Another solar to climate amplification mechanism found?

ScreenShot3388[1]

From the Hockey Schtick: Paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate (video follows)

A lecture by professor Hiroko Miyahara of the University of Tokyo provides additional support to the Svensmark theory of cosmoclimatology, finding that both solar geomagnetic activity and the polarity of geomagnetic activity have significant effects upon cosmic rays and cloud formation. The polarity of solar geomagnetic activity flips with a 22-year cycle, with periods of negative polarity [such as the current solar cycle] having a greater effect upon cosmic rays and cloud formation.

The authors also find a remarkable correlation between solar rotational signals, cloud height, and the Madden-Julian Oscillation [third figure below], which may represent yet another mechanism by which small changes in solar activity can be amplified to large changes in climate. Other amplification mechanisms include via ocean oscillations, ozone, and sunshine hours/clouds.

Watch:

Pdf file of slides

Solar Activity and Climate

Hiroko Miyahara, The University of Tokyo

Abstract:

1. Introduction

Instrumentally measured or reconstructed past climate changes often show positive correlation with solar activity at the wide range of time scales, such as from monthly (Takahashi et al., 2010) to millennial (Bond et al., 2001). However, the mechanisms of their linkage have not been well understood. The possible solar-related parameters that can drive climate change are; total solar irradiance (TSI), solar ultra violet (UV), solar wind (SW) and the galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). The galactic cosmic rays are attenuated by changing solar magnetic field in the heliosphere; the region where the wind of solar plasma and magnetic filed expend. The observed flux of GCRs shows inverse correlation to solar activity. It is known that the change in the cosmic ray flux results in the change in the ionization rate in the atmosphere. It is suggested that it may cause the change in cloud amount.

2. Variation of Galactic Cosmic Rays during the Maunder Minimum

It is difficult to evaluate the exact role of each of solar-related parameters above, since most of them are more or less synchronized for the instrumental period. However, the variation of solar radiation and GCRs may be different at the Maunder Minimum (AD1645-1715). The Maunder Minimum is a period of sunspot absence lasted about 70 years. The Sun has shown periodic variation with ~11-year period since the beginning of the 18th century. However, the sunspots had almost disappeared and apparent ~11-year cycles had been lost during the Maunder Minimum. It means that solar activity had been extraordinarily weak and that the environment of heliosphere had been different from today. We found that the variation of GCRs was very unique during the time. The variation of GCRs has been revealed by the measurements of cosmic-ray induced radio isotopes such as carbon-14 and beryllium-10 in tree rings or ice cores. The content of radio isotopes have shown that solar cycle had been kept during the long-lasting sunspot absence, but with ~14-year period. It has been also revealed that the 22-year cycle; the cycle of periodic reversal of solar dipole magnetic field, had been also kept but with ~28-year period and had been amplified during the time. The polarity of the Sun reverses at the maxima of solar cycles, and thus holds ~22-year period. The ~22-year cycle is not observed in the changes in solar radiations; however it appears in the variation of GCRs consisting of mainly changed particles. The changes in the environment of heliosphere had probably resulted in the amplification of the 22-year cycle in GCRs.

3. Variation of climate and its relation to Galactic Cosmic Rays

We have found that reconstructed climate data show unique variations similar to that of GCRs during the Maunder Minimum. For example, the northern hemispheric temperatures are significantly dependent on the direction of solar dipole magnetic field. At the phases of negative polarity of dipole magnetic field, when GCRs show anomalous increase, we observe colder climate. The dependence of climate change on solar dipole magnetic field results in the manifestation of 22-year cycle in climate change. The cause of decadal to multi-decadal climate changes had not been well understood, however, our study suggests that GCRs may be the playing important role in climate change at those time scales.

Conclusion

More detailed studies are needed to reveal the mechanisms of solar influence on climate change; however, our study has suggested that not only solar irradiative outputs but also magnetic property is playing important role in climate change possibly through changing the flux of GCRs. The mechanisms how the cosmic rays change the cloud property should be clarified in the future studies.

References

G. Bond et al., Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene, Science, 7, 294, 2130, 2001.

H. Miyahara, Y. Yokoyama & K. Masuda, Possible link between multi-decadal climate cycles and periodic reversals of solar magnetic field polarity, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 272, 290-295, 2008.

Y. Takahashi, Y. Okazaki, M. Sato, H. Miyahara, K. Sakanoi, and P. K. Hong, 27-day variation in cloud amount and relationship to the solar cycle, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 1577-1584, 2010.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jimmy Haigh.

Very interesting… Who would have though it, eh? It was the sun all along.

James at 48

MJO’s mojo.

Ken Hall

You mean to say that tiny variations in the output from that big bright ball in the sky, that provides all our light, heat and energy, might have some effect on the tiny meeting layer between the sun’s energy input and the oceanic energy battery storage and slow release output, which is known as our climate? Well who’da thunk it? /sarc.

They’ll be calling sunshine a pollutant next and try to tax or ban it….

William Astley

Attached is a link to their paper.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/11/08/1000113107.full.pdf
Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum by Yasuhiko T. Yamaguchia, Yusuke Yokoyamaa et al.

John Bell

The Sun is very active, energetic, and dynamic. I can well imagine that if the Sun even hiccups we here on Earth will notice it some how. And the way that cosmic rays can increase cloud cover, and all the various Solar cycles, surely the Sun has a big effect on our climate.

steveta_uk
davidgmills

@steveta-uk. Makes sense. I don’t think you can use solar reflectors on your property to turn my property into a solar furnace.

also magnetic property is playing important role in climate change
Don’t tell Dr. Svalgaard,
vukcevic has been ‘rattling’ about that kind of ‘nonsense’ for number of years now:
Phase relationship between SOLAR and the EARTH’s MAGNETIC VARIABILITY is of the fundamental importance, when in phase oceans warm, when out of phase oceans cool. Got it?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

lgl

Remember the Moons orbital period is also ~27 days.

TallChuck

Re: Beesaman comment to tax or ban the sun
See open letter by Frederick Bastiat, French economist, published in 1845, to the French Parliment on behalf of the candlestick makers, et al. Link: http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

vukcevic says
also magnetic property is playing important role in climate change
Don’t tell Dr. Svalgaard,
Henry says
please
keep dr S busy somewhere else
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/16/the-msm-finally-notices-the-pause/#comment-1277829

I don’t really trust the eye to compare two time series plotted on top of one another. Why not show a scattergram, coloured if necessary by solar magnetic phase?

jorgekafkazar

Ach. Wackelnszusammenbringen.

Tommy

I wonder if it’s a coincidence that Jupiter orbits the Sun every 11.86 years, compared with the sun’s ~11 year cycles.

goldminor

Is there a connection between solar influences and the jet stream? I read an article several months ago that was describing some aspects of solar dynamics. A section discussed an inner middle-latitude, cyclical flow that breaks up and disappears periodically. I had an immediate thought pop up, ‘ what if the jet stream is affected by that flow?’. Could that be due to harmonies between the magnetic fields of the Sun with the Earth? I am a complete amateur in anything regarding solar, but I do have a curious way of sometimes seeing how things fit together, and I am curious enough to ask the question.

pochas

You don’t want to go overboard with this solar stuff, Anthony. It’s still crackpottery in certain circles. About one in six or seven articles will do it. Myself, I’m into it.

Not sure why they are calling variation in OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) a variation in cloud height. Would seem to be more a measure of total cloudiness (combining both heat trapping by clouds and the albedo decrease in shortwave that is available to re-emerge as longwave). Anyone up on this?
In any case, a clear OLR signal of the rotation of the heliospheric current sheet is strong evidence for Svensmark’s GCR-cloud theory.

Understanding the lag time effect, the recharge and discharge cycles of energy absorbed and released due to solar cycles, will help us adapt more easily to climate changes. Knowing the weather is not our fault and you are not to blame for climate changes, will make you feel better as well.

goldminor says April 17, 2013 at 11:56 am

I had an immediate thought pop up, ‘ what if the jet stream is affected by that flow?’. Could that be due to harmonies between the magnetic fields of the Sun with the Earth?

In what way, how would the movement of (basically) ‘air’ be influenced by magnetic fields? Would not the (more or less) static mag field of the earth (about 1/2 Gauss at the surface) have more of an influence? Would not some ‘connection’ have been made by now between the jetstream and the earth’s mag field?
The relative permeability of air (μr) = 1.00000037 (one point zero zero zero zero zero zero three seven). Relative permeability is denoted by the symbol μr (mu sub r) and is the ratio of the permeability of a specific medium (air in our case) to the permeability of free space, μ0 (mu sub zero). Steel, by contrast has μr =100 (one hundred).
So, air comes really, really close to being as permeable as free space is the take-away; other effects (winds due to low/high pressure centers, orographic lift, solar, etc) will quite literally ‘swamp’ the very minuscule effects a mag field could yield …
Additional
.

John F. Hultquist

References in the paper to “magnetic” all appear to mean that of Sun; not of Earth. Maybe I missed it.

Keith Gordon

Yet another paper pointing to the Sun having more of an influence on climate than is currently accepted by, well lets say the IPCC and others. This is hardly a surprise to me and many here, and if not scientific proven yet, it is certainly intuitive to believe the Sun has the major influence. My question is, are we near a stage yet where all these theories can be put in to a forecast so it can be tested in reality? it has to explain the late 20th century warming, the current standstill and the expected cooling, when these have been nailed so will AGW. How far off do you think we are to that, as it will certainly kill off any major AGW effect
Regards to all
Keith Gordon

Ian Wilson

I think that the following comment needs repeating:
lgl says:
April 17, 2013 at 10:12 am
Remember the Moons orbital period is also ~27 days.
Thanks lgl for not going with the herd.
A 27/54 day period between cloud height and AA index may just a result of the fact that ~ 27 day rotation period on the Sun matches the ~ 27 period of the anomalistic (Lunar perigee to perigee) or Draconic (Lunar node to node) Month.
Watch this space.

Niff

I hate to even suggest it but it seems increasingly probable that these phenomena are directly corrosponding with the cycles governing astrology. Gee, we might actually find a scientific basis for some of it. Oops.

My question is, are we near a stage yet where all these theories can be put in to a forecast so it can be tested in reality? it has to explain the late 20th century warming, the current standstill and the expected cooling
Thinking there is a single primary driver of climate change is the error the CO2 GHG crowd make. It’s entirely possible, and likely IMO, that there are multiple significant drivers of climate change.
Clouds seem to be the primary mechanism, and we are a long way from understanding clouds sufficiently that we can model and predict their effects.
Otherwise, my theory is that climate change results from factors that affect the phase changes of water.

The magnetic poles of the sun are tilted ~12 degrees off of the axis of rotation, so as the sun rotates on its 27.32 day period its magnetic fields swinging from a N to S polarity and back to N take the center line of the neutral sheet of the solar wind into the spiral pattern discussed in the movie.
The barycenter of the Earth/Moon system sweeps a smooth ellipse on the ecliptic plane with both the Earth and Moon taking turns bobbing above and below the ecliptic plane about 1200 Km. Which is the driving mechanism for the lunar declinational movement in phase with the shifts in polarity in the solar wind, (the two stay synchronized to within a 5 minute window).
The declinational movement imparted on the moon transfers its energy into the earth, oceans, and atmosphere via the declinational tidal interactions, which cause surges in the meridional flows in the oceans, and atmosphere that can be used as a basis for forecasting the weather effects it repeatably induces into the global circulation.
http://research.aerology.com/natural-processes/lunar-tidal-movie-sample/
http://research.aerology.com/aerology-analog-weather-forecasting-method/
Sample of how the outer planets assist the driving mechanism above normal levels to trigger extreme events; http://research.aerology.com/severe-weather/derecho-storm-seen-from-space/
Weather maps can be viewed here; http://www.aerology.com/
http://research.aerology.com/natural-processes/temperature-scale-update-on-maps/
Lots more info and details in the research pages, take your time look around when you find the time, no commercial content, totally free access to all maps processed at this time.

Philip Bradley:
At April 17, 2013 at 4:50 pm you say

Thinking there is a single primary driver of climate change is the error the CO2 GHG crowd make. It’s entirely possible, and likely IMO, that there are multiple significant drivers of climate change.

I agree, and I write to add that there may be no driver of climate change because an oscillating chaotic system can be expected to vary without any driver.
Chaotic systems vary, and purely harmonic variations may occur independently of any chaotic effects.
Please remember that global temperature rises 3.8 deg.C during 6 months of each year and falls by 3.8 deg.C during the other 6 months of each year. But global temperature only rose about 0.8 deg.C throughout the last century.
In other words, the rise in global temperature over the last century was about a fifth of the rise in global temperature which happens during 6 months of each year.
And an oscillating system can be expected to exhibit harmonics over periods much longer than a single oscillation. The observed changes with apparent frequencies of ~900 years and ~60 years could be harmonics.
So, both chaos and harmonics could be expected to vary global climate and neither requires any driver of the variation.
Richard

CRS, Dr.P.H.

…incoming Lief!

Steve Keohane

Ian Wilson says:April 17, 2013 at 4:34 pm
Regarding the moon, I was curious and took the partial 1990 chart and added the new and full moons. The July 1990 full moon was an eclipse. So would have been Jan of ’91, but that is beyond this chart. Nothing strikes me right off. Would be curious if the declinational/node cycle showed up. Might need several years of monthly data to see a correlation with declination/node.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2rd9ni8.jpg

Ian Wilson

Preliminary analysis indicates that the period of the variation in cloud height is closer to 25.9 days. This matches the AA variation (i.e. equatorial solar rotation) period much better than the 27.3 day lunar periods. Indeed, if you compare the lunar anomalistic (perigee to perigee) cycles and the lunar draconic (node to node) cycles with the cloud height data you get a noticeable phase drift between the two over the year.

Ian Wilson

In other words, it look like its more likely to be the Sun rather than the Moon that affects cloud height.

Henry Clark

Good to see more looking at this.
A top barrier to further understanding has been the propagandist-convenient “accidental” skewing of cloud trends from the most commonly reproduced source (the ISCCP) since a satellite orbit change several years ago, but, as usual, other data is illuminating, such as the blatant correlation of cosmic ray variation with specific humidity at medium altitude throughout the entire period of observation with modern instruments, illustrated with references and more examples in http://s7.postimg.org/69qd0llcr/intermediate.gif

Robert of Ottawa

For anyone who has participated in international “scientific” conferences, I am sure we can congratulate Miss Hiroko for an excellent presentation.
Very interesting. I had not ever been aware of the solr rotation period effect on Earth; as, probably, none of us did. I personally never would have thought it so direct – but then, who am I? A train engineer?

Robert of Ottawa

John Bell said @ April 17, 2013 at 9:45 am
I can well imagine that if the Sun even hiccups we here on Earth will notice it some how.
In Canada, we say that if the US sneezes, Canada catches a cold. But, that may be changing … Yey, go Canada!

starzmom

A thought has popped into my head. My local meteorologist has a theory regarding a 50-55 day cycle of weather, sufficient to be fairly accurate for predicting the occurrence of storms across the country. That seems close enough to the 27/54 day cycle referred to by other commenters to be more than coincidental. But, then, I’m an amateur here.

om in Florida

Tommy says:
April 17, 2013 at 11:44 am
“I wonder if it’s a coincidence that Jupiter orbits the Sun every 11.86 years, compared with the sun’s ~11 year cycles.”
Solar cycle lengths are below. Now if you can match Jupiter’s orbit time to each of these then you may have something. Or not.
No L
1 11.0
2 9.0
3 9.2
4 13.6
5 12.1
6 12.9
7 10.6
8 9.6
9 12.5
10 11.2
11 11.7
12 10.7
13 12.1
14 11.9
15 10.0
16 10.2
17 10.4
18 10.1
19 10.6
20 11.6
21 10.3
22 9.8
23 12.1

Greg Goodman

richardscourtney says: “In other words, the rise in global temperature over the last century was about a fifth of the rise in global temperature which happens during 6 months of each year.”
… which makes it quite significant!
That’s a good way to compare things. I’m not capable of “feeling” a 0.7 deg C rise in a day , let alone over decades, but I do know things got hot around the turn of the century. I’ve always thought that what shows as a global average was about an order of magnitude smaller than what is experienced “on the ground” as a daily reality but 10x was too big. Your 5x makes sense.
The change between winter and summer is huge in temperate latitudes. Even one fifth of that “matters” as an increase.
Stating it relative to the magnitude of the annual cycle is good way to make this somewhat abstract statistic real.

Greg Goodman

Ian Wilson says:
“Preliminary analysis indicates that the period of the variation in cloud height is closer to 25.9 days. This matches the AA variation (i.e. equatorial solar rotation) period much better than the 27.3 day lunar periods. Indeed, if you compare the lunar anomalistic (perigee to perigee) cycles and the lunar draconic (node to node) cycles with the cloud height data you get a noticeable phase drift between the two over the year.”
Hi Ian. Thanks for checking that. It was my first reaction when I saw your original post.
This solar rotation may be what is behind the circa 14 day ripple seen in the Artic ice cover.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
My initial expectation was that it would turn out to be a lunar influence. However, I did not find anything clear in fourier analysis. How regular is solar equatorial cycle?

Greg Goodman

Richard Holle says:
“The magnetic poles of the sun are tilted ~12 degrees off of the axis of rotation, so as the sun rotates on its 27.32 day period its magnetic fields swinging from a N to S polarity and back to N take the center line of the neutral sheet of the solar wind into the spiral pattern discussed in the movie.”
Hi Richard, one should be careful in talking about a rotation period of a ball plasma. The mind instantly starts thinking in terms of billard ball planetary models. It induces a lot of false assumptions.
As you are certainly aware the poles and the equator of the sun rotate at very difference speeds.
Could you explain how your 27.32 day period relates to Ian’s 25.9 days ?

Pavel Belolipetsky

Richardscourtney:
In comments to some previous posts, you wrote about our preprint (Belolipetsky PV, Bartsev SI, Degermendzhi AG, Hsu HH, Varotsos CA (2013) Empirical evidence for a double step climate change in twentieth century. Preprint. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.1581.pdf) that there would be benefit in an article on WUWT about our hypothesis.
Please get in contact with me. My email is available in preprint.

davidmhoffer

Greg Goodman says:
April 17, 2013 at 7:53 pm
richardscourtney says: “In other words, the rise in global temperature over the last century was about a fifth of the rise in global temperature which happens during 6 months of each year.”
… which makes it quite significant!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Well not really. 0.8/200 = 0.004 degrees per 6 month period. Not significant at all. Read richardscourtney’s response again, he nailed it.

Greg Goodman

To answer some of my own questions:
it seems that the different periods given by Ian and Richard are stated relative to stars or relative to Earth observation.
hope wordpress does mess up this URL 😕
http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CE4QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tau.ac.il%2Finstitutes%2Fadvanced%2Fcosmic%2Fsolar_rotation%2520-%2520FINAL.ppt&ei=OGlvUdaBA8nAhAe594CADQ&usg=AFQjCNFNVGWpuAG_U25C8q9unshnjyJ7QQ&bvm=bv.45368065,d.ZG4&cad=rja
The longer, Earth obs period presumably being the more directly applicable to climate. Though Ian may have something to add.
The rotation has varied considerably over the last solar cycle , reaching a minimum around 2002 when climate was hottest.

Greg Goodman

davidmhoffer says: “Well not really. 0.8/200 = 0.004 degrees per 6 month period. Not significant at all. Read richardscourtney’s response again, he nailed it.”
Perhaps you need to re-read the part of my comment that you snipped, and try to understand it, instead of posting from the hip.
The difference between winter (freezing my nuts off) and summer (sleeping naked and being too hot) is huge. Now if you add one fifth of that range on top that makes a very humanly noticeable difference. Equally if you subtract that from what we have now you get an idea what winters must have been in first decades of 20th c.
When talking about climate people can’t understand why 0.7 deg C “matters” . The point is that we do not live in air that is at the global annual mean temperature.

Greg Goodman

ie I heat/cool my house as a function of actual air temperature not the “anomaly” relative to the monthly “climatological” average of 1960-1990. 😉

Greg Goodman

Pavel Belolipetsky paper: “Lo and Hsu (2010) investigated extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies and suggested that the main reason for recently observed warming in these latitudes is a climate shift in 1987, which is in accordance to our hypothesis in this study. ”
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=210
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=208
It could also be argued that event was the origin of the current loss of Arctic sea ice.
There was a similar but opposite spike in Antarctic.

JJ

Greg Goodman says:
Perhaps you need to re-read the part of my comment that you snipped, and try to understand it, instead of posting from the hip.

Good advice, that you should rather be taking than handing out.
The difference between winter (freezing my nuts off) and summer (sleeping naked and being too hot) is huge.
Yes, it is. In fact it is much larger than the 3.8C that Richard was discussing. That is because he was talking about something very different than you think he did. What he was talking about was not the difference between winter and summer that your testicles experience.
“When talking about climate people can’t understand why 0.7 deg C “matters” .”
Largely because it doesn’t.
“The point is that we do not live in air that is at the global annual mean temperature.”
Nor do our gonads.

Greg Goodman says:
April 17, 2013 at 8:30 pm
“As you are certainly aware the poles and the equator of the sun rotate at very difference speeds.
Could you explain how your 27.32 day period relates to Ian’s 25.9 days ?”
[reply; Typed the above comment in a hurry, The rotation of the surface where the strongest magnetic pole effects are located on the sun, is 27.32 days as seen from the moving earth. The declinational effects of the moon being driven magnetically, converts this energy over into declinational tidal effects, giving rise to both the meridional flow surges, and the shifts in ionic charge distribution on a global scale in phase that cause the weather to occur along the clashing fronts where the separate air masses creating the tidal bulge meet, then by carolis effect head off more poleward as the classic coma shaped pattern.
The 25.9 day rotation of the equatorial solar area is mostly radiative energy with shifts in spectrum with activity level changes, that being surges in the strength/density of the solar wind not its polarity at the time, the two effects are separated, and should drift as Ian observed.]
“This solar rotation may be what is behind the circa 14 day ripple seen in the Artic ice cover.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
[reply; There are both primary and secondary bulges in the lunar tidal effects in all three mediums, the solid earth, the oceans, and the atmosphere, so you should see a 13.8 day pattern in the arctic sea ice extent, if you adjust for the fact there are four different patterns of lunar atmospheric declinational tidal bulge patterns X two bulges per cycle = 8 different patterns of surges of air masses into and out of the arctic.]
“My initial expectation was that it would turn out to be a lunar influence. However, I did not find anything clear in fourier analysis. How regular is solar equatorial cycle?”
[reply; with 8 different basic patterns and seasonal shifts you need to use a repeating pattern analog method to sort out the most similar cycles and plot them side by side, or averaged together, to find any signal with strength enough to use. I find that 6558 days long is 240 lunar declinational cycles of 27.32 days that retains the 8 separate patterns in sync for the whole global circulation routine cycle. It is this pattern repeated four times that I composite together to form the maps found on my site. [Hint; How regular is solar equatorial cycle you ask? I would think that Piers Corbyn would be the best at answering that question, he uses it in his forecasts, I have not yet found a way to include it, but I am looking.]

jorgekafkazar

_Jim says: “In what way, how would the movement of (basically) ‘air’ be influenced by magnetic fields? Would not the (more or less) static mag field of the earth (about 1/2 Gauss at the surface) have more of an influence? Would not some ‘connection’ have been made by now between the jetstream and the earth’s mag field?”
But if that air or those clouds are ionized and have a charge, motion of a charged object in a magnetic field can generate currents and various other effects. If there’s lightning, then there’s ionization, so…

ferd berple

vukcevic says:
April 17, 2013 at 10:06 am
when in phase oceans warm, when out of phase oceans cool.
===========
It seems unlikely the solar wind interaction with the atmosphere at the poles does not have a affect on climate. Isn’t the greatest climate change observed at the poles?

ferdberple

Tom in Florida says:
April 17, 2013 at 7:46 pm
Solar cycle lengths are below.
==========
strange how the long stretch of very regular cycles are clumped from cycle 15 to 21. This does not look random It does suggest something is keeping time, preventing the oscillation from drifting too far one way of the other.