Here are some links I’ve found pertinent to the Jupiter/Saturn/Solar interaction. I don’t know which, if any, are reliable, but they look like they might provide at least some useful information.
http://lep694.gsfc.nasa.gov/gunther/gunther/MikulaSS2006Article.pdf
http://www.john-daly.com/topevnts.htm
http://www.jupitersdance.com/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979stiw.conf..193M
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/assets/articles/article_resources.php?id=89

But my question is, IS ANYONE USING THIS INFORMATION TO PREDICT WHAT TO EXPECT FOR SS24? IF SO, WHERE CAN I FIND IT?

So, we would need SC24 to start at 2010.5 and maxima at 2014.3 to have a new Minimum of record firing mechanism, or any combination of SC24 start and SC24 maxima that leads to an average of 14 yrs from the SC23 start and SC23 maxima. i.e. – sc24 start of 2010 and sc24 maxima of 2015 would do.

The Minimum are triggered by very long SC’s as measured from minima to minima. They are ended in the relationship of where the Minimum started on the curves of the 243 yr cycle and whether the 188 yr cycle was rising or falling when the Minimum began. Another 1000 yrs of data would be helpful, but the relationships are harmonious and neat.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/daily/SORCE_L3_TSI_DM_V0008_20030225_20080812.txt

Note TSI at earth distance. Including the albedo, UV associated with solar flaring, and solarwind/geomagnetic fluctuations the energy absorbed by the earth varies >10%.

Thanks!

And just to add to the fun…. have you seen this?

NEW CLIMATE RECORD SHOWS SOLAR-DRIVEN MEGA-DROUGHTS
http://news.research.ohiou.edu/news/index.php?item=503

There’s such a tempting – and seemingly more than anecdotal or coincidental history of solar influences on Earth’s climate – that I feel we should carefully frame the way long-term TSI is relegated as a lesser climate factor.

If TSI is less variable than previously believed, then the ramifications are manifold & seem to me as posing some fascinating quandaries. The mystery compounds, and if cosmic rays aren’t the answer (not to say they aren’t, b/c we agree the jury’s still out on GCR flux) then Earth’s climate is far more responsive to solar influnces than previously known, and by association, could also be more sensitive to other forcings.

However, this may not be the case, because TSI and greenhouse gases aren’t fungible. As I’ve pointed out before, TSI has slackened by the equivalent of -0.1 degrees Celsius since circa 1992 with a functional -0.065 degrees C/decade effect, while Earth’s albedo has been boosted by aerosols with a nearly -0.07 degrees C/decade effect (Ramanathan, Carmichael, 2008). The net effect is -0.135 degrC/decade effect, with a concurrently stable global temperature trend of slight cooling in the seas & air.

But the point in all this is that TSI’s direct effects are more or less linear, but CO2’s effect is not — it’s logarithmic. If GCR flux doesn’t prevail as a major player, a lesser role for TSI puts a new wrinkle in CO2’s logarithmic effect — perhaps more intense at lower concentrations, greater saturation at higher concentrations.

The upshot of this is that the sun & aerosols have offset (or masked) the effects of greenhouse gases by the same amount. If these two trends don’t abate & temperatures remain stable, I feel we might have a pretty solid indicator of total GHG effects at +0.135 degrC/decade – not a scary AGW result at all, in my mind. Unprecedented? Maybe…. Less than ideal? Perhaps. Dangerous? I don’t see it.

Thanks for trying to help me understand. I realize now there should have never been a misunderstanding on my part. I had a temporary case of stupid. I was a bit too distracted by what you were saying and failed to apply the terms to my existing imagery and follow it though.

My atrophied math skills are definately going to get in the way of my understanding easily.

At the magnetosphere boundary there is a balance between the kinetic energy ["the dynamic pressure"] of the solar wind and the magnetic energy ["the magnetic pressure"] in the geomagnetic field.

While I admire models which allow understanding, I do not see this prohibitting the propagation of the earth’s magnetic field.

If we look at the problem from the rest frame of the solar wind, this pressure problem disappears, leaving only the propagation of the wave form of a virtual photon through a medium. This leads back to the density of the medium to prevent propagation.

I really don’t want to read an internet’s worth of MHD, so my specific question is: Does MHD have a “problem” with a frozen in state and a low density plasma?

Robert Bateman (01:52:53)

“The length of the current cycle appears to be approaching 12 years.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
If true, this makes it the longest on record since ca. 1800.
So, it looks like this is cooler stuff, and if it goes on another year, we are looking at really cold stuff.”

Possibly – but cycle 20 was 11 years and 7 months and this was followed by the late 20th century warming, so it’s perhaps a bit premature to declare certain cooling.

If it goes on another year, it will be 13 yrs. That was my point, this cycle is already longer than 20, and we seem to be dealing with thresholds when it comes to solar cycles. There is little point in trying to predict now, all the models have problems. Perhpaps that is because they are built around shorter cycles trends, I don’t know.
What’s left is to relate, and as long as this sc23 continues, the # of cycles and patterns that follow get increasingly restricted.
Reaching past 12 yrs and on into 13 years puts us backat least to 1800 and the Dalton.
It hasn’t happened yet, but it also hasn’t stopped lengthening.
Where do YOU put the start of SC23? Oct, 1996? Some say May, 1996 with smoothed monthly at 8.5.
For the former, SC23 is at 11yrs 10 mos., for the latter, SC23 is at 12 yrs 3 mos.