Geoff Sharp (01:06:30) :
There is a possibility of co-authorship in the wind, and perhaps a conference appearance so perhaps you are right, the remarkable result might pave its own way.
The editor might even ask me to review the paper….

Geoff Sharp (01:06:30) :
However, you should organize your work and try to write some paper and publish it.
————————-
Should be easy for you with such a remarkable result.

There is a possibility of co-authorship in the wind, and perhaps a conference appearance so perhaps you are right, the remarkable result might pave its own way.

In the future, if SC24 turns out to look like the beginning of sunspot sputterings similar to those of the Maunder Minimum, will NOAA’s Solar Cycle Prediction Panel solicit predictions on those sputterings from planetary theorists?

Once the old guard is removed there is no doubt…..

I will treasure this one !

( p.s. but are they any good ? )

Geoff Sharp (17:31:30) :
Scaffetta is not aware of the N/U factor
————
So cannot be agreeing with you. Tell us what his answer to your email is when [if] it arrives.

He agrees and shows the solar modulation caused by the solar distance…that is the crux. The N/U factor will come.

his email reply as follows:

Geoff

I gave a look at your web-site.

I do believe that your web site looks interesting. However, you should organize your work and try to write some paper and publish it.
There are scientific journals that do not ask any fee.

So you may try to prepare a manuscript and submit it.

nicola

Geoff Sharp (00:06:29) :
I noticed in Scafetta’s presentation he agrees with me and shows how solar Angular Momentum/Solar distance to SSB is the driver of the modulation of the solar cycle.
————————————————–
He does not agree with you at all. He refers to Jose. There is no mention of your notion of Neptune/Uranus running the show. Scafetta muses about a 60-year cycle, no 172-year cycle. He draws attention [and mars his presentation] to a 60-yr quasi-period in CMSS and possibly in the LOD. No Grand Minimum.

Leif, your totally missing the point, in another universe in fact. The 1st graph I referred to shows a modulation in the distance of the Sun from the SSB which goes through a sixty year cycle. The amplitude changes when Neptune & Uranus are together every 172 years (2 sep cycles), Scaffetta is not aware of the N/U factor yet but he has shown the result in his graph. I have emailed him and sent some links so hopefully one day he will catch on. Jose’s graph of Sun/SSB distance is almost the same as the AM graph which is also the same as the torque graph, they are all interelated. The AM graph produced by Carl shows extra detail that Jose and Landscheidt could only dream about….that extra detail is the discovery of how N/U control the modulation cycle.

If you understand the theory none of this is hard.

Hathaway: “EARLIER MODELS WERE FATALLY FLAWED.”
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20040428_UTA_Seminar.ppt#14

Is the work (whilst not peer reviewed and validated) not of interest? Here, we take the sunspot cycle, and integrate with a few other parameters such as sea-ice, ENSO, and volanic activity. Add a bit of hysteresis, and hey presto, not a bad fit to Hadley.

Indeed we had major problems with matching some anomalies during the mid part of the last century. It took a while, but fortuntately, another poster found an article that showed the period in question was down to Hadley errors. What’s the chances of finding that?

What’s the chances of using four publicly peer reviewed sets of data and getting a Pearson score of over 90%. I haven’t done the maths yet for the Chi2 analysis, but it’s on it’s way.

You can find it here:http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/51548-climate-modeling-using-a-leaky-integrator/page__view__findpost__p__1518279