Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

If the cycle is driven solely by AM, it is AM that defines the cycle, so the solar cycle timing should follow that of the AM cycle. If you go the other way then you are just after rationalizing which has no predictive power. You ‘complexity’ comes precisely from this need to rationalize after the fact. The AM is not complex at all.

The cycle is not driven by AM. AM is a background engine that modulates the cycle and determines grand minima, the sine waves created by AM do not line up with solar cycles. The 11 yr cycle is controlled by other factors not known to any part of science that I have seen, with the exception of a possible link with JEV tides.

If the cycle is driven solely by AM, it is AM that defines the cycle, so the solar cycle timing should follow that of the AM cycle. If you go the other way then you are just after rationalizing which has no predictive power. You ‘complexity’ comes precisely from this need to rationalize after the fact. The AM is not complex at all.

Geoff Sharp (14:09:08) :
The disturbance is in the AM, happening in several places.
The AM [and hence the 'disturbance if there is any] for the last two Jose cycle minima are practically identical:
http://www.leif.org/research/Angular%20Momentum%201800-2060,%20shifted.png
yet the sunspot ‘responses’ are completely difficult:
http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot%20Number%201800-1850%20and%201978-2028.png

Why must we continue to go over the same ground again and again?

Because you fail to understand the complexity of the theory, but thats ok, it takes time. Its not just about the shape of the disturbance. Its also about timing. In 1830 the disturbance occurred early during the cycle. In 2009 we are at the tale end of the cycle and a grand minimum cycle is expected to follow SC23 just as it did with SC4. There is another timing issue I call “Wilson’s Law” which explains why SC7 didnt continue to produce grand minimum type cycles.

A full explanation of “Wilson’s Law” can be found here.

http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/01/11/does-a-spin%E2%80%93orbit-coupling-between-the-sun-and-the-jovian-planets-govern-the-solar-cycle/

The planetary orbits stay unchanged for that long, e.g. the N/U 172 yr average period will not change appreciably.

Of course, but that is one part of the configuration. The J/S being the other that varies every time. This is the crux of the matter and you need to understand this before moving on.

Why must we continue to go over the same ground again and again?

Can we have some comments on why the controlling cycles are so different for the nobrainer and vuk charts? Astronomical cycles tied to the planets should stay unchanged for thousands [if not millions] of years to the accuracy of solar cycles.

Vuk and I are using different planets. I am using them all (J/S/U/N creating 99% of AM) where Vuk is mainly using J/S if I am not mistaken. My controlling factors are the J/S angles as well as the N/U angle which varies every 172 yrs avg. There is a background cycle but it changes, so your statement is not quite correct, it cant stay unchanged for millions of yrs as it is different every cycle.

Formula’s are not my forte but perhaps if Vuk’s formula included some of my control factors it would match the power curve of the 11000 yr 14C record and recent sunspot records and mathematically back up my theory.

Geoff Sharp (17:24:58) :
I have, just not in the terms you expect. AM causes the disturbance which is what needs to be quantified
disturbance in what?

The disturbance is in the AM, happening in several places. The top and bottom of the sine wave is generally “shorter” which can be measured but the all important “camels hump” in the sine wave is more difficult to quantify. The AM measurement in the hump is a vertical measurement, so we would have to work out how those measurements deviate from the sine wave in the vertical and horizontal plane. The J/S angle determines the vertical and horizontal position of the hump. A zero angle (J/S directly opposite N/U) places the hump at the very bottom of the AM curve, if we add some positive angle the hump moves up the right hand side of the sine wave creating a type “A”. If the angle is negative the hump is on the left hand side of the sine wave creating a type “B”.

One of the strongest configurations is shown in this diagram:

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

This is a strong type “A” and is present in all the major grand minima for the last 6000 yrs at least. This cant be a fluke.

My knowledge on these matters is severely limited. Formulae I developed take the most basic and simplistic view of the Sun plus two major planets, as if they were in a single plane, planets with perfect circular orbits. My understanding is, that is not the case, and their heliocentric latitude/longitude relationship is infinitely variable.
99.9% of the current scientific establishment rejects possibility of any suggested connection, and in the 0.1% left may be very few with any interest in the matter, and of those who do have, may not whish to jeopardise their good name in associating themselves with such ideas. Possibly someone with sufficient knowledge and interest, may take a plunge and work out theory if physics does allow for it. For now it is not science, just a speculation and no more.

Can we have some comments on why the controlling cycles are so different for the nobrainer and vuk charts? Astronomical cycles tied to the planets should stay unchanged for thousands [if not millions] of years to the accuracy of solar cycles.

You are absolutely right. This is clearly shown in:

http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif

controlling formula, identifying all anomalies since 1600’s, is based on orbital harmonics (4S & J+U, numbers are rounded off). Pronounced minima around 1800, 1910 and a possible 2020, can also be seen as identical paths on the Carsten’s charts. The original formula was published some 5 years ago:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf

Geoff Sharp (14:53:46) :
based on the strength of the Jupiter/Saturn position of the era.
You have still not defined and quantified the ’strength’ in terms of angular momentum, which is all the Sun can see,

I have, just not in the terms you expect. AM causes the disturbance which is what needs to be quantified, the AM value during the disturbance tells us nothing. Currently this is observed on Carl’s graph and I have summarized the disturbances into 4 categories. Type “A” weak and strong & Type “B” weak and strong. This is also observed in Carsten’s Sim1 and Sim2 programs in the form of altered retrograde motions etc.

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

These categories are more than sufficient when working with grand minima strength, but I will progress to a more analytical quantification in the future to keep the boffins at bay.

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