question

What modulates our Sun? The majority of science work on the principle that the Sun is self modulating and each solar cycle is a product of a random number generator. There are others that suspect the Sun is modulated by the planets with a special emphasis on Uranus & Neptune. Thanks to Carl Smith who has recently left us we have new knowledge that significantly adds to Jose, Landscheidt & Charvàtovà's work.

Geoff Sharp

Another PRP problem..

The closing of the Pattern Recognition in Physics continues to make waves all over the blogosphere, Anthony from WUWT is taking real advantage of the situation by blowing it all out of proportion just to serve his needs and bias against any science that may be planet/sun related. The day is coming closer to when Anthony will have to pull his head in and admit he was wrong to deny the real science that is taking place.

The PRP guys are guilty of setting up a journal that does not look good, but that is the extent of their crime to which they should have taken advise from some who warned them beforehand (I was one that tried to warn). The Journal should not have been shutdown, instead the problem should have been rectified.

But I do have a beef with the review system of PRP that failed to follow point 8 of the reviewer rule of Copernicus

8. A referee should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists. A referee should call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.

I posted the following comment on tallblokes Talkshop and Jo Nova's blog without reply, I might need to take it up with Copernicus. UPDATE: Email sent.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting times, the whole CAGW side of it in particular.

But what ever happens to this journal in the future I would encourage a move away from the appearance of PAL review that this journal has been criticized for. It does our cause no good.

I have a particular gripe with the just published I. Charvátová and P. Hejda paper in Pattern Recognition in Physics. The reviewers (tallbloke being one) .

Charvátová for decades has been talking about the disordered orbit and how it aligns (roughly) with times of solar slowdown. It is now known what exact planetary configuration causes the SINGLE disordered orbit of around 10 years which disturbs the balanced trefoil arrangement around the SSB and it is also known how to quantify the planetary alignment and the SINGLE disordered orbit in respect to predicting solar downturn at the solar cycle level. This new knowledge allows more accurate predictions of single grand minima type cycles which has shown to be more accurate than Charvátová’s 2007 prediction for solar cycle 24 of 140SSN.

This new knowledge was first made available in 2008 and then published in 2010 at arxiv.org and then later published (2013) in the peer reviewed International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics.

The paper is titled:

Are Uranus & Neptune Responsible for Solar Grand Minima and Solar Cycle Modulation?

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1005/1005.5303.pdf

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=36513#.Utm85fZ9Jz8

As Editor and peer reviewer Roger Tattersall failed in his duty to science and should have instructed Charvátová and Hejda to include the new science in their paper as it is directly relevant and is a new discovery that explains the disordered orbit.

Roger has been aware of my work for years but has refused to discuss it at the “talkshop” or indeed include it in the scientific literature where it is directly relevant where he had direct control.

A new paper in press at Solar Physics by esteemed authors will soon be available which is in full agreement with the basic principles I have outlined in my paper.

__________________________________________________________________

As a sidenote:

Some good news today, for years I have been fighting with Connolley to correct the WIKI record in relation to Landscheidt. Connolley has maintained that Landscheidt named the “Landscheidt Minimum” after himself and also provided a reference. I have pointed out to Connelley several times the reference makes no such claim but he has refused to budge.

On Jo Nova’s blog I challenged him directly and he eventually folded. The WIKI record for Landscheidt now does not state that Landscheidt named the minimum after himself.

Some justice has prevailed at least, albeit it a small victory.

Comments

The plot thickens...I sent an

The plot thickens...I sent an email off to Nils-Axel Morner (editor of PRP) Martin Rasmussen (Director of Copernicus) and one other in Copernicus. The context was nearly identical to the above forum post.

 

Nils-Axel responded:

Dear Geoff,

Sorry, I hadn't seen your paper before.
On the other hand it is a very recent 2013 publication.
I will read it with the greatest interest and use it in possible future papers.

best wishes
Nils-Axel

 

A total fob off completely missing the issue of violation of rule 8. Nils-Axel is not addressing the problem and thinks it will go away.

Nils-Axel might not be the most savy editor on the block as he didnt see the other email addresses I sent it to. Then it became obvious to him and he sent an email off to Roger Tattersalls but inadvertently sent it to me also (not savy at all).

The email read:

Dear Rog,

Another trouble maker - I didn't notice that the message had gone to Copernicus, too

and simply answered:

Dear Geoff,

Sorry, I hadn't seen your paper before.
On the other hand it is a very recent 2013 publication.
I will read it with the greatest interest and use it in possible future papers.

best wishes
Nils-Axel

This reminds me somewhat of climategate although no hacking is necessary. We have a situation where editors have banded together to gain a result and at the same time are not accountable for decisions made.

I am hoping this issue will be dealt with in a profression manner by Copernicus, I am starting to get my hackles up.

 

 

Exactly, all the various

Exactly, all the various theories need to be given a faitr chance. To rule out  a thought an idea  so completly the way Anthony /Leif have done shows they are not interested in science but in an agenda.

 

I don't know for sure why the sun goes into prolonged minimum states, but many other stars do the same thing, perhaps more consideration should be given to othere sun like stars that have similar prolonged minimum cycles like our sun does to find an answer.

 

The angular momentum theory I think still has much validity, but how does this apply to other stars, can it be applied to other stars?

I don't think it can be

I don't think it can be applied to other stars. Some work has been done (check left hand menu) to plot the star path around the SSB of other systems and so far nothing looks close to our solar system. The problem is that a disruption to the normal star orbit pattern is required, in our case we have 2 major planets J/S controlling the static pattern with N/U acting as a modulator of the static pattern and then when they come together their combined gravity is strong enough to send the normal J/S pattern backwards. The backwards part is the important new discovery that came from Carl's graph, none of the pioneers saw this.

Charvátová has and continues in her new paper to make the mistake that higher solar cycles occur during times of trefoil orbits (U/N opposite), she gets this from looking at the solar proxy record but in reality when you look at the better detail in the sunspot record the highest cycles happen just before grand minima (in most cases) where U/N are together. The proxy record just shows that grand minima can be a lower cycle than what is experienced during the lull that happens at every U/N opposition, proper grand minima NEVER occur when U/N are opposing.

To emulate this in another star system that system would need to have 2 major planets at the right distance and 2 others the right size and distance like N/U. The chances of this look to be extremely rare as each star system is like a finger print. Clouds of dust that eventually form a solar type system would have to be the biggest roll of the dice out there.

Most of the exoplanets discovered so far seem to be hot Jupiter types that orbit very close to their star. This type of system is very different to ours and makes you wonder if there is some order in the way planets and their orbits are laid out in the process.

My question is research shows

My question is research shows that other sun like stars have a magnetic cycle and many of them are even more variable then the sun. The question is what is making those stars vary and could that  feature  that is making those stars vary also be applied to the sun?

 

Maybe it is more then one item that causes the sun and stars to vary , angular momentum being one of them but not the only one.

 

Also for what it is worth I am of the opinion that the sun varies more often and to a greater degree of magnitiude then what  conventional science keeps trying to convey. Evidence comes from other sun like stars which show much more variance then the .1 that is given to the sun as a normal variance  between cycles.

 

This insistence of a .1 variance in total solar irradiance  is just not so in my opinion, and I venture to  say during the Maunder Minimum solar irradiance declined by as much as .4 percent if not even greater.

 

 

 

This if true would make a solar/climate connection that much stronger.

Geoff,   First, let me say I

Geoff,

 

First, let me say I would be loathe to disagree with you, I personally think you have solved one of the greatest of all mysteries in our solar system and giving credit to others while you do it.  That being said I also agree with you that most of the exoplanets that have been found are indeed very large close to their star planets.  I do however believe that the only reason that is, is because those are the easiest for us to find.  I think as our equipment gets better we will find more and more systems like our own.  I find it very difficult to believe that our system is anything but ordinary.

The prospects are very exciting if I am right.  If other systems like ours have existed for even 1 million years longer than us what must the inhabitant of such a system be like, certainly a million years beyond us.  What if there are systems billions of years older than us, and I believe there are, what must they be like.

Please keep up your wonderful work and thanks so much for keeping the site.

 

Joe Kraig

Jakraig

Starspots are a very

Starspots are a very interesting subject and with better equipment in the future they may provide more evidence of how AM plays a role in stellar cycles. But there are quite a few hurdles to cross. As jakraig has noted most of the planets discovered are the easier ones that are large and closely orbit their star, and when it comes to starspots the most documented seem to be from binary systems. Also of note is that G type stars like ours only make up around 7% on the known stars with red dwarfs being around 80% if memory serves.

My research suggests that sunspot cycles are not a product of angular momentum, AM is a modulator of cycles as well as a possible cause of grand minima. Differential rotation seems to be the key to overall magnetic activity and interestingly a lot of other stellar starpot cycles seems to cluster around the 11 year mark. This would make it highly unlikely that planets drive the length of a sunspot cycle although planets could like JEV (the most tidally affected) fall into a relationship with solar rotation differentiation from solar system harmonics over time.

Younger stars that spin faster have much more activty but 11 year type cycles are less obvious, older slower rotating stars have less activity but develope measurable cycles, rotation speed is important along with differential rotation. It has been observed that binary star systems have much greater magnetic activity because of tidal interaction from the outer star that speeds stellar rotation along with changes in differential rotation perhaps caused by elliptical orbit paths of the binary stars. The changes in differential rotation because of orbit path change is most interesting as this is precisely what we are witnessing with the Sun right now, the doppler images of solar differential rotation are showing a changing/ or lengthening of the normal v pattern at present which is coinciding with the Sun taking its irregular path caused by U/N. Solar path changes are affecting the differential rotation of the Sun. AM is affecting the solar path and possibly influencing differential rotation.

Outside of this starspots seem to be related also to huge tidal effects from hot Jupiters with close orbits so the picture is not clear...at present I am going with AM being just a modulator and at our solar level this modulation would probably only be picked up during major events like the Maunder Minimum if observed from a distance like we are observing.

An in depth interesting paper on starspots can be found HERE.

My original article on the differential rotation HERE.

 

 

It seems Roger has put me in

It seems Roger has put me in the sinbin on the "talkshop". Who knows why, but if it is because I have called his reviewer practices into question, it is not another good look.

All very petty really, in the meantime real science goes on that is above the numerology rubbish, this week I am meeting up with Ken McCracken of the Abreu/Steinhilber team, some big movements forward for REAL planetary science are very close.

This following quote from Ken

This following quote from Ken is worth repeating.

Research is the key to the competitive industries of the future. The key to our future is that the very best of our research minds should be harnessed to deliver what our industries will need ten years hence. The challenge for our research managers is to know what to back when everyone seems to disagree with them.

In 10 years time our industries will be wishing they understood the climate change related to grand minimums 10 years ago. But then everyone seemed to disagree with the researchers like yourself!

REPLY: Yes it will take time, especially since planetary science is mocked by so many.

Brent Walker

What must be kept in mind is

What must be kept in mind is that solar activity post Dalton Minimum thru 2005 ,was overall very high.
Post 2005 solar activity has been low.
When people that believe in AGW theory try to snowball the public by saying in the last 20 years of the 20th century temperatures rose as solar activity declined therefore solar has nothing to do with the temperature, is a bunch of BS.
Solar activity was declining perhaps but there are THRESHOLDS, and solar activity was above the thresholds which would equate to it having a positive influence on the temperatures up to year 2005, although it perhaps was declining from the peak of it’s activity earlier that century.
Look at the AP INDEX for reference.
What mainstream does not want acknowledge are the following:
Solar activity increased significantly throughout the 20th century and although may have declined for the last 20 years of that century activity was still high enough to be above the thresholds to have the sun be a positive influence on the temperature.
Mainstream does not accept or appreciate lag times between changes in solar activity and a temperature response.
Mainstream does not understand that just because solar activity is on the decline that ,that has to translate to a temperature reduction. They don’t understand that in order for declining solar activity to translate into a temperature reduction the declining solar activity has to cross a threshold of low solar activity both in degree of magnitude and duration of time to have the temperature effect both through primary and thru secondary solar /climate connections. I listed those solar parameters that I feel are necessary to accomplish this on previous post.
TWO OFF HAND WOULD BE SOLAR FLUX AVG. SUB 90, AND AP INDEX AVG. SUB 5.0
Mainstream ignores past history which clearly shows quiet solar prolonged periods equate to colder global temperatures while prolonged active solar periods equate to warmer temperatures.
The typical 11 year sunspot cycle is not going to have any major effects on the climate ,so to try to equate a solar /climate connection based on that cycle of 11 years is in vain.
Last but not least many sun like stars show variability in irradiance many times above the .1 that mainstream keeps trying to convey to the public is the extent of our sun’s variability. Further how they can say this with confidence is beyond me ,since they keep changing the data and the instrumental record for solar variability is ONLY 20 years in length. In addition parts of TSI light spectrum from the sun vary much more then other parts ,and probably have a much greater impact on the climate.
Ozone formation versus UV light variation from the sun as a prime example.
Reply
Reply
What must be kept in mind is that solar activity post Dalton Minimum thru 2005 ,was overall very high.
Post 2005 solar activity has been low.
When people that believe in AGW theory try to snowball the public by saying in the last 20 years of the 20th century temperatures rose as solar activity declined therefore solar has nothing to do with the temperature, is a bunch of BS.
Solar activity was declining perhaps but there are THRESHOLDS, and solar activity was above the thresholds which would equate to it having a positive influence on the temperatures up to year 2005, although it perhaps was declining from the peak of it’s activity earlier that century.
Look at the AP INDEX for reference.
What mainstream does not want acknowledge are the following:
Solar activity increased significantly throughout the 20th century and although may have declined for the last 20 years of that century activity was still high enough to be above the thresholds to have the sun be a positive influence on the temperature.
Mainstream does not accept or appreciate lag times between changes in solar activity and a temperature response.
Mainstream does not understand that just because solar activity is on the decline that ,that has to translate to a temperature reduction. They don’t understand that in order for declining solar activity to translate into a temperature reduction the declining solar activity has to cross a threshold of low solar activity both in degree of magnitude and duration of time to have the temperature effect both through primary and thru secondary solar /climate connections. I listed those solar parameters that I feel are necessary to accomplish this on previous post.
TWO OFF HAND WOULD BE SOLAR FLUX AVG. SUB 90, AND AP INDEX AVG. SUB 5.0
Mainstream ignores past history which clearly shows quiet solar prolonged periods equate to colder global temperatures while prolonged active solar periods equate to warmer temperatures.
The typical 11 year sunspot cycle is not going to have any major effects on the climate ,so to try to equate a solar /climate connection based on that cycle of 11 years is in vain.
Last but not least many sun like stars show variability in irradiance many times above the .1 that mainstream keeps trying to convey to the public is the extent of our sun’s variability. Further how they can say this with confidence is beyond me ,since they keep changing the data and the instrumental record for solar variability is ONLY 20 years in length. In addition parts of TSI light spectrum from the sun vary much more then other parts ,and probably have a much greater impact on the climate.
Ozone formation versus UV light variation from the sun as a prime example.
Reply

Salvatore, I recently found a

Salvatore, I recently found a cute paper on the cumulative solar output theory. You may have seen it too! "Key evidence for the accumulative 1 model of high solar influence on 2 global temperature"
David R.B. Stockwell - refer  http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0032v1.pdf. It has some actuarial appeal to me.

Brent Walker

Many thanks go to Carl's brother Dave for providing the Domain, Server and Software.