There is a link to Dr.Howe’s extensive paper on my previous post, where there is some work on how the flows look to be generated at the Tachocline where the Suns own angular spin momentum looks to be involved.

http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/02/25/latest-solar-differential-rotation-information/

Hi Bob
I still look regularly at your SC24 contribution, and admire you patient systematic approach, which I am sure researchers of the future will find useful.
We can only sit and wait to see what happens. It looks to me lot of theories will have to be reassessed, and in hindsight some will tell us they new it all along.
My approach to these maters is purely numerical, I made attempt to link past, present and future with a formula, with an associated graph for visualising, which can always be tested (so no backing out if wrong). Unfortunately they disappeared overnight with a rather popular thread, but if anyone whish to go back, some of the graphs and formulae can be found here:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm

One can examine an infinity of dynamical possibilities for correlations.

Those possibilities have to be within the physics of the dynamical system. For example Svenmark’s hypothesis is a wholly legal hypothesis within the physics dynamics of the sun and earth system to give the cause for a correlation between sun activities and the earth weather. There is no violation of energy or angular momentum conservation or anything like that in the hypothesis of the galactic cosmic rays proposal.

Suppositions of planetary influences on the mass of the sun violate energy conservation (not enough energy in the tides) and angular momentum conservation (virtual points have zero mass and thus no angular momentum) so cannot be rational/acceptable as a suggestion for explaining “observed” correlations . The hypothesis is outside the dynamics of known physics and on the other hand there are ways that known physics could create in these giant clocks over the millenia the correlations seen, without violating the known laws of physics. So these possibilities have to be rejected from first principles.

A viable, but not provable, hypothesis for a causal path of the planet/sun correlations would be postulating new physics , to be found sometime in the future. Not to use angular momentum wrongly. It is like all those people who tried to make their fortune with a perpetual motion machine made of gears and gyroscopes.

Remember, in our reality, the tail does not wag the dog ( that is energy conservation and angular momentum conservation ).

I close on correlations in remembering that my little brother, scared by the noise of a large eucalyptus tree in our back yard during wind storms, urged my father to cut it down, so that the wind would stop. He did believe that the tree was making the wind.

And I think have explained as best as I could so this is my last on the subject for the nonce.

I have found it interesting since the moderators on SC24.com expressed their views on the world, very firmly in the AGW camp and not liking to diverge from the NASA view of solar activity. I had no option but to fall on my sword, I wont be a part of it.

Didn’t get that moderators motivation the first time I heard this and still don’t get it. There are those that should be moderators and then there are those that should not be. Maybe his sweet is washing his drawers in too hot of water. LOL

Possible “shock wave,” around the Maunder, that was interesting Vuk.

So yes, it should be rejected unless a dynamical mechanism is proposed.

I feel a bit hamstrung answering this. I have named the author of the dynamical mechanism proposed, but our host has asked us not to discuss it. I will respect his wishes.

My point is that logically speaking, the fact that correlation is not causation is not a sufficent condition to reject the possibility that the discovered correlation is connected with the uninvestigated potential cause.

Anna:
Correlations are necessary but not sufficient to prove a causal relationship within systems dominated by physics’ mathematical laws.

tallbloke: Do you think this is incompatible with my statement? Or is it just a non sequiteur?

You had said:

“False. The fact that correlations are not causations does not logically lead to the necessary rejection of a correlation as an indicator of a causal relationship.”

In the sense that a correlation is not sufficient to prove a dynamical causation one should reject treating it as if there is a causal link, if no dynamical mechanism exists.

So yes, it should be rejected unless a dynamical mechanism is proposed. As I have said there exist very many correlations that are trivial in the cosmic clocks that the solar system provides.

anna v (07:08:04) :
“Correlations are necessary but not sufficient to prove a causal relationship within systems dominated by physics’ mathematical laws.”

There is more to the movement of solar plasma than ‘tidal force’. In my post
vukcevic (10:51:26) : there are two references to studies from well known solar scientists and equally well known research institutions, perhaps you care to take a look, it might broaden your horizons.

??

What do these links have to do with the price of tea in China?

In other words, of course there are other internal dynamics that govern the solar cycles. I am sure that I gave no reasons for people to think otherwise.

Do you know the difference between necessary and suficient conditions in proving scientific statements?

Yes Ma’am, I studied logic at university.

Correlations are necessary but not sufficient to prove a causal relationship within systems dominated by physics’ mathematical laws.

Do you think this is incompatible with my statement? Or is it just a non sequiteur?

There is more to the movement of solar plasma than ‘tidal force’. In my post
vukcevic (10:51:26) : there are two references to studies from well known solar scientists and equally well known research institutions, perhaps you care to take a look, it might broaden your horizons.

anna v (04:55:06) :
“Of course you must realize that the planets have nothing to do with this physical mechanism…
It is self evident to anybody with a scientific training. Correlations are not causations”

False. The fact that correlataions are not causations does not logically lead to the necessary rejection of a correlation as an indicator of a causal relationship.

Do you know the difference between necessary and suficient conditions in proving scientific statements?

Correlations are necessary but not sufficient to prove a causal relationship within systems dominated by physics’ mathematical laws.

“Correlations are not proof of dynamical mechanisms.”

True, but when the probability of their not being connected becomes as vanishingly small as it does in the case of planetary relations to solar activity, rejecting them rather than accepting the possibility is foolish.

I am becoming boring, but there is a very good correlation between the rate of the moon’s rotation about the earth and the rate of the sun’s rotation about its axis, that would give the same vanishingly small probability I am sure.
It is not possible to accept the possibility that the moon turns the sun ( as the planets turn the sun according to planetary suggestions).

It is possible to think that in the millions of years that the solar system exists, the tides working like the mills of God slowly synchornized the moon to the Sun’s clock.

It is equally probable that the 11 year cycle appearing mainly through Jupiter is due to this also, the tides of the sun on Jupiter synchronizing it , as the sun is so much more massive than Jupiter after all, and it is not the tail that wags the dog, even as slowly as the mills of God.