Archive for the ‘solar system dynamics’ Category

Jupiter dominates the solar system

Jupiter dominates the solar system

By far the two largest bodies in our solar system are Jupiter and Saturn. In terms of angular momentum: ‘That of Jupiter contributes the bulk of the Solar System’s angular momentum, 60.3%. Then comes Saturn at 24.5%, Neptune at 7.9%, and Uranus at 5.3%’ (source), leaving only 2% for everything else. Jupiter and Saturn together account for nearly 85% of the total.

The data tell us that for every 21 Jupiter-Saturn (J-S) conjunctions there are 382 Jupiter-Earth (J-E) conjunctions and 403 Saturn-Earth (S-E) conjunctions (21 + 382 = 403).

Since one J-S conjunction moves 117.14703 degrees retrograde from the position of the previous one, the movement of 21 will be 21 x 117.14703 = 2460.0876, or 2460 degrees as a round number.

The nearest multiple of a full rotation of 360 degrees to 2460 is 2520 (= 7 x 360).
Therefore 21 J-S has a net movement of almost 60 degrees (2520 – 2460) from its start position.


This failed work is presented as a cautionary tale but nevertheless there might be good parts.

Earlier oldbrew published an article on a theory by Nelson on forecasting the armada of radio propagation conditions. There were not many comments, possibly from the lack of solid further material.

From this paper, we can see why the technique fell at the hurdle. Nevertheless looking at what people were thinking and doing is important.


Back in 2011. Tim Channon used his cycles analysis software to predict the evolution of the solar polar fields. The basis of the curve he produced is the motion of the gas giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. As they orbit the Sun, they force the Sun to move relative to the centre of mass of the entire solar system. We see this motion when astronomers look out into the near cosmos and observe other stars ‘wobbling’. By measuring the wobble with respect to time, they are able to deduce the mass and distance of planets orbiting those stars, even though they are too small and dim to see directly.

Tim found that our Sun’s wobble due to the gas giant planets matched the observational data of the evolution of the Solar polar magnetic fields mentioned in the post put up by Stuart ‘Oldbrew‘ yesterday.

Here’s the plot Tim put up in 2011

Evolution of combined solar polar fields (red) vs motion of Sun relative to barycentre caused by planetary motion

At the time, it looked like the data was going to diverge from the prediction, but read on below the break to see the outcome.


Click on image to enlarge

Click on image to enlarge

The Mars-Earth model is based on 34 Mars orbits. This equates to 64 years, which is 8². Since Venus makes 13 orbits of Earth in 8 years, we can easily add it to the model.
2,3,5,8,13 and 34 are Fibonacci numbers.

The story doesn’t end there, because as the diagram shows this results in a 3:4:7 relationship between the 3 sets of synodic periods. This was analysed in detail in a paper by astrophysicist Ian Wilson, featured at the Talkshop in 2013:

Ian Wilson: Connecting the Planetary Periodicities to Changes in the Earth’s Length of Day


There seems to be a buzz in the alarmosphere about the gulf stream stopping because emissions. I must admit I don’t have much time to spare at the moment for dealing with the ramped up rhetoric about ‘man made climate change’, but I spotted a typical tweet from Professor Ray Wills which I thought was worth a quick reply.

This is of course, nonsense.



Tony Heller / Steve Goddard has been suspended from twitter because *some people* prefer suppression to debate.

*AKA ‘The usual suspects’.

Originally posted on Twitchy:

Steven Goddard, who has dedicated himself to exposing misleading “science” and fraud in the AGW arena, has a Twitter account that has been suspended:

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi noticed the apparent suspension:

View original 214 more words

The model is ~99.78% accurate

The model is ~99.78% accurate

The model is in the diagram, so here’s the explanation.
Divide the orbit period of Venus by that of Mercury:
0.61519726 years / 0.2408467 years = 2.554310522

To get to whole numbers, round the result up to 2.56 then:
2.56 x 5 = 12.8
12.8 x 5 = 64
64 / 25 = 2.56

64 = 8² and 25 = 5²
Therefore the approximate ratio of Mercury:Venus orbit periods is 8²:5².
The number of conjunctions in the period is the difference in orbit numbers:
8² – 5² = 64 – 25 = 39 = 13 x 3

Phi link: 2,3,5,8, and 13 are all Fibonacci numbers.

2.554310522 / 2.56 = 0.99777755~ so the accuracy of the model is around 99.78%.

An even more accurate model would be:
626 Venus = 1599 Mercury.
1599 / 626 = 2.554313 i.e. almost the same as 2.554310522 = the true ratio.

Note that 1600 / 625 = 2.56 which is the same as 8² / 5².
So there’s one more Venus (626) and one less Mercury orbit (1599) in reality, every 385.11 years, compared to our model.

1600 = 8² x 5²
625 = 5² x 5²
(The common 5² is redundant in the ratio, leaving 8²:5²)

18 Inex cycles = 521 years [click to enlarge]

18 Inex cycles = 521 years
[click to enlarge]

In the wake of today’s solar eclipse and following an earlier post on the same topic, we have another perspective on the 521 year period that corresponds exactly to 18 Inex eclipse cycles.

An Inex corresponds to:
358 lunations (synodic months) = 28.94444 years
388.50011 draconic months
30.50011 eclipse years

This means two Inex = 716 synodic months (358×2) and 777 draconic months (388.5×2).
This period will also be 61 eclipse or draconic years (777 – 716 or 30.5 x 2).

Each number in the diagram (below the top line) is derived from the numbers above it. Note that 18 Inex is the same period as 28 lunar nodal cycles. Both periods end at the lunar node they started at.

We can build on this, first by looking at data from a well-known science paper by Keeling & Whorf titled:
‘The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change’


Live feed on eclipsenow (more…)

BBC, Tim Palmer & Cyclone Pam

Posted: March 17, 2015 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Originally posted on NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT:

By Paul Homewood

h/t Glenwaytown


On the BBC Today programme yesterday, John Humphrys interviewed Oxford professor Tim Palmer to discuss Cyclone Pam.

Palmer is a Royal Society Research Professor in Climate Physics, interested in the predictability and dynamics of weather and climate, and is one of the gang often wheeled out when climate change is discussed on the BBC.

The piece, at around 8.38am, went something like this:

It began with a news update on Vanuatu and extracts from a recorded interview with the country’s president (quite widely reported elsewhere), saying that the cause of the disaster was climate change – rising sea levels etc.

John Humphrys then asked ‘what do the scientists think?’ and interviewed Oxford professor Tim Palmer (a Royal Society Research Fellow), “in charge of modelling and climate change”.

The key quotes were that he said of the recent “incredibly intense” cyclones in Vanuatu and…

View original 855 more words

energypricesVia Benny Peiser at the GWPF

The European Union is being outpaced by the rest of the world on business conditions, a trend that hampers the economic recovery and limits future growth, according to a study from employers’ federation BusinessEurope. “In the race to attract global investment, we more than halved our share.” Overall on energy, “we have much higher political costs in Europe,” Beyrer said, citing renewable-energy policies that cause “market distortion” and environmental efforts that are out of sync with global standards. If the rest of the world doesn’t sign on to the EU’s ambitions for reducing emissions targets, he said it may be time for Europe to “discuss our level of ambition” to avoid economic damage. –Rebecca Christie, Bloomberg, 16 March 2015





More ‘Adjustments’ to temperature data that look unjustified.

Originally posted on NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT:

By Paul Homewood

Guest Post by Ron Clutz

View original 750 more words


Oh my. Kevin Trenberth’s ‘Missing heat’ isn’t in the deep oceans, which have cooled since 1992 according to this new paper.

Originally posted on Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations:

…that some of the warming nearer to the surface came from the deep ocean.

The paper is Liang et al. (2015) Vertical Redistribution of Oceanic Heat Content.  The abstract reads (my boldface):

View original 546 more words

Paul Vaughan writes in suggestions:

It’s the wind.

Rial (2012) drew my attention to a fundamental correction that’s underway in oceanography (more notes forthcoming on this later) ….

Lozier, Susan (2010). Deconstructing the conveyor belt. Science 328, 1507-1511.

Though appealing in its simplicity, the ocean conveyor-belt paradigm has lost luster over the years […] the ocean’s eddy field, unaccounted for just decades ago […] figures prominently in the dismantling of the conveyor-belt paradigm. Another player in this dismantling is the ocean’s wind field. The traditional assignation of surface ocean gyres to wind-forcing and overturning to buoyancy forcing has ignored the vital impact of winds on overturning pathways and mechanics. […] the conveyor-belt model no longer serves the community well […] because it ignores crucial structure and mechanics of the ocean’s intricate global overturning.

[…] wind forcing, rather than buoyancy forcing, can play a dominant role in changing the transport of the overturning […]



I wonder if we should take a closer look at this paper to try to work out if this is cockup or coverup. Are these incorrect zenith angles a fudge to cover some other model deficiency for example?

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

Earth’s_Energy_Budget_Incoming_Solar_Radiation_NASA Incoming solar radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA)

It was just yesterday that we highlighted this unrealistic claim from CMIP5 models: Laughable modeling study claims: in the middle of ‘the pause’, ‘climate is starting to change faster’. Now it seems that there is a major flaw in how the CMIP5 models treat incoming solar radiation, causing up to 30 Watts per square meter of spurious variations. To give you an idea of just how much of an error that is, the radiative forcing claimed to exist from carbon dioxide increases is said to be about 1.68 watts per square meter, a value about 18 times smaller than the error in the CMIP5 models!

The HockeySchtick writes:

New paper finds large calculation errors of solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere in climate models

A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds astonishingly large…

View original 453 more words

Image credit: Spaceflight now

Image credit: Spaceflight Now

NASA’s Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission (MMS) – a stack of four identical satellites sat atop the Atlas 5 rocket, is set for launch this Thursday.


Go grab your free content while it’s free. :)


Back in 1987, Robert M Wilson of NASA’s Space Science Laboratory in Huntsville published this paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It’s important to our solar-planetary theory because it shows that the Sun is bi-modal in terms of its solar cycle lengths. They cluster around  periods of a little over ten and a little under twelve years. These periods correlate to the periods of Jupiter-Earth-Venus syzygy cycles and Jupiter’s orbital period respectively. Leif Svalgaard vehemently denied this correlation when I pointed it out to him a few years ago.


The same correlation was noted by independent researcher Timo Niroma in 1989, who conducted his own survey and analysis of solar cycle lengths. He produced this simple ascii-art graphic to present his results.


Statement by Willie Soon

Posted: March 2, 2015 by Andrew in solar system dynamics

Originally posted on

(March 2, 2015) — Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics released the following statement through The Heartland Institute in response to repeated attacks on his character and scientific integrity.

View original 533 more words


Tsk, weather eh?

Originally posted on sunshine hours:

1913 Low Min Records Broken in Last 7 Days (272 tied)  according to the NOAA.

Below is a screenshot showing location and the biggest difference between old record and new record.

The list is just the ones I could capture in a screenshot. Wow. Many records broken by over 30F.

Imagine … the old record was 15F and it is now -23F. A 38F difference.


View original