One day I notice that the turn signals of my car are in exact sync with the turn signals of the car ahead of me — so must there be a link between them? The closer the cycle lengths are, the longer it will be before they drift out of phase. When they are out of phase, you will still say there is a link, but it’s at 60 degrees before conjunction or something. That is the problem with the barycenter theory. Why should the effect not be at some interior level of the sun which then takes a long time to reach the surface?

In the good old days when people were adding cycles upon cycles to explain the apparent motion of the planets, they wasted their time; they should have studied math instead. The ellipse made it all so much simpler.

It also suggests the the angle of attack is 90deg….NASA recently suggest about 60deg and i have seen others at 45deg…..so much to learn.

http://biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_System_and_Galaxy.html

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs_small/20081009_1600_mdi_mag.gif

Try this: Because the barycenter is mainly determined by Jupiter [apart from the sun, of course] it moves but slowly [12 years to go round - or if you like, the Sun moves but slowly]. Launch a spacecraft from the [almost stationary] barycenter such that the spacecraft’s circular orbit takes it around the Sun. Because of its proximity to the Sun, the spacecraft will move very fast, completing its orbit [and returning to the barycenter] every few hours. Its distance from the Sun’s center is constant, yet “every object in the solar system, no exception, orbits the barycenter”. What does the spacecraft do? does it go around the barycenter in a circular orbit every few hours? yet passes through the very barycenter every few hours.

Well, sorry my wording was imprecise, I give you that. With “every object in the solar system” I meant primary objects gravitationally bound to the solar system, not satellites gravitationally bound to one of the planets for example. The Moon (Luna) does not orbit the solar system barycenter (the Moon-Earth barycenter does). Your spacecraft is similarly a satellite if the Sun.

If you gradually increase the mass of your spacecraft, it will increasingly influence the barycenter position …. your example holds only for neglible mass objects.

I have a small WIP report showing the correlations here http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/gasgiants.pdf

Having said that we know correlation is not cause and thanks Leif for the 10Be data. The Data seems to suggest the 10Be spikes(reverse) are perhaps different to the sunspot spikes in the early 19th century, but maybe not different enough. I am thinking its probably not the most accurate proxy around. I looked over the geomagnetic aa data for the same period the other night and it seemed to line up with the sunspot records very closely…we might not be able to test the ultimate accuracy of Wolf in that period?

Here’s a pic of Leif’s data: http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/leif10bessn.jpg

You can find the 10Be data for every year since 1428 at
http://www.leif.org/research/GCR-10Be-1428-2008.xls

McCracken has calibrated the raw 10Be counts to Neutron Monitor GCR count equivalents [in per cent of the maximum count at current minima]. His data originally had a time shift of two years that he had not taken into account. This comes about because it takes that long for 10Be to fall out of the stratosphere and settling on the surface, while the Neutron Monitors give the GCR flux without delay. The shift was done in 1970-71. It is also very likely [see some of my papers on that on my website, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf ] that the calibration has a shift ~1948, causing by trying to use very old balloon data from the 1930s as calibration points. I have left this error in the data. You can correct it by subtracting 10% from the CR% before 1948 or so.
I also give my list of sunspot numbers and TSI back to 1610. These are my own assessments and must be used at your own risk.

Glenn (16:01:53) : Really? Science works by, well, *working*. This means successful predictions allowing real time usefulness. How you get there is irrelevant, but in the meantime it’s speculation. I suggest you try to support your pet hypothesis on it’s own ground instead of trying to change historical records/data/conflicting evidence/other hypotheses so that yours will look better.

This is just an inane, mean-spirited piece of false reasoning. Glenn, reading your posts, I often wonder who/what you are. Clearly, you are no scientist. Clearly, you lack civility and decorum.

I should not have to politely rebut your illogical diatribe — cleanly penned by one ignorant of, and challenged by, reasoned discussion.

And
Glenn (16:01:53) :
does not deserve further comment at this point.

1. The sunspot cycles do not match up with Barycenter hi and low points.(altho Leif is helping me with 10Be records to confirm the 19th century sunspot records are correct…which i am grateful and see it as helping my pet theory!)

2. If they did line up, why do we get sunspots when the barycenter returns to the center of the sun everytime Saturn apposes Jupiter (this is when the least impact of momentum is occurring) According to the principle we get sunspot peaks when Jupiter/Saturn come together and then again when they appose.

Here is a barycenter chart (built using JPL) where i have plotted the sunspot peaks(approx dates) onto the peaks and troughs in momentum….they are just not lining up.

http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/ssbdates.jpg

You will notice momentum disturbance at 2009, 1970, 1830, 1650 etc, these all occur from Neptune/Uranus conjunction…to me this area is worth investigating as it coincides with “phase catastrophes” that might explain previous and future Grand minmia…and slow downs as in 1970.

John-X (10:56:32) :
Thanks but not thanks for the condescension and conceit.
No need to become hot and bothered and nasty. The “you” was a general you. Not specifically the ‘you’ that is “John-X”. But rather the ‘you’ that covers those that believe that the distance to the Sun should be calculated by assuming the Sun goes around the barycenter, but that the Earth does not. E.g. Carsten, and Alexander et al.

Please, Leif. This is a misrepresentation of what I have said. I have said that every object in the solar system, no exception, orbits the barycenter. This is precisely the reason why it is beyond my understanding how the distance from the Sun to the Earth can be accurately represented by the Earth’s elliptic orbit around the Barycenter.

Glenn (11:33:17) :
If i had clear 10Be records back that far i could verify.
“I’m working on it…”

It seems you are “working on” anything that contradicts your pet hypothesis.

“Yes, that’s how Science works.”

Really? Science works by, well, *working*. This means successful predictions allowing real time usefulness. How you get there is irrelevant, but in the meantime it’s speculation. I suggest you try to support your pet hypothesis on it’s own ground instead of trying to change historical records/data/conflicting evidence/other hypotheses so that yours will look better.

It seems you are “working on” anything that contradicts your pet hypothesis.

Yes, that’s how Science works. What’s in it for you making such a comment? And, more importantly, how do you think the general readership would benefit benefits from your uttering?

The PDO is in “cool mode” which can last up to 30 years and the sun is quiet and looks to stay quiet. Is it possible these 2 factors point to a cooling trend? Would someone with more experience/training take a look?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/fourier/high-pass:2/low-pass:25/inverse-fourier/from:1900/plot/jisao-pdo/fourier/high-pass:2/low-pass:25/inverse-fourier/scale:0.2/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/mean:12/scale:0.005/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/offset:-325/scale:0.01