|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
|
Tip: If the above image is split vertically, the left half of the image is what we can't see from Earth. Click for full size view |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
| Hourly Update, yellow trace=km/s Click for full size |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
Donations graciously accepted, with some luck I might make the next AGU conference.
|
|
After much encouragement from Nicola Scafetta and others I have finally produced a document that summarizes the articles on this site in a scientific format. The document is 15 pages in PDF format and hopefully will enable easier understanding of the entire theory presented on this site. The paper was published May 31 2010 in Physics/Geophysics, Cornell University Library.
Thanks to G. E. Pease for providing peer review and content. Also many thanks to Nicola Scafetta for providing advice and initial peer review. Download PDF file (2.4mb) http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1005/1005.5303.pdf |
Many thanks go to Carl's brother Dave for providing the Domain, Server and Software.
Comments
Barycenters
There is a website here which states that each planet has its own Barycenter system with the sun, and that the Earth-Sun Barycenter is "well within the body of the sun". Jupiter's is 28,000 miles above the surface of the sun. http://www.applet-magic.com/centermass.htm
Another website saying a similar thing (but for kids!): http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/barycntr.shtml
Location of SSB
So, based on that, where is the SSB? Would it be central to all the planet-sun barycenters, probably closest to the Jupiter-Sun Barycenter? Or where the centre of the sun would be if nothing at all was orbiting it?
Position of the SSB?
Yes each planet has its own planet/Sun barycentre point, because they revolve around the Sun or this would not be possible, just as the Earth & Moon share their own barycentre point with each other. As the Earth moves around the Sun the Moon is taken with it, this is no different to the Sun/planet system only that more players ae involved. The SSB is a mathematical point calculated as the central point that the Sun orbits around on its loopy changing path. The path is determined by the combination of the planet positions at the time. The SSB (solar system barycentre) is the intersection of the red lines, the yellow circle is not the position of the Sun, it is just to show the relative size. The centre of the Sun is travelling on the loopy line.
Well that solves it!
Thanks for your patience. This seems to demolish the theory that the planets orbit the SSB, so do real-life observations and calculations.
Oh! And here's another
Oh! And here's another video using Celestia software showing the sun's wobble and the orbits of Mercury, Venus and Earth following the sun's wobble: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IHXj8k2jqc
Obviously it doesn't provide any evidence or data, but it contradicts the other video.
Youtube
Youtube video can be very unreliable. But if anyone can challenge JPL Horizons data and be successful, it will make front page.
Sun spot cycles
Hi
In answer to the question does the planetary positions determine Sun spot production, the answer is yes it does. My father, Fred Bailey, set out about 7 years ago, to try and determine what causes Sun spots. Fred looked at all the available data and ideas but saw nothing that was convincing, although some, such as Landscheidt did go some way to linking various aspects related to this. To make the calculations easier (although it still resulted in years of work) Fred looked at Newtonian laws and could see no reason why this should not be sufficient for the task, he also realised that the only way for the solar system to remain stable and for Newtonian maths to work, then the ecliptic plane must be inclined at 45 degrees to and square across, the line of flight of the Solar System Centre of Mass (SSCM), it is also unnecessary to use all the planets as the minor planets make small differences to the calculations, so he plotted the positions of the four major planets, worked out their moments abouth the SSCM then resolved them into one phantom planet and plotted this path about the SSCM, therefore the path of the Sun about the SSCM is merely the mirror image of this, but of course to a smaller scale, to allow for the difference in mass. Fred then looked at the record of Sun spot production and started to look for patterns, he soon found all the major cycles e.g. the 179years, 22years and many others, to his deep satisfaction ho also saw the every tiny change of sign in the Sun spot curves can be completely explained by the nature of the movement of the Sun about the SSCM. It appears that maximum Sun spot production occurs at times of maximum rate of change of velocity and roll of the Sun whether it be positive or negative. In simple terms it seems that the Sun is acting like a dynamo so that more rapid shearing of the magnetic flux lines equates to more Sun spot production and of course at little or no change in velocity then we see no spots. This was a great achievement in itself, in his first two books Fred predicted the next 3 Sun spot cycles (and can do so for any time you wish) and stated that there is indeed a missing cycle, since that time evidence for the missing cycle has been found and the date of the start of cycle 24 (now should be 25) was spot on (no pun intended). Both these predictions were made more than two years prior.
When studying his charts Fred suddenly realised that they showed the Sun - Earth distance at any point in the orbit but the astounding realisation was, that this showed the accepted Sun -Earth distance was incorrect because it shows a constantly varying but nonetheless calculable, distance. Of course using these distance changes you can represent them as changes in the energy received by the Earth by simply applying the inverse square law to the TSI figures of 1374W per square metre, large variations from the accepted values were found. To check this out records of Global and regional temperature changes were researched and compared to the charts and again everything fits like a glove, so in both cases Fred discovered a relativlely simple way of both predicting Sun spot production but more importantly, predicting large scale Global and Hemispherical temperature variations because the records agree and as they are related to planetary movements then it is posible to predict with some accuracy.
Fred is finalising the third edition of his book and by about September there will be a Website dedicated to his work. More information or enquiries about the book can be found here http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/about-frederick-baileys-textbook-of-gravity-sunspots-and-climate/ or by e-mailing Fred at fredbailey@sky.com
Howard Bailey
Angular Momentum
Sunspot cycles exhibit their strongest modulation when Angular Momentum is at its highest. This ALWAYS occurs when Uranus & Neptune are together, this wave is repeatable every 172 years. But the peak of the wave also holds the right conditions for grand minima which can only happen around the peak in Angular Momentum.
I am surprised you are still pushing your fathers incorrect theory of the Earth orbiting the SSB. The JPL coordinates show this to be a falsification..
JPL calculations
Hi Geoff
I must disagree with your conclusions. I have studied the JPL site and it openly admits that two graphs are 'fudged' together to get the results they expect to see and yet still have an unexplained missing component; the reason is of course because their method is not quite right. Fred's work suffers none of this as everything, in great detail, fits perfectly and is why Fred is able to answer and demonstrate how Sun spot propagation works with regard to planetary movements, but he has now moved on to concentrate on the more important secondary discovery of the previously unknown chord length changes between the Sun and Earth. For example, let's look at two points in relation to this work. Point one; Most would agree that the Sun wobbles about the SSB and this is how astronomers find evidence of planetary bodies around distant stars; if as JPL state, the Earth orbits the Sun and not the SSB, i.e. follows the Sun's wobble, then you would expect to see the wobble of the background stars from Earth, you do not see this because, the Earth orbits the SSB, as do all the solar bodies including the Sun. Point two; if you study the graphs of satellites attempting to determine the TSI, you will find many weird and wonderfull reasons are given to 'amend', 'correct', 'compensate' etc. the figures obtained because they EXPECT them to be within a certain range because they believe that the Sun Earth distance is fixed, what they have actually done is to remove the data that my father's work has shown to exist and is backed up by explaining large scale global temperature fluctuations. I will ask my father to get involved with this forum as he is better able to explain his work in detail. I admire your work and tenacity but I believe you will never succeed if you do not take on board what Fred has discoverd.
Challenging JPL
Hi Howard, that is quite a challenge to say the JPL data is incorrect, I know Gerry would disagree with you as he used to work for NASA and guided spacecraft using this data, part of the JPL process is to back up the data with observations. A big statement like the Earth does not orbit the Sun would need to be quantified with some solid data. If you can prove that, science would be over turned.
Challenging JPL
Hi Geoff,
Your last reply brought a smile to my face, I would not put it in quite the way you described but, in essence, what you said is exactly Bailey’s proposition. History is littered with discoverer’s that had a hard time convincing the establishment, that their discovery/idea is a fundamental challenge to the norm. But then of course the ‘norm’ is only so until it gets either modified/added to, or sometimes, completely replaced, in the light of new information. I do not expect Bailey’s ‘Solar Chord Discovery’, as he has recently chosen to market it as, to be anything other than a tough journey.
Taking your point about NASA/JPL using data to guide spacecraft; for the benefit of some readers, let’s look at this in more detail. NASA or anyone else, can not launch a rocket and arrive at a remote location using initial guidance data alone. The projected positions of solar bodies and especially the spacecraft, at any given time, is at best, a close approximation. The fact is, all spacecraft carry data and instruments that measure the position of ‘fixed’ remote stars, in order to more precisely determine its true position in the solar system, this data is then used to make numerous course corrections, in order to arrive at the correct co-ordinates at the correct time. I don’t know about now, but certainly in the Lunar missions, even the relatively ‘short’ trip to the Moon, required mid course corrections. This is not intended in any way, to demean the importance and clever work of Gerry and his colleagues.
Broadly speaking your AM graphs are agreeing with Bailey in the sense that rapid displacements of the Sun, caused by counteracting the movements of all the other solar bodies, is what drives Sun spot production. The difference is in the detail, i.e. the mechanics of solar movements and the interpretation of those movements in relation to the Sun spot counts.
Leaving aside the disagreement about solar bodies orbiting the Sun or the SSB, would you agree, that it appears that Sun spot production, is the net result of ALL the solar bodies gravitational interactions?
If you do, then this explains where the methods used by some to determine a particular aspect of Sun spot production can not produce precise answers, e.g. The article at the top of this thread reads;
“Are Uranus & Neptune responsible for Solar Grand Minima and Solar Cycle Modulation?”
Based on Bailey’s work the answer would be; To a lesser extent yes they are, but to a greater extent, is the effect caused by Jupiter and Saturn, because you have to take into account all the planetary movements to get the complete picture. You can not isolate one aspect and get the correct result. When Bailey studied Sun spot graphs, at all times the comparison was done in relation to the plotted path of the ‘Phantom’ planet mentioned previously, the PCM (Planetary Centre of Mass), i.e. the plotted track of the net result of the gravitational interaction of the four major planets, this method aligned precisely with all the historical data with the exception of the missing cycle, that is why Bailey stated there has to be a missing cycle here, because the plot is a reflection of solar body movements and it is highly unlikely that for some unknown reason, the solar bodies suddenly moved into different orbits at that time then reverted to ‘normal‘, patterns. Of course the other inescapable conclusion was, that if historical data can be verified, then future Sun spot production is predictable because the position of solar bodies is highly predictable.
Why do some state that Sun spots are responsible for climate change? Despite the fact that solar measurements show that Sun spots make very little difference to the TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) figure.
If you accept Bailey’s conclusion that the Earth orbits the SSB, then this easy to explain and correct.
It has already been mentioned that maximum Sun spot production occurs at times of maximum AM, in other words where there is a rapid (relatively speaking) rate of change of position of the Sun, in relation to the SSB. In Bailey’s work, this means that there is a relatively rapid change in Chord Length between the Sun and Earth, which in turn, means an increase or decrease in distance; that results in a rapid change in the total energy received by the Earth and hence sometimes, dramatic climatic changes. So naturally people thought that the Sun spots were responsible for temperature fluctuations. They were unaware, until now!, that Sun spots are an indication of Solar Chord Length variation and hence large varying degrees of energy received by the Earth.
Currently we are in solar cycle number 24 (25?) and this will end in 2016. The PCM track is currently in a long, slow, circular orbit, on average these type of orbits last 10.5years, this situation results in very little Sun spot production because AM is constant. In 2016, the PCM track will be two thirds of the way towards Jupiter’s orbit, at this time Sun spot production will begin in earnest because AM is now increasing; By 2018 it reaches Jupiter’s orbit and by 2020 will be 190 million kms beyond Jupiter’s orbit. This means that in the period between 2016 and 2020, the Sun’s distance from the SSB will double. This will result in the start of a cooler period in the Summer time for the Northern Hemisphere. This was a very similar situation to 1841, when the Franklyn expedition became icebound, in the Summer time, in the Canadian Artic Ocean looking for the North West Passage. This is all part of the recognised 178 year solar cycle, i.e. 15 orbits of Jupiter. Bailey plotted a received wattage chart for this period, based on Chord Length change and discovered that the lowest TSI for that year, occurred in July and this is why the Franklyn expedition failed.
Bailey's books show in great detail, with minimal maths and lots of diagrams exactly how the PCM track (Change in Chord Length) clearly explains phenomena such as, the Medieval Warm Period of 1263 – 1306 and the Maunder Minimum Cold Period of 1660 – 1703. The details are more complicated than this in that there are times when it is a global change and times when it is predominantly a Northern or Southern hemispherical change only. So just like the sunspot cycles, the solar energy received can be predicted by plotting the future PCM tracks with a high degree of accuracy. We must of course bear in mind that the matter of local changes in weather patterns is an entirely different and very complicated discipline but at least now the climatologists can use the correct wattages in their climate modelling computer runs.Apart from all these explanations let’s not lose sight of a simple fact, in relation to Sun spot production and climatic changes, based on his work, Bailey has made precise predictions, two of which have since been confirmed, who else has/can do the same?
Data needed
Hi again Howard,
I appreciate your determination, but you have a world of data needed to justify your family claims. Proposing such a claim demands secure data that so far is not forthcoming. Solid data has to be provided supporting your claim the Earth orbits the SSB which I am severely skeptical can be achieved.
JPL tells us the small elliptical orbit of Earth varies by 15,000 km. The Sun can move 1.5 million km from the SSB, that adds 3 million km to our already elliptical orbit if we go on your theory. There are many satellites that are balanced between the Sun/Earth gravity point measuring solar output that allow for the small differences in the Earth/Sun distance, their results would not be quantifiable going on your theory.
The ball rests in your court....you will need to provide solid evidence.
Mathematical evidence of Frederick Bailey's Theorem
Hi Geoff
You asked for some evidence about Bailey’s work. Please let me try and explain the proposal, for the moment only in relation to sunspot production and correct a mistake I made in my previous reply.
I stated; “Broadly speaking your AM graphs are agreeing with Bailey in the sense that rapid displacements of the Sun, caused by counteracting the movements of all the other solar bodies, is what drives Sun spot production.”; Having studied the AM method and Bailey’s work more closely, this statement is not correct, apologies and I will now explain why.
The original thought was, what is the actual configuration of the solar system as it fly's along the Galactic track? Newtonian laws were chosen to explain the forces involved; the following is a detailed description of the methodology used;
The Solar System is so remote from any other influencing group; such as the star Proxima Centauri, its nearest neighbour; that it is considered as isolated from the point of view of gravitational interactions.
This means that the group acts as a coherent group. i.e., all reactions are restricted to the group and all the forces resulting from these reactions are resolved to zero at any point in time in relation to a given point located within an established Newtonian Inertial Frame of reference.
In essence, what this means is, if we freeze frame the action at any point in time and take measurements within this frame of reference, determining the location of all the nine stationary objects, both in distance and three dimensional direction, such that we have a vector force of mass for each of the objects, in relation to the selected given point within the frame of reference, it will be found that all the forces will cancel out and resolve to zero.
This means that the group’s common centre of mass will not deviate from its original vectored track relative to the inertial frame selected point of reference.
Common sense dictates, that, if one has got to designate a point of reference within the Newtonian Inertial Frame, then why not locate it upon the line of flight of the Solar System centre of mass. ( R = 0 )
That way, when all the calculations are made, the final product result, of zero, will be at the physical centre of the group, further more, for the group to remain stable and the maths to work, the ecliptic plane must lie at 45 degrees to and square across the flight path.
The Law of Conservation;
In a system considered as totally isolated, Newton’s laws of motion show that the total momentum of the system remains constant. All the forces acting within the group, which can be separated out into individual pairs of equal and opposite forces, means that there is no change of momentum between the two bodies in question. Therefore, because the effects of these separate forces are additive, no change of momentum of the whole group takes place.
The centre of mass of the whole group obeys Newton’s first law of motion, by remaining at rest relative to the frame of reference or moving at constant speed, as long as there is no external force brought to bear upon the system.
As all the bodies in this system are basically spherical in shape, it is quite in order to consider each body’s mass as concentrated at a single point; its centre.
Conclusion;
It can be seen from this, that the idea that the Earth follows the Sun as it orbits the solar system centre of mass, the SSCM, would totally negate the laws of Newton.
The summation of the forces under this principle would not resolve to zero. The idea that one can negate the Earth’s force that accelerates the Sun by invoking two separate rules, one for the Sun / inner planets and one for the Jovian group is mathematically impossible.
All the bodies are interacting with one another at every instant of time. At times, the Sun’s attraction upon the Earth and the Earth’s attraction upon the Sun are being apposed, and at other times is being assisted, by different groupings of all the bodies involved.
The real time acceleration of these two bodies, and all of the others, is the summation of the group.
So, let’s put this into diagrammatic form; Note:- Apologies that I am unable to load decent images of the diagrams, so there are thumbnail images with links to a better image that can be viewed and or printed/down loaded for a better view.
Figure 1 shows the forces involved for any solar body moving in the plane of reference (In this case the Sun);
For a clear picture please go here:- http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz120/Howardsway/Forces.jpg?t=1281987879
Notes: SSCM = Solar System Centre of Mass. PCM = Planetary (group) Centre of Mass, which is why the Sun is shown to the West of the SSCM.
Figure 2 gives the view for the whole group, excluding the minor planets, as they make little difference to the results.
Big Picture link:- http://s819.photobucket.com/albums/zz120/Howardsway/?action=view¤t...
Figure 3 shows how all the solar bodies move as a group; Note that this can only be stable if there is forward motion, I will explain the significance of this later.
Big picture link:- http://s819.photobucket.com/albums/zz120/Howardsway/?action=view¤t...
Let’s discuss in more detail what we have so far;
Figure 1 shows that there are two fundamental factors involved in maintaining a stable configuration, one is the balance of AM and the other, is the rate of change of V, along the track.
The component in the third direction, i.e. Velocity, is the whole crux of Bailey’s work and I will now attempt to show how AM on its own, can not explain sunspot production, whereas, V, completely explains the shape and size of the sunspot curves.
What is so important about V? Figure 2 shows that any solar body above the East - West line, is above, behind and under constant acceleration, whereas anything below, is below, in front and under constant deceleration.
This is a difficult concept to grasp at first, so let’s look at Neptune’s orbit;
Look at the arrow head just below Neptune in Figure 2. As Neptune reaches this point, acceleration is just about to change into deceleration inside the Southern sectors, so at this point, Neptune has attained its greatest forward velocity and its momentum allows Neptune to overtake the SSCM that is moving at a constant velocity.
As it goes down and in front of the SSCM, gravity now pulls it back towards the SSCM, gradually slowing it down until, at the Southern axis, for a brief moment, Neptune’s forward velocity matches the SSCM, thereafter, Neptune continues to decelerate until the SSCM catches it up again and at the Eastern axis, Neptune is now at its least forward velocity and falls back, above and behind, into the Northern sectors. Now gravity begins to accelerate Neptune until at the Northern axis, for a brief moment, Neptune matches the velocity of the SSCM before continuing to accelerate back towards the SSCM, where at the Western axis, off we go again……..
It is this constant balance of the solar bodies above and behind the SSCM, exactly matched by the solar bodies below and in front of the SSCM, together with the corresponding match in AM, which provides a stable configuration. (Does this explain the missing spin orbit coupling? What do you think?).
Now we come to a very fundamental observation; In relation to the inclined Ecliptic plane, any solar body moving in an East – West – East direction is experiencing some rate of change of AM, whereas any solar body moving up and down the plane is experiencing some rate of change of velocity, i.e. acceleration or deceleration.
So lets pull all this together and show how V and not AM, explains sunspot production.
Figure 4 shows the PCM track (Planetary Centre of Mass) which is a mirror but to a larger scale, of the Sun’s orbit about the SSCM, for the period 1945 to 1956.
Big picture link:- http://s819.photobucket.com/albums/zz120/Howardsway/?action=view¤t...
Notes: The shaded areas show where the Sun is pointed towards the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, with the white areas being the Equatorial areas. (Not relevant to sunspot production).
Figure 5 is a (bad) reproduction of sunspot curves with a difference, the difference is the shaded black and white areas, these denote where the Sun passes the East – West axis, i.e. from Acceleration above, to deceleration, below the axis.
Big picture link:- http://s819.photobucket.com/albums/zz120/Howardsway/?action=view¤t...
In Figure 4 concentrate on the period 1949 to 1952, notice how the track passes from acceleration (above the axis) through deceleration (below the axis) and back to acceleration (Remember the Sun’s track is a mirror image of this) and this is reflected in Figure 5 by the change of colour. Also, in the space of three years, the Sun swings through a massive AM change of about 190 degrees, but, notice that this does not result in large sunspot production, rather the reverse, the count is rapidly dropping. Why? The reason is you will also notice that although there is a rapid change in AM, there is a small change in V, up and down the plane, it is rate of change of V that produces sunspots, or not.
Now, if you look at the three years period from 1952 to 1955, you will see the opposite effect.
There is a rapid deceleration of the Sun but a small change in AM, the result is a large spike of sunspot production.
It was found that this behaviour completely matches the shape and amplitude of the sunspot graphs and convincingly shows that rate of change of V determines sunspot production.
Here is another discovery from this work;
Figure 6 shows past and future, sunspot cycle changes.
For some reason I cannot fathom at this time, i.e. understand the maths (perhaps someone could help me here?), they all fall along the NE – SW and NW - SE axis’s. This is (partly) how Bailey was able to predict cycle 24, 2 years ahead of NASA and find the missing cycle (since verified by a found document details here http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0063 it is headed, “A solar cycle lost in 1793–1800: Early sunspot observations resolve the old mystery”.)
Big picture link:- http://s819.photobucket.com/albums/zz120/Howardsway/?action=view¤t...
There are other aspects of this work that enable cycle times to be determined.
This is a small example of the mass of information gleaned over the past 8 years or so and I hope this gives you some idea why I am so convinced that this work is on the right track with more to come.
In the next couple of weeks a dedicated web site will be launched, to fully explain the concept.
All diagrams are Copyright of Frederick Bailey and are reproduced with his permission.
Thanks Howard
Thanks Howard, your fathers theory on the fluctuating galaxy orbit speeds of the Sun & planets is interesting but it will need solid data to back it up. It is flying in the face of JPL and maybe will challenge Kepler as well. He is talking about a chord length change that is not tied to the elliptical path. Chord length changes require a trade off to conserve angular momentum, which is normally planet velocity changes. These are all accounted for and observed via Kepler but maybe the door is open for a rotation change of one of the bodies.
The big problem is to demonstrate how the bodies change their galactic velocity....it seems impossible right now.
Useful Animation
Howard and Geoff,
I am no scientist and I am not going to get involved in this debate anymore than to give you a video link which suggests that the Sun AND planets orbit around the SSB: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iSR3Yw6FXo&feature=related
SSB
A useful animation that displays the solar path generated by the gas giants, but it does not offer any evidence of the orbit axis point of the solar system planets.
The Sun moves around the SSB because of gravitation forces exerted from the planets. The same forces dictate the planets must orbit the Sun. I have researched this in great detail and have yet to come across any evidence that supports any planet orbiting the SSB. Having said that I would be extremely interested to be shown otherwise with scientific data as it would open a Pandora's box in relation to spin orbit coupling.
Implications if theory correct
I suppose it doesn't provide any such evidence, but does this new idea jeopardise the planetary theory, Carl's graph or the prediction of future solar cycle modulation? In my opinion, it only challenges our knowledge of solar-terrestrial relations. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Definitive data, as you say, would validate the theory. Here is another video made by the same people about the Earth-Moon Barycenter if you want to take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGBANgbRkws
Obviously I have no idea who's right, and I don't doubt anyone's expertise.
Solar Cycles and Planets
Are ALL solar cycles long AND short controlled by planetary movements or are there some which are internal to the sun, like the 11 year cycle?
11 year cycle
The 11 year cycle is an area where both sides of science really don't have a definitive answer. There has been some work done by Desmoulins and Hung that suggest the 11 year cycle is in sync with Jupiter, Earth & Venus orbit patterns (most aligned days)but the jury is still out. Doppler observations of the torsional oscillation patterns on the solar surface show recurring bands of fast and slow regions that start every 11 years and persist for around 17 years. The sunspot butterfly patterns align with these regions and look to be linked. If we can discover what drives these patterns which arise from the Tachocline a lot of questions will be answered.
I wrote an article on Carl's Blog some time ago that deals with torsional oscillation HERE
There seems to be
There seems to be another recent paper which suggests that the sun is headed for a Grand Minimum which is not going to be shorter than a century! Please tell me they're wrong! Here is the link:
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html
wrong
I do think they are wrong.
The paper is based on statistics and does not offer a reasonable argument in my opinion. It may take some time before we will know for sure unfortunately.
Third Event
Just a minor point mentioned in the conclusion which I would just like clarifying: is it rare that we aren't experiencing a third event or is it rare for there to be a third event?
rare event
Yes it does appear rare that we are not experiencing a 3rd AMP event this time around. It probably happens on a cycle as the position of the planets gradually change over the centuries. In recent times 3 events has been the norm but there are instances of 4 events that occur before the Sporer Minimum.