Livingston and Penn in EOS: Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?

I wonder how the relatively impressive sunspot group we had in early July fits the trend of decreasing magnetic flux; the paper was written in June.
Since the July sunspot group, we have reached 35 sunspot-free days and counting. If we can make it past 42, this will become a top-ten recorded streak! I for one hope the sun keeps this especially quiet solar minimum going. It’s a great experiment. The more unusual and longer the better. From it we may be able to discern unambiguously the extent to which solar activity influences climate.

Telboy (11:22:00) :
“I’m looking for a premium SUV, with diesel engine and automatic transmission, and can spend up to £40,000. I’m concerned that winters in this country are going to become more severe, due to decreased sunspot activity. The poor state of local roads makes cars like this all the more appealing.”
But the last time the Sun was equally quiet (in terms of spotless days) was 1933 when the global temperature was on a rise leading to a maximum in the early 1940s.

“Kevin Kilty (11:47:33) :
But the last time the Sun was equally quiet (in terms of spotless days) was 1933 when the global temperature was on a rise leading to a maximum in the early 1940s.”
That may be so, but the last time a solar cycle was 12.6 years long was solar cycle 5, which began 211 years ago. (Dalton Minimum)
Solar Cycle 16 began in August 1923 and ended in September 1933 making it 10.1 years long with 568 spotless days during minimum.
SC 23 is currently at least 12.6 years long, and might become even longer if the next 15 days have zero spots.
Remember too that the Layman’s spot count has over 211 spotless days for 2009 so far.
Didn’t the original L&P paper’s extrapolated curve indicate that sunspots should become invisible by 2014?

Kevin Kilty (11:47:33) : wrote
quote But the last time the Sun was equally quiet (in terms of spotless days) was 1933 when the global temperature was on a rise leading to a maximum in the early 1940s. unquote
Before looking for correlations, might I suggest you try to find unmanipulated data? The GISS and HADCRUT graphs have both been severely adjusted — my personal bete noir is the Folland and Parker bucket correction. Without that correction the global increase in temperature is delayed until 1939/40 and the bump associated with the rise peters out — or drops precipitously — in the late forties.
JF

Here is the obvious question, and I’m open to the fact there may be a logical answer. If we can’t find any coorelation between low and high periods of sun spots and earth climate, then how come there is a coorelation between the temperature minimums like Dalton and Maunder and low sun spot activity?

Presumably if there is an effect it’s somewhat diminished by the enormous thermal intertia of the Oceans.

Actually if you look at the linked chart above, 1944 was at 36 days. Since we are now at 35 days, the article is at least slightly incorrect (unless we go another day).
Leif
Do we have a spectrogram of the sun across many wavelengths to look at to compare the sun’s radiant output across a wide spectrum so that we could compare the output during a solar max, to this solar minimum?
You have convinced me that TSI variations may (though there is data from early space experiments that put the average insolation at 1358 per m2) not be enough to cause swings in climate. However, I am still intrigued with the idea of coupling factors between the radiant output of the sun and the absorption of this radiant output in the Earth’s atmosphere.
We know from a USAF mission designed to measure this, that the Earth’s atmosphere has contracted more than at any time in the space age. This is interesting and possibly significant. It would be interesting to see what the average global lightning energy is at this time versus what it was during the last solar max. I think that there is a mission measuring this flying today.
Lets start to look at these differences between the Earth during solar max and this extended solar minimum to see what influences may be apparent during this period that may not have been during previous short period minimums.

SOHO was not in space in the 30’s. What can be seen by SOHO and telescopes of the 30’s is different. Also, SOHO is never affected by clouds, humidity, night, etc.

@ Sandy in Derby
Battle of the Ardennes was 1944/5 ; (had to have D-Day first), but yes, your point is still valid. The “Band of Brothers” episode featuring it made me turn the heating up!

Dennis,
People also argue that rather than sun spot number (solar activity) it is length of the cycle that holds the effect. Then there are those who argue for the effect of energy outside the visible spectrum, and so on. I’m not a solar physicist, so I haven’t any way to discuss what else may be associated with events like the Dalton and Maunder minima. My suspicion is that we are looking at only two solar events and two periods of abnormal cooling so there might easily be confounding factors in each case. Perhaps Leif can tell us briefly if there are other mechanisms afoot in these events that make them unlike a typical minimum, or the possibility of unknown mechanisms in solar behavior.

So, I am to take it that either one must believe in some solar variation as explanation of climatic variation, OR, one must believe that CO2 inspired greenhouse effect does it, but nothing in addition or in between?
Highlander is right to point out that all sorts of climate variations occur when it is impossible for human beings to be the cause. But he is wrong to to label persons as being in one camp or the other, or any camp at all, because they point out discrepancies with favored theories.

Two years of extremely low sunspot activity and temperatures are, according to satellite measurements, still above the last 30 years average (which includes 1998). Surely some mistake? Clearly the sun-worshippers will now have to look for a new God.
“the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1933”. And this would also be around the time when the USA had temperatures higher than in 1998? Oh dear.

Anthony,
I understand that you were instrumental in installing the ‘weather station’ at the Forest Ranch School. I am coordinating the After School Program at the After School Program at the charter school and would love to get the program up and running again. Is there any way you would be able to help or put me in touch with someone who could help?
Thank you.
Beth Wattenberg (tel: 342-9552)
P.S. I could not activiate the comment ‘section’ by clicking below the banner, thus I had to send it this circuitous way.
[REPLY – I sent this along to Anthony, direct. ~ Evan]

Getting back on topic, I know of the association of sun spot cycle length with earth temperature, but I wish someone could provide a mechanism, a theory, of why this should be so.
Let’s assume for a moment that the global temperature data are not manipulated, but rather are pointing to a true tend–even if the trend is perhaps not exactly the correct magnitude.
When I first read that the last such solar sunspot number minimum occurred in 1933 I immediately recalled that the 1930s in the U.S. were warm, and I was surprised to see the global temperature as simply on the rise to a peak in the early 1940s. On the other hand, despite the 1940s peak, many Europeans recall cold years, and we all know about the exceptionally awful weather around D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge. The old timers in the western U.S. still talk about the winter of 1948-1949, which on the global temperature chart is warmer than the 1930s and so forth.
This emphasizes a point I often make to my students, and which I see Pielke, Sr. also talks about. Regional variations matter more than global ones because they are more extreme. In fact I would add that it is actually regional drought and regional cold temperature that are more worrisome than global warmth, because these have huge impact on food supplies. People will no doubt try to claim that global warming will lead to regional cooling and drought; but from where I sit right now, a little more CO2 (which makes plants somewhat more drought tolerant) and a bit more warmth seems desireable compared to alternatives.

Kevin,
you are right, of course. Too many cycles within cycles. Too many wheels within wheels. Too much “business” goin on. If you married the daughter of Rube Goldberg to the son of Archimedes they couldn’t produce a more complicated mess than is “Climate.”
I remember reading at Climate Science (I think it was) of an area of China that went through a 400 year drought, while an area a few hundred miles away was going through “wet, and cold.” Then, the whole thing reversed, for another 400 years.
We’ve come through 30 years of “short, sweet” solar cycles, a positive PDO, and accelerated CO2 accumulation. Now, the PDO is positive, we have, at least, one long solar cycle, and CO2 is still increasing (although, only 1.43 ppm in the last 12 months.)
So, we shall see, eh?

Oops, that was CO2 Science, not Climate Science.

Kevin Kilty (14:48:37) :
You may not have sen the video “The Cloud Mystery”. It shows the work of Henrik Svensmark and what he has found about the sun and clouds.
5 part YouTube series starting with this :

Jack Barnes (14:55:08) :
“Speaking about winters in WW2. There is an argument, that the significant cooling experienced during WW2,”
As I recall during WW II, most people were burning coal in their furnaces and in the winter time the snow was covered with soot. These carbon emissions apparently were not significant enough to affect the temperature.

Dennis Wingo (13:17:20) :
We know from a USAF mission designed to measure this, that the Earth’s atmosphere has contracted more than at any time in the space age. This is interesting and possibly significant. It would be interesting to see what the average global lightning energy is at this time versus what it was during the last solar max. I think that there is a mission measuring this flying today.
This sounds quite interesting. I know that expansion of the upper atmosphere leads to abnormal decay of satellite orbits. Can you supply any link to a description of the mission or its results? Thanks.

Dear me.
I don’t know who advanced the idea that naval munitions in WW2 could have caused excess water mixing in the oceans but either he/she was woefully ill informed or was, as we say over here, extracting the Michael.
Ocean mixing to great depths is caused by water wave action which is why the thermocline does not begin until depths of the order of several hundred metres.
I know there is a popular idea that somehow there is a warm and very thin skin of water at the surface where it is irradiated which might be true in a glass of water but is not true in the open ocean where very fast wave driven mixing occurs at the surface. In open ocean wave mixing action also occurs both by day and night.
The waves are of course driven by the winds which themselves are driven by the convection currents in the atmosphere and displaced by the Coriolis force due to the rotation of the earth
These forces are enormous as anyone who has been in the way of a hurricane knows, and on a global sale a hurricane is just a tiny local disturbance, yet people grossly underestimate the sheer scale of them.
I calculate, admittedly on the back of an envelope using some heroic assumptions , that if you exploded all the munitions navy, army and air, exploded in WW2, including the two atomic bombs, and detonated them underwater simultaneously, they might release in an instant about one thousandth of the work done in one hour by the wave mixing action around the open oceans of the globe.
The precision of the calculation is very poor, probably by at least three magnitudes either way, and possibly considerably more, but hey what’s a few magnitudes between friends?
It is however sufficient to say that the effect of the munitions would be negligible. So I do not propose to pursue it any further.
But does that put the scale of natural forces compared to manmade ones in proportion for you?
Kindest Regards

And what supplies the oceans with heat energy? How long does the ocean store heat energy?

That’s a good question and it’s one that I think is ok to answer with, “I don’t know”. I can only go on gut instinct here, because I’m not familiar enough with the science. Given the biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, sun, solar-system and extra solar influences all play a part (perhaps) in regulating Earth’s heat balance, I find it hard to see where any one particular effect dominates. Perhaps the fact of the matter will be found in a different century – probably the next.

The influence of the sun can’t be dismissed, as warmists would have us believe. And other celestial bodies are implicated in long-term climatic history, but the proponents of AGW are assaulting real science on a grand scale if it may contradict AGW by any stretch of the imagination.
Here we have a theory based on real evidence that explains the fragmentation of the Clovis culture and the mass extinction of large animals on the North American continent. If you have been watching Time Team America, the researchers have also located this layer of carbon rich soil, and have observed the sudden disappearance of Clovis artifacts about 13,000 years ago.
Did A Comet Hit Great Lakes Region, Fragment Human Populations, 12,900 Years Ago?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070523094009.htm
The next year more scientific evidence is uncovered…
Exploding Asteroid Theory Strengthened By New Evidence Located In Ohio, Indiana
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080702160950.htm
And this year conclusive evidence is uncovered to add weight to the meteor impact theory…
Six North American Sites Hold 12,900-year-old Nanodiamond-rich Soil
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090101172136.htm
Note that none of these discoveries is in direct conflict with AGW. But along comes this study that attempts to cast aside all previous findings with a wave of the hand. And on top of it, it substitutes global warming theory, as if all other realities of science must be discredited in order for the religion of AGW to prevail…
12,900 Years Ago: North American Comet Impact Theory Disproved
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090126173729.htm

Kevin Kilty (11:47:33) :
The 1933 record was after the spotless streak had ended.
Right now, this is 2009 and it’s still nowhere near the end.
We are as close to the bottom as any cycle has ever been.

SandyInDerby (13:07:30) :
What you are seeking is a reference point. Climate always contains noise, and that noise is annual instances of Weather. If you start from a reference point higher or lower than today’s global temp, the annual instances of weather will take you much higher or much lower given the opportunity of contructve interference with regards to this current climate.

What determines the temperature of the water on the abyssal plains?

Using a spotless streak to in an attempt to align two similar solar cycles is fraught with danger. There are so many different ways of determining the parameters and if comparing annual totals timing of the cycle becomes the most important issue.
If I compare the Layman’s count from June 2008 to June 2009 we get 349 spotless days, that’s 16 days with spots over 12 months, as Wolf might have counted it 200 years prior.
We would most likely have to go back to the Maunder or Dalton days to get another minimum with so few spots.
L&P are probably observing a grand minimum along with us for the first time. My guess for a more likely candidate to compare SC24 with is SC5, along with the temperature record of the two era’s.
Layman’s July update here:
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

Kum Dollison (14:52:59) :
We’ve come through 30 years of “short, sweet” solar cycles, a positive PDO, and accelerated CO2 accumulation. Now, the PDO is positive, we have, at least, one long solar cycle, and CO2 is still increasing (although, only 1.43 ppm in the last 12 months.)
So, we shall see, eh?
If there were only these three factors involved, and no noise of any sort, then, yes, we’d have the entry in the table of contrasts needed to unravel the effect of solar cycle length. But I fear there are more factors, and noise galore. The weather/climate is so accursedly ornery.

crosspatch (18:39:28) :
“Right now, this is 2009 and it’s still nowhere near the end.”
And you know that how?
Digging.
1.) The flux is currently on a long roll back down. For previous minimums take a look here:
http://www.solen.info/solar/history/
2,) The flux ususally needs to roll on up to ~ 80 to get going on the ramp angle. It has not done that yet.
3.) Compare 1901 and 1913 area measurements and umbral/penumbral sizes with 2008:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_REGIONS/GREENWICH/DAILY/1901.sum
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_REGIONS/GREENWICH/DAILY/1913.sum
ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/data/dDPD2008.txt
4.) Dearth of large white-light faculae in this minimum.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin3.htm
compared to other minimums. Long valley to climb out of.
5.) Mt. Wilson Magnetic Strength Index and Sunspot Index in a deep hole:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_data.html#plots
Long valley to climb out of.
6.) Penumbra only spots in relative abundance: 2008 vs 1996 and 1986:
ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/data/dDPD1986.txt
ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/data/dDPD1996.txt
ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/data/dDPD2008.txt

Ive noticed the F10.7 has dropped below the pink curvy line again on Leif’s page.. so much for the start of activity. Seems like that one southern spot is going to be the biggest we see for a while to come to. Back to holes going round and round. So I guess we shall see if theres a lag time for cooler temps or if this summers weird jet stream was somehow influenced by lack of solar activity. .. so many possibilities.

The comment was:
—————-
Kevin Kilty (14:48:37) :
Getting back on topic, I know of the association of sun spot cycle length with earth temperature, but I wish someone could provide a mechanism, a theory, of why this should be so.
Let’s assume for a moment that the global temperature data are not manipulated, but rather are pointing to a true tend–even if the trend is perhaps not exactly the correct magnitude. […]
—————-
Where you —and many others— go ‘wrong’ is just this: You’re looking for a DIRECT affect, and ~not~ the cumulative one.
.
Here’s the deal, in a word: Hysteresis.
.
From the American Heritage English Dictionary:
—————-
hys·ter·e·sis
n. pl. hys·ter·e·ses
The lagging of an effect behind its cause, as when the change in magnetism of a body lags behind changes in the magnetic field.
—————-
.
The Sun’s heat affects the Earth in a tangental sort of way by dint of the layers of ‘insulating’ atmosphere.
.
You must begin to think in terms of BOTH time AND temperature in order to factor in how both will affect what happens over time.
.
Only certain bands of radiant energy are allowed more transmission than others through the atmosphere which is why certain clear days appear warmer than others, depending upon the character of the intervening atmosphere.
.
If the effects are averaged out over the long term, then it may be said that the hysteresis effect affords a degree of buffering which prevents all of the layers of atmosphere from becoming warmed or cooled at the same rate at the same rate and at the time.
.
Since neither the atmosphere nor the oceans —or any other body of water— may ‘store energy,’ but merely absorb, and then release energy at the same rates, then it may be said that the =DEGREE= of absorption is =COMPLETELY= predicated upon the energy impinging upon them and their ability to absorb energy at their natural rate.
.
Ergo, the longer a body of whatever material is exposed to a certain temperature, the closer that body comes to equaling that temperature, presuming of course, that all of the impinging energy is absorbed and not reflected.
.
The hysteresis effect comes in here: It takes a certain amount of energy to overcome resistance to change, but once that resistance is overcome, change happens quickly — up to a point. Beyond that point more energy does not equal the same rate of change.
.
In fact, more energy equals less change, if only that beyond a certain point no more energy can be absorbed by the system. This is referred to as ‘saturation.’
.
In our case, saturation would be: Boiling oceans.
.
If the source of the energy is removed, then the release of the absorbed energy happens at the very same rate as when it was absorbed, only this time, the hysteresis effect takes place in reverse: The rate of release is slow at first, and then once it gets underway the release of energy happens as quickly as it did as when it was being absorbed.
.
All of that presumes there is no resistance to the release of energy, i.e., an insulative buffer between something and nothing. In our case we have relatively ‘thick’ atmosphere which interferes with the release, as well as with the absorption.
If there is an intervening area of atmosphere which happens to be absorbing the released energy, but does not do so at the release rate of the source (body of water) then the ambient temperature will be higher than had the intervening atmosphere (clouds) not been there.
.
A very classic case of that is in winter with overcast skies in the night periods, with the Earth radiating released energy, and the clouds reflecting that amount which they cannot absorb and release readily causing the intervening atmosphere to be warmer than it would have been otherwise.
.
Thence we arrive at the Sun spots and the radiation associated with them.
.
It should have been obvious by this time that the spots are an indication of a physical character change in the Sun’s thermal/radiance signature across all bands of radiated energy.
.
And why wouldn’t they? Virtually ~every~ physical system has one or another ‘status’ indicator, indicative of something. Why would not the sun?
.
We would be foolish to ignore the signs …

Moscow station anomaly 15 may
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm

The remarks were:
———————-
Leif Svalgaard (23:27:34) :
In the ‘Ocean Heat’ thread it was argued that direct measurements “eliminated the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred”, thus no hysteresis effect is observed.
———————-
Correct me —should I be wrong— but direct measurement does not factor in the cumulative. Rather, all it reveals is a certain state at a certain moment in time.
.
For example: Merely measuring the electrical potential on a capacitor’s terminals does not reveal ~how much~ charge is there. To determine the quantity of charge requires one to know more than a few things about its construction and capacity.
.
And besides, do the ‘direct measurements’ also measure every other band of energy?
.
Or do they merely ‘look’ at a certain band?

I would be wary of describing such an action as hysteresis, that suggests a conversion of energy into heat over a cyclical reversal, such as the loss of energy in your electrical transformer each time the electrical current and thus magnetic field reverses: which loss appears as warming of the iron core of the transformer.
It is however fair to say that the mechanism by which the oceans adsorb and store incident radiant energy falling on their surface, and so warm, is probably not the same as that by which they give up their stored energy in the form of heat to the atmosphere.
Contrary to the blithe assumptions made by students and modellers of climate I suggest it is a highly non linear process. The oceans are not some kind of electric night storage heater.
True in the short term, night and day, this non linearity is probably unimportant, as it might be over the seasons too. But over longer time scales, decades or even centuries, it may produce significant effects. Unfortunately we do not have sufficiently good instrumentation to measure whether this is so nor can I yet estimate to any useful degree of precision how great the effect might be.
However I surmise that major changes of the energy stored over very long periods in the oceans would not necessarily appear as increases and decreases in temperature in the well mixed surface layer but rather in its depth above the thermocline.
The amount of energy stored as heat in this way is enormous so even a change of depth of a few meters in this depth of the surface layer around the world represents, on a global scale, a huge amount of energy.
But at the moment we cannot for all practical purposes measure or even reliably estimate this variation: although it unquestionably exists, we know that from submarine data, perhaps the Argo floats may tell us more in time.
I further propose that it is the combination of the circular mixing action produced by wave action and the circular mixing processes produced by convection that creates a non linearity.
From which I deduce that if energy is being lost from the surface of the ocean, by whatever means, these two processes combine releasing energy to the surface from the depths of the well mixed surface layer rapidly whereas if the water is being warmed by incident radiation at the surface the convective process opposes the mixing process produced by the waves.
The ratio between the two is quite large, at the moment based on wholly inadequate experimental and virtually non existent observed data, I estimate it to be slightly less than a magnitude but somewhat more than two.
Which is a large range of error to be sure.
Close to the surface wave mixing is predominant whereas at the onset of the thermocline the convective process becomes so powerful that it effectively blocks further heat transfer by mixing downwards. So for all practical purposes any warming of the water at greater depths either comes from conduction, and water is a poor conductor, or from heat released from the earth’s core.
Effectually, if I am correct, this means the oceans are very good at releasing stored heat into a cooling atmosphere and do so very rapidly, but they are very poor at adsorbing it from the incident radiation falling on their surface so it takes a great deal of time for them to store energy in the well mixed surface layer compared to the speed with which they can release it.
What this means for the climate I really do not know other than that I am sure it is very important. Again I must stress that temperature is not everything, changes in the depth of the well mixed surface layer may be as or even more important.
It has taken me a long time to get some kind of grip on the problem, the data both observed and experimental is so scanty and imprecise, that until recently it has been impossible to produce any kind of useful figures. And even those are pretty dodgy.
However I progress, however slowly.
Kindest Regards

Jeff Alberts (22:00:03) : Will it get colder? Will it get warmer? Will it stay the same? Does anyone really know?
Fascinating discussion at Jeff Id’s Air Vent on Scafetta’s work, showing a far greater solar influence (35% to 65%) on global climate than IPCC allows. The 30-year warming, 30-year cooling cycle is the most obvious evidence from the basic IPCC global temperature chart. Scafetta’s work is well grounded in evidence and discussion of satellite measurement problems. With this, Scafetta’s ability to hindcast is considerable, and likewise, I have to respect the possibility of good forecast.
Also, here’s ****another cracking article*** by Dr Richard Mackey, just out, drawing on Livingston and Penn.

Village Plank 3:19:36
That’s excellent, but one might suspect that the involvement of sea ice after 1970 had an inordinate effect on the curve. Or not. On Donder, on Dalton, on Eddy, Go Flo.
========================================

Slightly OT?
My guess for a layman’s explanation of events needed for a Dalton or Maunder type minimum is for all of the following to occur more or less at the same time: Earth to Sun apogee, solar minimum such as we are experiencing now (or worse), negative PDO, La Nina. (any more events needed here?)
Question; Can a combination of 2 or more of these events act as a trigger for the rest causing a “cascading” decline?
Can I be fairly confident in saying that the only “tipping point” we are likely experience is into an ice age? In other words; there is no warm tipping point; Only cold.
Thanks.

Lots of interesting reading in this thread! The extended solar minimum continues, and could end in a Dalton-like minimum according to dr C de Jager in this paper: http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-forecasting-jastp-71-239.pdf . He writes: “This transition started in 2000 and it is expected to end around the maximum of cycle 24, foreseen for 2014, with a maximum sunspot number Rmax = 68+-17. At that time a period of lower solar activity will start. That period will be one of regular oscillations, as occured between 1730 and 1923. The first of these oscillations may even turn out to be as strongly negative as around 1810, in which case a short Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton might develop. This moderate-to-low-activity episode is expected to last for at least one Gleissberg cycle (60-100 years).”
Hmm, I’m feeling cold already. Another interesting paper is one by Wilson, Carter and Waite called “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?” and can be found here: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf . They write : “Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (∼22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.”
The idea that the sunspot cycle is governed by the large planets in the system is of course not new, but this paper seems to me have more weight than others I have read derived from Dr. Landscheidt’s work. A rather new article on the subject can be found here: http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/11/06/are-neptune-and-uranus-the-major-players-in-solar-grand-minima/ . The author finds that certain planetary configurations occur in the Grand Minima periods, and writes: “Every 179 yrs Neptune & Uranus gather behind Jupiter (the largest gravity source besides the Sun) giving it extra momentum force and IF Saturn is on the other side of the Sun, the “down” cycle is shortened and not as weak because of the reduced momentum to Saturn….this coincides every time with less sunspot activity for the last 1000 yrs at least.”
However, approximately the same configuration occured in 1970 (a good way to show planetary configurations at various dates is using this site: http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html “) and nothing in particular happened. Anyway, looking at this year and going forward this approximate planetary configuration will last a few years so this might also indicate a period of quiet sun.
Dr Svalgaard is no fan of Landscheidt as I understand it, but I would be grateful for a comment on the other papers I have cited.

Svempa (05:59:18) :
However, approximately the same configuration occured in 1970 (a good way to show planetary configurations at various dates is using this site: http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html “) and nothing in particular happened.
Thanks for referencing my work, but I think you might be missing what actually happened in 1970. The previous cycle was the highest recorded in 400 years, but soon after the next cycle took a severe dive. Most of the IPCC crew at the time were predicting a return to an ice age, the solar pole strength also took a severe dive and hovered around zero. The world temperature trends went into decline.
Every 172 years on average the sun is presented with at least 3 chances of a solar grand minimum. Those chances can be quantified and SC20 was quite weak when compared to the last 400 years. The timing is the issue and SC20 was way too late, SC24 is not late and the strength is considered moderate, so this 2nd attempt should prove fruitful. This time around the 3rd opportunity will probably fade to nothing, so lets enjoy it now as the next grand minimum is not likely until 2190 and it will be weaker than what we will observe over the next 30 years.

Brandon Dobson (18:02:03) :
LaViolette and Firestone – West papers both proposed this theory years ago, but both had added trigger events due to the vast discrepancies in the dates obtained using isotopic ratios, even at the same sight. This was seen as evidence of neutron bombardment causing artificial enrichment of the isotopic ratios, an effect that is the basis of the neutron activation analysis method. LaViolette proposed that the neutron event was caused by a massive CME actually entering the atmosphere over the Great Lakes. Firestone-West proposed gamma rays, as the result of a nearby supernova, caused the isotopic ratio discrepancies. Both suggested an event outside of the solar system was the cause of the meteor impacts AND changes in solar activity, leading to the Younger-Dryas. It should be obvious why AGW will never touch those two theories – they both cast doubt on the use of isotopic ratios, they both have solar and extra-solar connections as causes of climate change, and neither one mentions CO2.

Same paper, more spectacular conclusions”
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2452/Astronomers-Suns-output-may-decline-significantly-inducing-another-little-ice-age-on-the-Earth

Hi All-
1 Assuming a sun/climate connection exists, doesn’t an extended sunspot minimum just mask the effects of increasing greenhouse gases, and “set us up for the big one” when solar activity increases again, as it has every eleven years or so for the past several hundred years?
2 Helioseismology predicts that the next sunspot cycle will be a whopper, but just start a little late. The National Science Foundation has released their first ever prediction of sunspot activity. They claim to be able to “see” the jet streams inside the sun, using helioseismology:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=105844&org=olpa&from=news

March 6, 2006
The next sunspot cycle will be 30 to 50 percent stronger than the last one, and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. The research results, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA, were published on-line on March 3 in the American Geophysical Union journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Scientists now predict that the next cycle, known as Cycle 24, will produce sunspots across an area slightly larger than 2.5 percent of the visible surface of the Sun. The cycle is projected to reach its peak about 2012, one year later than indicated by alternative forecasting methods that rely on statistics.
By analyzing recent solar cycles, the scientists also hope to forecast sunspot activity two solar cycles, or 22 years, into the future. The team is planning in the next year to issue a forecast of Cycle 25, which will peak in the early 2020s.
The researchers expect that predicting the Sun’s cycles years in advance will lead to more accurate plans for solar storms, which can slow satellite orbits, disrupt communications, and bring down power systems.
The team has verified the information by using the relatively new technique of helioseismology, based in part on observations from NASA instruments. This technique tracks sound waves reverberating inside the Sun to reveal details about the interior, much as a doctor might use ultrasound to see inside a patient.
“Forecasting the solar cycle will help society anticipate solar storms,” says Paul Bellaire, program director in NSF’s division of atmospheric sciences, which funded the research. “Important discoveries are being made using helioseismology. Through this technique, we can image even the far side of the Sun.”
The scientists gained additional confidence in the forecast by showing that the newly developed model could simulate the strength of the past eight solar cycles with more than 98 percent accuracy.
“The model has demonstrated the necessary skill to be used as a forecasting tool,” says NCAR scientist Mausumi Dikpati, the leader of the forecast team at NCAR’s High Altitude Observatory. The team also includes NCAR scientists Peter Gilman and Guiliana de Toma.
“This is a significant breakthrough with important applications, especially for satellite-dependent societies,” says Gilman.

Svempa (05:59:18) :
Planetary influence on the solar activity is readily rejected by current science, not for lack of correlation, but for lack of convincing mechanism, although early pioneers of solar science were firmly convinced of the link. No research in the subject would be considered seriously if a word planet is included, especially a reference to Jupiter.
Some 6 years ago, I managed to publish a short article, by excluding all offending words but all numbers are there.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
During last year or so, I attempted to make some progress, but alas not much. However I have come up with an alternative view, which comes to a similar conclusion as the Livingston-Penn observations, but be warned it is considered ‘worthless numerology’ by the expert on the blog.
Here are some graphs you may amuse yourself if you have time to waste, but be warned it is not considered to be science:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1Cr.gif
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-strength.gif
You can find more here:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarcurrent.pdf
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarsubcycle.pdf

Leland Palmer (10:55:20) :
That 2006 article is now somewhat of a joke, as the minimum has gone on and on. A lot of iron-clad, sure-fire, this-one-will-never-miss solar predictions have gone the way of all flesh.
As far as a runaway greenhouse effect resuming and Venus-like conditions ensuing, well, those predictions or projections (whatever you wish to call them) fared no better. 30 years ago, Hansen, AGW’s chief proponent issued projections that failed to be within the ballpark. Ditto for 20 years ago. And 10 years ago? Well, no AGW activist predicted the global temperatures going flat or cooling.
No one credible contests that increasing carbon from 350 ppm to 400 ppm causes some warming, the question is degree. If there’s a negative feedback loop with water vapor (or just none), than that degree will be so small as to be undetectable amid random fluctuations.
So with each alarmist prediction farther off and more strident than the last, I wouldn’t worry too much about the “big one”.

The remarks were:
—————-
x> Leif Svalgaard (00:53:22) :
y>Highlander (00:16:29) :
Correct me —should I be wrong— but direct measurement does not factor in the cumulative. Rather, all it reveals is a certain state at a certain moment in time.
-> If you measure the temperature of what is being heated, that shows the cumulative: I put a kettle of water on the stove, it accumulates heat and boils, and i can make tea due to the accumulated heat.
This is what the Ocean Heat Content is computed from.
—————-
Not to put too fine a point on this matter …
Yes, but: You’re not using the ocean to make your tea, and the ocean isn’t on the top of a stove.
.
In the finite sense, the pot of water is uniquely measurable by dint of the fact that the ~entire~ contents are almost all the same temperature everywhere because it is being heated from below, and almost uniformly at that.
.
However, since that ~isn’t~ the case with the oceans —if we neglect geothermal sources— then =any= thermal measurement of the oceans will of necessity be unique to the spot at which it was measured and =NOT= the oceans in their entirety.
.
So, once again: Any direct measurement of temperature of whatever ocean is largely nought but a spot measurement, i.e., one cannot remark with any degree of certainty precisely what the cumulative heat load (quantity of charge) is, not even at the location of the measurement.
.
And finally, your pot of water is —for all intents and purposes— an upside down ocean where the Sun/heat source is concerned.

This pertains to the upper atmosphere, the thermosphere, where it is important to the USAF, but no such effect has taken place in the lower atmosphere where we live.
Leif
You are being slightly disengenous here. We currently do not understand how changes in the thermosphere effect lower levels of the atmosphere. There is a large swath between the thermosphere and the stratosphere that has the joking name of the “ignorosphere” as it is too low to be sampled by satellites and too high to be sampled by balloons. Sounding rockets have been the normal means of sampling this region, but the rockets themselves have an effect on the environment so the readings have never been all that good.
This is why I made the comment about lightning. We know, due to research on the Sprites and other vertical lighting phenomenon that there is a connection between the ionosphere and the troposphere in regards to electrical energy transfer. It would be interesting to see if the magnitude of lightning has decreased as a result of a lower level of electrical activity in the ionosphere, due to the lower sunspot cycle.
The bottom line is that we don’t know what the effects are as we have not even known of (more correctly stated is that we had not measured) some of the major phenomenon such as vertical lightning for that long (less than 20 years), that we know is connected with strong storm activity. This is certainly a connection between the higher levels of the atmosphere and the lower ones, so to make a blanket statement that there is no effect is putting something definitive on something that most certainly is not.

Livingston and Penn in EOS: Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?
Why is this happening?
What could possibly be going on inside or outside of the Sun to cause spots to fade over the course of many years?

The influence mostly goes upwards. Upwards travelling waves and charges from tropospheric thunderstorms modify the upper layers more more than the other way around. The original question was about the ’shrinking’ of the ‘atmosphere’.
It is the same thing. If the atmosphere shrinks significantly, then there is a change in the dielectric constant between the stratosphere and the ionosphere. Tesla proved over 100 years ago that at altitudes above 30,000 feet that the atmosphere is substantially conductive.
Again, I would just like to see the data from a lightning sensor to see if there have been any changes due to a reduction in the charge on the ionosphere (principally the E1 and D layer) driven by the reduction in solar activity. I doubt seriously that anyone has done that.
Is it of more than academic interest? Who knows, until we look at the data. In my free time between 3 and 6 am that is.

The remarks were:
———-
Dennis Wingo (19:31:31) :
The influence mostly goes upwards. Upwards travelling waves and charges from tropospheric thunderstorms modify the upper layers more more than the other way around. The original question was about the ’shrinking’ of the ‘atmosphere’.
It is the same thing. If the atmosphere shrinks significantly, then there is a change in the dielectric constant between the stratosphere and the ionosphere. Tesla proved over 100 years ago that at altitudes above 30,000 feet that the atmosphere is substantially conductive.
Again, I would just like to see the data from a lightning sensor to see if there have been any changes due to a reduction in the charge on the ionosphere (principally the E1 and D layer) driven by the reduction in solar activity. I doubt seriously that anyone has done that.
Is it of more than academic interest? Who knows, until we look at the data. In my free time between 3 and 6 am that is.
———-
I’m going to think that there’s some research which has been done.
.
When I was still serving in the USN, I viewed a film clip —back around 1969 or so— which discussed using radar to determine the various ionospheric layers, their thicknesses and heights for the purposes of communications.
.
I’d be willing to hazard a guess on or another radar is still in operation and data is being collected somewhere …

I’m going to take it as gospel that the underlying cause of so much talk about how the Sun affects/cannot possibly affect Earth, is proven/cannot be proven, assumed/claimed and a dozen other tussles is that nobody is challenging the Sun presently on the hazy edge of slipping into some sort of Grand Minimum.
So, it’s a done deal. The Sun’s course is locked in.
Next stop, The Grand Minimum Eddy.
Step aside, boys, she’s bearing down on us like a freight train with no brakes on a steep grade.

Right. A Baby Grand Minimum. If it gets only to 4.5 active regions max.
Grand Daddy Minimum doesn’t do size small. Dalton is 50/12 or less.
Only the package we are getting doesn’t have size lables on it just yet.
Now, back to the original query.
Why is this happening?
Internal or External, and what do we see that might us so.

Leif Svalgaard (22:16:53)
Yes, it missed us, otherwise we wouldn’t have seen it in profile so well. Did you have a good look at the mpegs for Aug 11 & 12 ?

The remarks were:
———-
Robert Bateman (23:00:41) :
evanmjones (22:35:58) :
All the Sun has to do is continue to drag it’s feet the way it has been doing the last 2.5+ years. Yes, it is certainly well within the possible.
Without the knowledge of why it’s being a stubborn mule about it, we are not able to say how long it will continue to do so.
So, maybe some of you out there have ideas you’d like to discuss.
———-
Has there been anyone taking pictures of the Sun on an hourly basis, not unlike the NOAA sats which take pictures of the weather (visible, jet stream, temp, etc.)?
.
I’m curious as to whether there has been anyone doing such observations continually, and whether they’ve noted any peculiarities, irregularities, or other anomalies.
.
After all this time, surely someone would have noted ~something~ …
.
But I will guess that if all one is looking for is pimples on someone’s face, that one might miss the forest for the trees.
.

The comment was:
———-
Hank Hancock (00:22:48) :
This may be slightly OT.
———-
Probably no more than any other post … 🙂
.
Otherwise, I would remark just this: If you are given a basket full of possibilities, and someone asks that you toss out those which you ~feel~ aren’t considered worthwhile, do you:
.
[A] Resort to personal bias and dump the least thought of, based upon ‘feelings’?
.
OR
.
[B] Keep the whole and tell the charlatan to get lost?

wow…I think the doctor has lost the plot.

Dr Svalgaard, thank you for your comment. But I must say I am not completely convinced. Of course we all know that the influence the planets have on the Sun is infinitesimal. But it is not zero, and is enough to force the Sun into a complex (but small) orbit around the barycenter. As previously mentioned in this thread a correlation has been found between climate and the speed of the Sun in this orbit. But I am more interested in proof (or disproof) of how the sunspot cycle is governed by the planets.
Diligently searching for more information I have come across two recent papers on the subject. One by Hung (2007): http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Apparent%20Relations%20between%20Solar%20Activity%20and%20Solar%20Tides%20Ching-Cheh%20Hung.pdf and one by Wilson (2008): http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/wilson/Syzygy.pdf . Wilson refers to the paper by Hung, and both are trying to find a correlation between the sunspot cycles and the conjunctions of Earth, Venus and Jupiter.
I must say I am fascinated by the impressive results presented in both papers. And Hung has a few ideas about how such small tidal forces can affect the Sun (page 19) that sound reasonable to me. Also he writes something interesting at the end : “Looking into the future, it is nearing the solar minimum now (summer 2007), but the planet alignment will not reach minimum until 2012 (fig. 4). The apparent mismatch between these two minima would indicate these two cycles are out of step, and therefore a low sunspot number would be forecasted in the coming solar cycle 24, unless the current solar minimum would last for a few more years to reduce this mismatch.”
Wilson gives credit to Hung for his work and his findings support Hung’s conclusions, but he ends up with a prognosis of an “Oort-like minimum in solar activity which will last from 2005-2045”.
So evidently the basic idea of the planets influencing and perhaps controlling the sunspot cycle is not dead, despite being rejected by most serious solar scientists, but alive and kicking more than ever.

I would also like to thank Carsten Arnholm, Geoff Sharp and vukcevic for their comments. Carsten, vukevic, the material presented in your links was interesting to read but not entirely convincing. Geoff, naturally I have read all your material at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com as well as other papers written by Dr Landscheidt.

Leif Svalgaard (07:58:40) :
You can do better…the freefall argument is getting tired. The data is building solidly against you and the approaching grand minimum will leave the babcock believers stunned.
No one has a credible hypothesis for the pole reversal or 11 year cycle, although there is some clues, the decision is still to come.
Of course on our side of the fence the current trend of solar activity is completely expected and explained.

Leif Svalgaard (07:58:40) :
None of these ideas can account for the polarity reversals between solar cycles. This failure is also the main reason the planetary theory was abandoned in the early 20th
Not entirely correct, Sir.
My polar fields formula as shown here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1Cr.gif
has no problems with polarity reversals, as it is believed that polar fields are seeds of a new cycle, than SS polarity reversals will follow (conveyor belt circulation). It is true I do not valid mechanism, but meridional flow shows a promising start:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MPI.gif
in an excellent agreement with work emanating from
Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html
and
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-NRWmv2.jpg
in agreement (with a appropriate phase adjustment) with research from:
Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/577/1/L53/16614.text.html#tb1
Furthermore, I do have best correlation of any previous work, planetary, Babcock-Layton or any you whish to quote!
I am also well aware of your views on numerology, degrees of freedom etc, but non have succeeded to invalidated the formula.

Hank Hancock (10:51:28) :
“Thanks for your reply and link. The figures on page 15 and 17 were rather remarkable. Have you given any consideration to how the 10% decrease in magnetic flux might also affect the correlation you’re making? What is your degree of confidence that the correlation is direct as opposed to coincidental?”
On climate matters I am totally neutral. This was work I produced during last Christmas/ New Year festivities, after discovering that if you draw a line across MagNrthPole drift curve, one side temperature anomaly is positive on the other negative. I believe ‘tallbloke’ did some sampling as well but to geographic NP.
It is summarised elsewhere, that total field has declined, but from electrical currents point of view, of interest is only vertical component.
As you can see here:
http://geomag.usgs.gov/movies/movies/index.php?type=vertical&format=gif
Bz has an area above +60 and – 60 microTesla, but never falls below it. It is only the area that changes size.
Dr. Svalgaard rejected hypothesis, as usual, to be meaningless.

Leif Svalgaard (13:00:01) :
“-It does not explain why the polar fields change polarity so explains nothing. For that you need the Babcock mechanism or some other dynamo mechanism.”
“-As an engineer it should be easy for you to actually calculate that current and the heat we get from it. Do this and report back with a comparison to the heat we get from the Sun.”
Actually it was not heat I was proposing. I have no interest or inclination of writing something, and than trying to disprove it.
If I can prove either of two of the above, not to mention both, I would be reserving my air ticket for Stockholm. However, you with your knowledge, experience and data manipulating skills, if you put your mind to it, you probably could do it in no time at all. Therefore, search goes on for an alternative extraordinary mind, that might be able to do it, and it ain’t me.

Svempa (13:33:13) :
If this is true there is no need to find an explanation for the polarity reversal among the planets – it is a quite separate phenomenon.
Exactly….there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Elements of the Babcock observations may still be viable and can work in tune with external forces.

Even trying to show the validity of a sun-weather effect I have long abandoned, but he is still bravely soldiering on.
As we all are fond of saying, the new extended solar minimum is providing a unique opportunity to test different theories regarding the solar-terrestrial interface.

Leif,
I don’t actually consider planetary gravitational perturbations to be hypothetical, except for how they might relate specifically to sunspots and solar activity. Those specific hypothetical effects only seem absurd to those who see them as a form of astrology, which they are not.
Likewise, I am hopeful that the problem of formulating a viable mathematical theory of planetary influences on solar activity, difficult as that may be to do, will not actually require a genius.
I am curious to know what you think of Scarletta’s phenomological solar model in http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688/$file/scafetta-epa-2009.pdf
He does not propose a theory, but do you think his model has any validity? If you believe it to be fraudulent, I’m sure you would want to expose it as such.

Leif Svalgaard (22:23:16) :
They are neither. A remarkable correlation is one that is convincing and compelling. This means that everyone would agree that the correlation is significant. This is not the case. I, for one, do not think so and I do have some training in analyzing data and judging what is likely real and what is not.
The problem is you have to have an understanding of the theory before you can easily see the correlations. You have still not shown that understanding. This unfortunately is the biggest barrier to promoting the science, but times are changing and better methods of conveying the information are in the pipeline.
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.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/scafetta.jpg

Dr Svalgaard, did you actually read the paper by Hung I referred to? I would not be discussing this subject if I did not find the new correlations observed and computed by him convincing and compelling.
I can understand that when researching a vast celestial object like our Sun there must be found a concrete mechanism for planetary influence before it is believed. The planets are puny and small in comparision. But on the other hand the magnetic field of the Sun in incredibly weak, I have seen 50 gauss as a normal figure – I have stronger magnets than that on my refrigerator door.
I do not find it possible that any planetary influence (gravitational, by tides or magnetic) could create any processes in the Sun. But even a very small influence can sometimes govern great things – this is true not only in physics but in politics as well :-).

Svempa (02:12:57) :
“I do not find it possible that any planetary influence (gravitational, by tides or magnetic) could create any processes in the Sun. But even a very small influence can sometimes govern great things – this is true not only in physics but in politics as well :-).”
You are correct. My 2003 article (pub. Jan 2004) has a title:
“Evidence of a multi-resonant system within solar periodic activity”
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
This should give a clue to the energetic processes. Any system which possesses large amount of internal energy (and the Sun has plenty of it) which may be susceptible to oscillations can be induced or synchronised to oscillate by a minute external excitation. Repeatable injections of small amounts of energy may control internal oscillation, with energies greater by many orders of magnitude. This is a regular occurrence (and frequently a nuisance) in electric, electronic and magnetic circuits. However, it has its uses as any broadcasting system engineer will tell you.
Meridional flow (according to Dr, Svalgaard ) would need to be driven by huge energies inputed from the planetary system. This is wrong! Meridional flow is a part of a solar conveyor belt, its energy is supplied by the solar thermal energy.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/images/stormwarning/conveyorbelt.jpg
There is one in each hemisphere and they run more or less independently. Thermal energy is a driver of meridional flows, but circulating of highly ionised plasma is especially sensitive to any electric or magnetic input, could be synchronised by it through resonance.
Dr. Svalgaard argues that external forces are negligible to count. Well let’s consider this: Jupiter is roughly same distance to Sun as to Saturn, and still two planets are in synchronism (5J=59.31 2S=59.314) within 0.01%, this synchronisation would be perfect if their orbits were circular rather than elliptic. Dr. S. this is achieved by RESONANCE!

Hi all,
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

Leif Svalgaard (07:39:29) :
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.

vukcevic (15:23:30) :
Hathaway: “EARLIER MODELS WERE FATALLY FLAWED.”
Leif Svalgaard (22:26:44) :
So? Our new ones are better.
I will treasure this one !
( p.s. but are they any good ? )

noaaprogrammer (14:25:18) :
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…..