass make any difference to bodies in freefall? Maybe the people who do this stuff might have an opinion backed by measurement data:

  109. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew- not sure. What I mean is that I expect to see three orbits; the planet’s, the star’s, and a third orbit indicating the movement of their common barycentre, none circular. The three foci would necessarily be in-line(?), but none are static. That would be due to inertia; very large for the star, small for the planet and zero for the instantaneous barycentre.
    But as I said, I am out of my depth. My experience with turbo-gen rotors makes me skeptical of the simple barycentre rotation.
    This reply here #27 seems to support my suspicion: https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24

  110. Geoff Sharp says:

    Interesting comments in the pubpeer forum re Zharkova’s paper…she is being hammered and refuses to take advice on her gross error re the Sun/Earth distance.

    I will post my plot on the Sun/SSB to Earth distances as soon as moderation approves my login credentials.

  111. oldbrew says:

    oldmanK – it seems Usoskin doesn’t buy any of this, for example…
    (update: but see here – https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/nature-scientific-reports/#comment-159489)

    Relations between the solar inertial motion, solar activity and geomagnetic index aa since the year 1844
    IvankaCharvátová, JaroslavStřeštík

    Or this…


  112. Geoff Sharp says:

    Yes..Usoskin not up to date at all on planet/solar science, will see if I can challenge him. Rog already got him on the back foot.

  113. oldbrew says:

    Usoskin co-authored a paper rejecting Abreu et al. (ref. 96 in the link), which convinced someone at Wikipedia 😉


  114. Geoff Sharp says:

    But Usoskin nor anyone else has not rejected/rebuffed etc the follow up paper from McCracken et al (2014) that was based on my paper..the JPL data stacks up and the theory is totally falsifiable.

  115. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: Great that the McCracken paper based on your work is still standing unrebutted.

    Usoskin is definitely on shaky ground. That’ll be why he didn’t respond to my second comment to him on the pubpeer thread.

    His 2014 ‘rebuttal’ of Abreu et al is just a bit of “our signal processing and stats is better than your signal processing and stats” willy waving.

  116. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew – I don’t buy it either. The barycentre may be a convenient reference point in space for some analysis but not real.

    I think this makes the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(419624)_2010_SO16
    If what I make it is right, this is ignoring the SSB and is mainly under the influence of the main masses nearby. The SSB is the momentary null gravitational point – and unstable -. SO16 prefers the stable L4 L5 points.

  117. oldbrew says:

    oldmanK – that’s a body with a mean diameter of only 0.357±0.126 km, so it’s bound to feel strong forces (Earth-Moon system) from nearby.

    Consider also the Moon itself – lunar evection.

    In astronomy, evection (Latin for “carrying away”) is the largest inequality produced by the action of the Sun in the monthly revolution of the Moon around the Earth.

    There are two types of evection but Wiki only discusses longitude – the other is latitude. The 31.81 days ev. in longitude applies to the full moon cycle (apsidal) whereas the 32.28 days ev. in latitude is to the draconic year (nodal).

    NB these periods lie within the rotation period of the Sun (about 25-38 days equator to pole variation).

  118. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew – thanks for the reply/info. I don’t mean to flog the point but I find such leads have interesting ‘tendrils’ worth looking into.

    The nice thing here is that, big and small, all obey Newton’s gravitational law. SO16 is a freak way of nature demonstrating it. The influence of the other planets is still there, but of no consequence. Invoking the SSB is not warranted and does not lend itself to analysis in such a case.

    The case of the moon did occur to me but it is more complex. The relative size with respect to earth has consequences relevant to COM movement (tidal, oblateness,–). It is another point I ‘don’t buy’ in the matter of earth tilt stability (but that is for another day).

  119. Geoff Sharp says:

    Finally had my profile approved in the pubpeer forum and just logged in. To my amazement Zharkova has used my plot (but tries to suggest she plotted it) to somehow bolster her argument that the Earth orbits the SSB.


    This is surely fraudulent and at the same time completely misguided. The are over 100 comments on the pubpeer forum that challenge her paper and a big proportion dispute her Earth orbiting the SSB theory. You would think at this point she would just give up?


  120. oldbrew says:

    They would call it a sticky wicket in cricket circles.

  121. oldbrew says:

    Here we go…

    Date: 17/07/19 New Scientist

    A high profile scientific journal is investigating how it came to publish a study suggesting that global warming is down to natural solar cycles. The paper was criticised by scientists for containing “very basic errors” about how Earth moves around the sun.
    . . .
    “The close links between oscillations of solar baseline magnetic field, solar irradiance and temperature are established in our paper without any involvement of solar inertial motion,” Zharkova told New Scientist.

    Scientific Reports says it has begun an “established process” to investigate the paper it has published. “This process is ongoing and we cannot comment further at this stage,” a spokesperson said.


  122. Paul Vaughan says:

    Note these (easily derivable) omissions from the chain above:

    9.38183132238388 = (35.5560006640083)*(12.7446413437009) / (35.5560006640083 + 12.7446413437009)
    harmonic of 9.93251804323141 nearest 9.38183132238388 is 9.93251804323141 / 1 = 9.93251804323141
    harmonic of 9.93251804323141 nearest 4.69091566119194 is 9.93251804323141 / 2 = 4.9662590216157

    Also, the pentadecadal cycle was omitted from the JS nonlinear slip cycle aliasing framework, so here it is summarized in algebraic context:

    1 / 50.071541259993 = -5J+13S
    1 / 65.8581963269423 = 3J-7S
    1 / 96.1829470900283 = 11J-27S
    1 / 178.266850068779 = 19J-47S
    1 / 208.886643858907 = -8J+20S
    1 / 504.413226524263 = -(35/2)J+(87/2)S

    148 is derived from this framework:

    147.715134099352 = (504.413226524327)*(208.886643858908) / (504.413226524327 + 208.886643858908)

    148 is the sharper peak cutting it’s way through JEV’s raised floor at 146.

  123. Paul Vaughan says:

    Comparative Orrery Design Cycology

    Orrery designers aren’t hiding their assumptions as well as they may think they are.

    ● “1, 4, and 36 are the only square highly composite numbers.”

    ● “heuristic suggesting that the density of the harmonic primes in the set of all primes should be 1/e”
    ● “The harmonic numbers roughly approximate the natural logarithm function”
    ● “Harmonic numbers are related to the harmonic mean in that the n-th harmonic number is also n times the reciprocal of the harmonic mean of the first n positive integers.”

    ● “Base systems corresponding to primorials (such as base 30, not to be confused with the primorial number system) have a lower proportion of repeating fractions than any smaller base.
    ● “Every primorial is a sparsely totient number.”

    Primorial Balance Rings Inside and Outs Seid elmann

    Symbolic day-counts concisely parameterizing millennial year-counts slipped right past Spanish book-burners.

    210: smallest number with 4 distinct prime factors.
    2310: smallest number with 5 distinct prime factors.

    351.291236535931 (J, E, V axial)
    351.268846905165 (U-N, S, J synodic)
    351.243713743691 (5S-2J, S, J)

    2500.20304503976 = (30622.0095694168)*(2311.47726940429) / (30622.0095694168 – 2311.47726940429)
    2149.24339501615 = (30622.0095694168)*(2311.47726940429) / (30622.0095694168 + 2311.47726940429)
    4298.48679003231 = (30622.0095694168)*(2311.47726940429) / ( (30622.0095694168 + 2311.47726940429) / 2 )

    30622.0095694168 = (2500.20304503976)*(2311.47726940429) / (2500.20304503976 – 2311.47726940429)
    2402.13901582634 = (2500.20304503976)*(2311.47726940429) / ( (2500.20304503976 + 2311.47726940429) / 2 )

    Mnemonic hindsight for comparative contrast:

    171.406220601552 = (164.791315640078)*(84.016845922161) / (164.791315640078 – 84.016845922161)
    4270.09258127429 = (164.791315640078)*(171.406220601552) / (164.791315640078 – 171.406220601552)


    Comparative Stability of Analyses

    Unstable Multiples:
    Subharmonic alignments fly wildly apart at the slightest orrery parameter tweaks.
    Discussion’s unhinged when mean orrery parameters are unlisted.

    Stable Division:
    First order harmonic slip cycles (nonlinear aliasing) are stable to tweaking, so comparative study demands attention to higher-order slip cycles.

    The JPL model easily cracked in 2013 was an order of magnitude less nuanced than Seidelmann’s higher-order model (from 21 years earlier).


    Conclusion: The first order model was replaced with a higher-order model, destroying first-order correlations which were displaced by higher-order correlations revealed only with attention to higher-order slip cycle nonlinear aliasing and it’s sensitivity to mean model parameters.

    One sharp roamin’ numeral points freedom straight down. With the perennial threat of burnt notes, creative modelers hide truth in plain sight (Mayans, Seidelmann, Dickey).

    casual footnote – mainly for OB:

    34.2705098312484 = 5*φ^4 (~lunar)
    55.4508497187474 = 5φ*φ^4 (~U+N)
    171.352549156242 = 5^2*φ^4 (~U-N)
    2501.74721768113 = 5*73*φ^4 (~OB favorite – with Mayan coefficient)
    2503.4607431727 = 365.25*φ^4 (~OB favorite)

    178.206651122492 = 26*φ^4 (JS geometry evolution ~via Mayan coefficient)
    50.0349443536227 = 7.3*φ^4 (JS geometry evolution ~via Mayan coefficient)
    836.200439882462 = 2*61*φ^4 (another OB favorite ~via 2 Mayan coefficients)

    Re-Hinging Discussion:
    Concisely list ALL UNrounded mean periods for Me, V, E, Ma, J, S, U, & N in 1 copy/paste list. Then mean models can be quickly checked for higher-order stability …NOTABLY JEV – which is wildly unstable in most slip cycle nonlinear aliasing models.

    Maybe keep an open mind about burnt math tricks known to those who had no computers.

    Hopefully by now everyone has a good sense of how Bollinger, Horizons (now under renovation), Charvatova, and other models stack up against Mayans & Seidelmann in higher-order focus.

    Important to Understand:
    The geometric method I’ve outlined is universal. It hinges synodic models to their own axis by definition.

    I had to derive the method from scratch because in all the years of climate and planetary cycle discussion no one pointed to it. Would some machinists know about it? One would hope so, but no one ever linked to an equivalent – and there was no need because the derivation was simple.

    The method can be adapted for variable frequency, but if what has been presented so far looks mysterious rather than simple, just stick to chapter 1 for now: fixed frequency slip cycles.

    Hierarchical application of the method reveals framework components that loop through and link to one another, making it possible to map out compact frameworks of key slip frequencies.

  124. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB is correct that Tim Channon was exploring sizeable peak splits based on periods approaching limits dictated by the length of the dataset. That accounts for comparative model differences another talkshopper summarized many years ago:


    It’s a simple exercise to combine cycles on one side of the table to arrive at those on the other.

    What I’ve done is construct a primorial mnemonic device to help people link and sort ~2500 (-side primorial beat with higher primorial), ~2400 (harmonic mean of primorial and -side primorial beat with higher primorial), 2310 (primorial), & ~2150 (+side primorial beat with higher primorial).

    What is the purpose of this? Sorting and classification (as a botanist would) of geometrically different but related things. It’s a primorial mnemonic device by which to translate from OB & Wilson to Charvatova to McCracken to Channon …who each look at different features and statistical summaries of related — but not equal — things.

    The same thing went on for decades over 171 & 178. They’re not the same thing. Similarly 491 is not 504, 351 is not 356, AND 208 (JEV) IS NOT 209 (JS) (the distinction is of HIGH diagnostic value). Each of these pairs has fundamentally different geometric origins. Better classification helps sort out how what so-and-so is saying geometrically relates — or doesn’t geometrically relate at all in some cases — to what so-and-so-else is saying.

    I started exploring hierarchical extensions of slip cycle estimation and landed on concise frameworks of YEAR-counts in SHARP accord with Mayan calendar DAY-counts.

    I quickly began suspecting Mayan awareness of the JEV cycle was ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE sharper than what was reported publicly by Bollinger in 1952. My instinct is that Mayan luminaries had PRIMORIAL perception of JEV. I’m curious about what botanical aids their luminaries used to sharply simplify orders of magnitude beyond what’s commonplace today. I’m also curious about whether Seidelmann studied Mayan astronomy.

  125. Paul Vaughan says:

    Geoff, Zharkova’s role isn’t about votes. It’s to make sure lots of people bet on the wrong horse.


    Security First.

  126. oldbrew says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    What I’ve done is construct a primorial mnemonic device to help people link and sort ~2500 (-side primorial beat with higher primorial), ~2400 (harmonic mean of primorial and -side primorial beat with higher primorial), 2310 (primorial), & ~2150 (+side primorial beat with higher primorial).

    Looking at this post: Why Phi? – a long-term Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus model

    …the long term is 60072 years = 55*13 Uranus = 21*144 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions

    60072 / 24 = 2503 (~2500)
    60072 / 25 = 2402.88 (~2400)
    60072 / 26 = 2310.4615 (~2310 and 27.5 Uranus)
    60072 / 27 = 2224.8888
    60072 / 28 = 2145.5285 (~2150)

    2402.88 + 2224.8888 = 4627.7688 = 27 Uranus-Neptune = ~233 J-S
    2402.88 – 2224.8888 = 15 Jupiter orbits
    In years:
    89*27 = 2403
    89*25 = 2225
    Sum = 4628 = 89*13*4

  127. oldbrew says:

    The story so far, from one POV…

    Zharkova et al 2019, A Science Disaster.
    Posted Wed, 07/17/2019 – 22:32 by Geoff Sharp


  128. stpaulchuck says:

    wow, quite a lot of science babble related to an article from the Babylon Bee [*grin*]

  129. oldbrew says:

    Retraction or not – discussion here…

    Sloppy Science: Still Someone Else’s Problem?

    The Zharkova et al. paper makes fundamental errors that should never have passed through peer review. But then we all know that peer review is far from perfect. The question is what should happen to a paper that is not fraudulent but still makes it to publication containing misleadingly sloppy and/or incorrect science? Should it remain in the scientific record? Or should it be retracted?

    It turns out that this is a much more contested issue than it might appear at first blush.


  130. Geoff Sharp says:

    The paper is so wrong, an embarrassment that the planetary backers are associated…

    She responded to the pubpeer criticisms on a YouTube Doomsday website..wtf

    Full retraction is required IMO…

  131. Geoff Sharp says:

    The paper has finally been retracted.

    Unfortunately Zharkova with her actions has set back solar/planetary science.

    The truth shall prevail, one step at a time.

  132. oldbrew says:

    Retraction Watch covers it here.

    S. I. Zharkov agrees with the retraction. V. V. Zharkova, E. Popova, and S. J. Shepherd disagree with the retraction.

    ‘We wish to declare our protest’

    S.I. Zharkov is Sergei Zharkov, of the University of Hull, Zharkova’s son.
    – – –
    Prof. Zharkova complains it’s only about ‘some minor corrections’.

  133. […] they really going to remove a famous paper and hide it from the public behind both a paywall and a […]

  134. […] they really going to remove a famous paper and hide it from the public behind both a paywall and a […]