The sun’s clock: New calculations support and expand planetary hypothesis

The Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) research laboratory has been looking at some of the Talkshop-featured PRP papers, in particular those by Ian Wilson and Jan-Erik Solheim, plus others by names familiar to many Talkshoppers (Sharp, McCracken, Abreu, Scafetta, McIntosh etc.). It likes what it finds, describing Ian Wilson’s 2013 PRP paper, from which they cite his 11.07 and 193-year solar-planetary periods, as ‘highly instructive and recommendable’ (available via the PRP link above, or the one at the top of the Talkshop home page, or here). This is all something of a contrast to the original publishers, who washed their hands of all the PRP papers under pressure from the IPCC and/or its influential supporters. We may not agree entirely with all their interpretations of the data, but their approach is refreshing. 
H/T Lori
– – –
Solar physicists around the world have long been searching for satisfactory explanations for the sun’s many cyclical, overlapping activity fluctuations, says Phys.org.

In addition to the most famous, approximately 11-year “Schwabe cycle”, the sun also exhibits longer fluctuations, ranging from hundreds to thousands of years.

It follows, for example, the “Gleissberg cycle” (about 85 years), the “Suess-de Vries cycle” (about 200 years) and the quasi-cycle of “Bond events” (about 1500 years), each named after their discoverers.

It is undisputed that the solar magnetic field controls these activity fluctuations.

Nature Print Edition Features Solar Planetary Theory

University of Montreal physicist Paul Charbonneau has written a short review of the Abreu et al paper published by ‘Astronomy and Astrophysics’, and featured on the talkshop last October. This is a good step forward for the hypothesis we have been working on here for the last three years, with important contributions from published scientists including Ian Wilson, Nicola Scafetta,  P.A. Semi and many other contributors. Although Abreu et al were not the first in modern times to publish in this area, the prominence they have achieved through publication of a review piece by Paul Charbonneau in Nature is helping to turn the spotlight onto an idea whose time has come. Hopefully the authors with prior publications in this exciting  area of investigation will now receive more of the recognition they deserve for their pioneering work in the field, bravely withstanding the unscientific criticism and ridicule of certain members of the mainstream solar physics community. As Charbonneau observes at the end of his article:

To sum up, what we have here is a fit to observations unmatched by any other exploratory framework, buttressed by a conjectural explanatory scenario that is testable at least at some level. It may all turn out to be wrong in the end, but this is definitely not Astrology. This is science.