Website Paper is Published.

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?

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?

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

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.

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. 

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?

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

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.

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?

Thanks for your patience. This seems to demolish the theory that the planets orbit the SSB, so do real-life observations and calculations.

"Currently and for some time now, no one continuously measures the TSI, what various groups measure, is the difference or variation in solar output and as expected, this only varies by about 0.1%.

They then apply this to the standard figure of about 1368W per Sq. Metre and for any particular time and place on or in orbit of the Earth, make calculations to adjust the figure to take into account the angle of the Sun, the distance, which is always assumed to be somewhere within the 1AU of the Earth’s orbit, atmosphere, etc. to arrive at a final figure.

If TSI per se were to be measured continuously, relatively vast variations would be found and more importantly, would match the historical climate records and show that at times, that climate variation is highly regional in nature, again this is reflected in various sedimentary and other historical records."

This is incorrect. The absolute value of TSI is measured continuously and with great precision. And shows a sinusoidal pattern [variation 7% - largest in January] through the year because of the varying distance to the Sun. This absolute TSI is what is important for climate. If we want to know what the Sun puts out we must compensate for the varying distance. When we do that, we find a solar cycle variation of 0.1%, some 70 times smaller than the yearly variation.

Hi Isvalgaard

Thank you for your reply. I would be very interested if you could supply me with the links to sites that show what you say, as the links I found suggested that the 'continuous' reading is an amalgamation of several sources, ACRIM, PMOD etc. with various compensating factors applied. The details of the instrumentation etc. are very complicated and technical, this leads to a certain amount of 'difference' between the various methods used. I would ideally like to see any examples of the raw data, i.e. the actual figures obtained before manipulation.

Between 1902 and 1957, Charles Abbot et al made thousands of measurements of TSI from mountain sites. Values ranged from 1,322 to 1,465 W m^–2, which encompasses the current estimate of 1,368 W m^–2. These ranges fit very well with Bailey's findings.

You will have noticed in my preceding posting the sun spot cycle prediction table and the method used to obtain it; this table and method will either go down in history as a 'eureka' moment or a complete flop, you know what my view is !, so far it is spot on.

The method was first tested by reproducing historical records and when that proved to be correct, then to predict as far ahead as you wish (within reason).

This work led to the discovery of the varying Solar Chord length (Earth - Sun distance) because using Newtonian Laws, maths dictate that ultimately, every bit of mass orbits the SSB (Solar System Barycentre).

I agree with your figures of the Solar variation, 0.1% and the orbital variation of 7%. I also agree that it is the Earth's elliptical orbit that gives rise to the 7% variation. Where we diverge is that Bailey is saying that the Earth orbits the SSB (Solar System Barycentre) and not the Sun, this means that almost constantly, the meanderings of the Sun about the SSB now become and additive or negative factor to the Solar Chord length and hence the TSI. This should show in current readings but does not appear to do so. This is the only aspect of the Solar Chord Science relationship that is hard to pin down. My suspicion is that the raw data is being over adjusted because researchers unquestionably believe that the Earth orbits the Sun.

Why do I say that?

Bailey's extensive study of the PCM Track (Barycentre of the Jovian planets) where Solar Chord Length variations were translated into the corresponding wattage variations, convincingly proves that the Solar Chord length variations are what drives large scale climate changes, I am talking about the order of 17 - 20 times bigger than any other Solar forcings currently discussed e.g. Sunspots, Faculae, Cosmic Radiation etc.

These wattage figures, sedimentary evidence, specific events e.g. the Medieval warm period, the Maunder Minimum period and other events, all agree far beyond anything that statistical methods could show.

Let's bear in mind that we only have to go back to pre-industrialisation times i.e. a 100 years or so, and the whole question of AGW, TSI etc is irrelevant because climate change was unquestionably due entirely to natural causes. This is why I am not perturbed about the apparent difference, rather curious as to why it is so because it does not fundamentally undermine anything in relation to the Solar Chord Science findings.

Since the Solar Chord Science method has proven to be remarkably accurate with historical data, then the logical deduction was, that there must something going on with current measuring techniques of TSI to account for the difference.

The back calculations on wattages are based upon planetary positions, therefore the figures for present and future changes are able to be determined because planetary characteristics are highly predictable.

Hi again Geoff

Re. your, “Right here is where your argument falls down.”

This depends upon your point of view, this sentence can be applied either way,

i.e. If Solar Chord Science is wrong or TSI determination is wrong.

and your, “The orbital variation of Earth has to be greater than 7% from the Sun if the Earth orbits the SSB.”

I am heartened to see that you get my point of view even though you do not agree with it.

Sun spots and Solar Chord Science (SCS) overlaps and interfaces with many related disciplines covering large time scales , the chronologically new TSI science just being one of them.

The sun spot model gives a more than credible explanation for the controlling mechanism of sun spot production, including the detailed expose of the relationship between the changes in Velocity and AM, to fully explain the shape and amplitude of the sun spot count, this in turn gives credence to the validity of the follow on work in relation to Solar Chord Length variability.

Extensive work in SCS is highlighting many aspects that correlate precisely with historic climate changes and can convincingly show a practical model that explains specific events e.g. The Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age. More importantly, it gives the ability to forecast climate changes. Just because I find an anomaly with TSI, does not mean that therefore SCS should be just summarily dismissed. Logic tells me that one or more aspect is being misinterpreted and needs further investigation.

In the name of good science, I am trying to be as objective and unbiased as possible, SCS has alerted me to a fundamental change in the thinking and new possibilities for research into the sciences involving astronomy and climate change.

That said, I have no doubt that future research will modify and tweak the sun spot and SCS models in various ways e.g. the wattage variations may well be scaled up or down, but it will not change the underlying principles.

My research of the new science of TSI determination clearly shows that it is far from being a settled and undisputed source for any solar forcing argument either way,

For instance,

“Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dpendence on response time scale”

 “We have previously placed the solar contribution to recent global warming in context using observations and without recourse to climate models. It was shown that all solar forcings of climate have declined since 1987. The present paper extends that analysis to include the effects of the various time constants with which the Earth’s climate system might react to solar forcing. The solar input waveform over the past 100 years is defined using observed and inferred galactic cosmic ray fluxes, valid for either a direct effect of cosmic rays on climate or an effect via their known correlation with total solar irradiance (TSI), or for a combination of the two. The implications, and the relative merits, of the various TSI composite data series are discussed and independent tests reveal that the PMOD  omposite used in our previous paper is the most realistic. Use of the ACRIM composite, which shows a rise in TSI over recent decades, is shown to be inconsistent with most published evidence for solar influences on pre-industrial climate. The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings.”

This paper concludes that PMOD and ACRIM show opposing global temperature trends yet most other groups state they show a definite upward trend in the past decade.

Conversely, the respected Hadley Climate Centre, with its access to huge computers and thousands of global temperature sensors, shows a graph with a widely fluctuating global temperature range but with a slight cooling trend, despite also showing a slight but steady increase in CO2 levels for the same period.

My confidence in the reliability of the current TSI findings is not high, I also noted that NASA is not prepared to publicise Satellite TSI raw data information.

In any case, as I said before, none of this has anything to do with pre industrial records.

Hi Steve and Geoff,

Can I add my two cents to the debate please,

Geoff Re. your, “Each planet has to move with the Sun as it changes its position, which is a product of the planet positions.”

I am sorry but this makes no sense at all because it is self defeating. If the planets are ‘tied’ to the Sun and can only follow it, then how can the planets move away from the Sun in order to change the position of the Sun? this is impossible, as Steve has also pointed out.

There are barycentre’s between any group of two or more bodies in the solar system (within certain conditions) but in the end, they all resolve to one common barycentre, the SSB and everything orbits that point. The SSB is the only point that moves at a constant Galactic velocity (250 km/s) and in a (nearly) constant direction.

At any instant in time the positions of all the solar masses, is the sum of the total gravitational interactions. As far as gravity is concerned, the Sun is just another mass, so nothing ‘dominates’ anything else, everything is where it is because all the masses affect each other equally in accordance with the same laws.

It is the orbit of all the mass, except the Sun, about the SSB, that dictates the position of the Sun in relation to the SSB. This can only arise if the non Sun mass does not only orbit the Sun.

Steve is quite right when he say’s that with all the planets except the Earth, on one side of the SSB, then the Sun must move away to counterbalance those forces and Steve is also correct that the Sun cannot ‘push’ the Earth away, the Earth is where it is, because it is doing exactly the same as the Sun i.e. contributing to the counterbalance of the other planets.

What they are all actually doing is as described above, they are at all times collectively maintaining a balanced system.

The layout Steve described and this explanation make sense (I hope!!), but lets not forget that it does not matter which natural configuration you care to display, the same rules apply.

What I am getting at is, that when the planets are on the same side of the SSB as the Sun, they don’t now suddenly behave as they are only orbiting the Sun.

The laws of Gravity apply all the time!!

If the planet's are following Sol in lock step around the SSB, how can the solar angular momentum that your sight's graphs show possibly be correct? You are calculating solar AM relative to the SSB. If all of the planets move with Sol, then the position of the SSB moves as well (the SSB is determined by the locations of all the masses).  When Sol moves towards/away from the SSB, if the gas giants move with it in lock step then you just relocated the SSB by exactly the same amount that you said Sol moved towards/away from the SSB... so there is no solar AM fluctuation in relation to the SSB. If you were talking about a geometric center - well that's a different story. But you are talking about a center of mass, which is determined by the location of all of the masses. If you are going to say that solar AM increases because Sol moves farther away from the SSB, then the position of the gas giants must denote an SSB where your graphs state that it is - they can't follow Sol by the same distance. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It seems like it is you who is questioning the JPL data. In your article on spin orbit coupling (http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/79) you state "The planet inertial frame calculated from JPL was another surprising result which looks to suggest it is in the barycentric frame rather that heliocentric. For our project we needed to make allowances." When you calculated the solar AM using the barycentric frame, but the planet AM using a heliocentric frame... surprise, you ended up with missing AM! Try calculating both with the SSB frame which the JPL ephemerides already uses.

"But the challenge is in front of you, pick a day in the year and prove that the Sun/Earth distance varies by more than 15000 km's each year. According to your theory the distance should fluctuate by at least 1.5 million km's over a ten year period."

I have yet to see a graph anywhere (including your sight) which calculates the Sol-Earth distance from the JPL ephemerides. I did find a PDF with a graph of Earth-Moon barycenter (EMB) angular momentum relative to Sol (http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf) which uses JPL data. Interestingly, this author concluded that the gas giants have SSB orbits while the inner planets have heliocentric orbits, but I couldn't follow his reasoning.

His graph of EMB AM relative to Sol is best viewed on Figure 36, page 28. Of particular interest (to me) is the double-dip at the beginning of 1998 - look familiar? Instead of a deep trough/peak at that time in that year, EMB AM (relative to Sol) remained relatively level for a few months. Which, as we know from physics, corresponds to a relatively stable distance between EMB and Sol for a more than usual period. At the same time in 1999, the same graph shows a deep trough - so Earth's motion around Sol the next January was undergoing a completely different movement pattern (changing distance, quickly).  This is all derived from JPL ephemerides!

As I stated, I can't follow the author's logic regarding how the graphs derived from the JPL ephemerides shows that the Earth orbit (and other inner planets) is heliocentric while the gas giants are (solar system) barycentric. I expect a simple elliptical orbit to generate an AM graph that shows exactly one peak and one trough per orbit, corresponding to the two apsides. The author's Figure 36 clearly does not show this - yet he insists this proves heliocentric orbital focus for the Earth-Moon barycenter.

Looking at the author's Figure 34 we see a graph that shows exactly what I expect. Count the troughs between 1980 and 1990... exactly 10! And the same with the peaks - 10 in 10 years (orbits)! What is Figure 36 a graph of? The angular momentum of the EMB with respect to SSB, using JPL data (DE405 and DE406).

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "the SSB is a fictional point". It is a calculated point (there isn't anything there) but the calculation is real. It is the center of mass of the solar system whether or not Sol is directly over it. When all planets are in conjunction, for example, Sol would be at it's furthest possible point from the SSB. In that case, what do you mean by "it only truly represents the centre of the solar system when..."? The geometric center of all the planets in conjunction with the Sol wouldn't be anywhere near Sol - obviously because Sol would be one point at the end of the line. The geometric center of that line would be halfway between Sol and the furthest planet ( and I still like Pluto ;) ).

So I'm not sure what you think my confusion was - I know exactly what the SSB is. What I don't understand is how you think Sol can pull all of the gas giants with it in lock-step and generate the solar AM graphs you are showing. If both Sol and all the gas giants are moving in the same direction relative to this "fictional point"... the calculation of the location of the fictional point necessarily relocates the point. And since you are saying all of the masses moved in the same direction, the SSB-Sol distance would remain constant, so there would be no solar AM fluctuations to graph.

Your article on Jovian AM directly contradicts what I have read elsewhere (including your spin coupling article). In it you state "It must be noted that the JPL data for each planet uses the Sun centre for calculating distance." According to this article (http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~rfisher/Ephemerides/ephem_use.html) and others, "The origin of the rectangular coordinates [in the JPL ephemeris] is at the solar system barycenter (center of mass) for the sun and all planets, except the earth." Which of your graphs assume that the JPL coordinate system is barycentric, and which assume it is heliocentric? Without that information, I really can't tell what your Jovian AM graphs are showing. Is it AM about the sun, or the SSB?

"The EMB graph (fig 36) is a great example of how the orbit is influenced by the other planets. The difference is small but the peaks and troughs will line up with the normal elliptical movements along with the planets adding their influence."

The difference is not "small". As I pointed out, compare 1998 to 1999. That is a huge variation for what is supposed to be AM graphed about the focus of a simple elliptical orbit.

"The EMB AM graphs using the SSB as axis point are of little value, calculating AM from a non axis point is almost pointless really, the 10 year trend is just J/S."

It would be pointless if it didn't show exactly one AM peak and one AM trough per orbit. But since it does, I have to ask... what does "J/S" mean?

"I will make a graph of the EMB/Sun distance soon, which will answer the solar chord argument."

Thank God. I was afraid I had a lot of JPL downloading and graphing ahead of me this weekend.