More Solar Cyclomania

[note, I believe the term cyclomania was invented by Willis, so I want to make sure he gets credit. Rud got it from me.~cr]

Guest post by Rud Istvan

WUWT reader DS (you know who you are) sent a tip to Charles concerning the retraction of a recent Nature publication on solar cycles, predicting a ‘modern Maunder Minimum’ before 2050—thus debunking anthropogenic global warming (AGW, aka climate change).  

Previous investigative forays of this solar cyclomania sort have not ended well, so Charles asked me to investigate this one.

Spirograph retro toy

I did, and at first was not certain the simple obvious answer was worthy of a guest post. Charles differed. Having reconsidered most of today while hunting and pecking at additional factoid tidbits, I now agree with him. Here is the sorry saga plus some maybe neat sciency stuff: gravitational ideas like barycenters for those that want to learn more themselves.

The retracted paper is Zharkova et.al. 2019 . This is already interesting, because Valentina Zharkova is a well-known ‘mini ice age coming’ ‘skeptic’. She got published, and then retracted. A Skeptical set up? Nope.

Her saga is reported in three parts: what she did, why Nature retracted over her objection, and why she should never have been published by Nature in the first place because of fundamental background math and physics issues.

What she did

Her team took satellite measurements of the solar whole disk magnetic fields from solar cycles 21-23, so about 33 years. They used this independent variable to model the crucial dependent insolation variable. Note the unproven assumption that insolation is a function of solar magnetic flux. (Sunspot theorists do, but their observational substantiation is at best sketchy.) Their model used principle components analysis (PCA, of Mann hockey stick fame) to find TWO magnetic flux components (so much for THE principle component) collectively explaining only 67% of their insolation data.

That seems an overt admission of poor fit statistics, which should have been flagged by peer reviewers. Then they used a theoretical causal model of varying solar magnetic fields to ‘backgenerate’ 3000 years of solar magnetic flux, finding a max/min/max cycle of roughly 350 years full wave form (peak to peak). So the paper concluded that in the last 3000 years, we have seen about 9 insolation minima caused by solar magnetic flux, including (conveniently, except observationally wrong decadal timing wise) the Maunder. And so the next ‘grand minimum’ will be before 2050!!!

An admonition to potential persnickety WUWT critics, like DS. The above is not exactly precise, but captures faithfully the essence of the matter. There is no poetic license. And her paper Figure 2 makes her ‘scientific’ situation MUCH worse than represented here. I am being kind to her in what follows.

Why Nature retracted 9 months later in 2020

Post publication, a number of astrophysicists pointed out that a key calculation assumption—Earth/Sol barycenter fluctuations are random—was just wrong. Nature editors therefore had no choice but to retract the faulty paper when this was easily verified. (See the linked retraction notice footnotes.)

Insolation depends on the barycenter between Earth and Sol. Zharkova assumed that this barycentric variation was random (it matters for insolation, since as you get closer to a hot object you get hotter—something about an inverse square law of radiation physics). For Earth-Sol, the barycenter is always somewhere within the Sun since the Sun has so much more mass than Earth. But Earth does wiggle a bit closer and farther, affecting incoming insolation energy. Random washes out statistically. A very convenient but since proven false assumption.

But for Jupiter, the barycenter is actually always OUTSIDE the Sun, because Jupiter has so much more mass than Earth compared to the Sun. As a result, the Earth-Sol barycenter actually is closely linked to the 12 year Jupiter orbit that much more strongly influences the Sun’s solar system barycentric wobbles. Jupiter on the ‘Earth side’ of its orbit pulls the Sun closer to Earth, and on the ‘far side’ of its orbit pulls the Sun away from Earth. So the paper’s assumptional math was just wrong. Showing yet again that ‘climate scientists’ need to be generalist polymaths, while most (as shown by this paper) are not.

My personal issue with this retraction specific is not that it happened, rather it is that NASA has had the Earth/Jupiter barycenter explanations on an easily accessible website for several years, so the paper’s ‘random’ assumption is inexcusable intellectual laziness by the authors and then by Nature’s peer reviewers. Heck, Newton sorta figured these gravitational basics out long ago. We have been measuring it precisely for decades.  

Side comment. The solar cycle is supposedly ~11 years, Jupiter’s orbit ~12 years. So the barycentric ‘drift’ per solar cycle is ~11/12, or about 8% per Jupiter orbital cycle. So a max to min Jupiter kiltered Earth/Sol barycenter would be about 13 Jupiter orbits, and back another 13, so about 26 for a full insolation wave form. So about 312 years in total for a full peak to peak barycentric Jupiter cycle. And her beyond sketchy PCA found about 350. Huummm???

What is REALLY wrong

What I found beyond incredible is that none of the authors, Nature’s editors, or the peer reviewers spotted a much more fundamentally fatal mathematical problem in this paper’s analysis.

Recall what the paper did. Used about 33 years (three solar sunspot cycles) of satellite observations of solar magnetic flux to reconstruct a solar magnetic flux amplitude wave form of about 350 years peak to peak frequency, supposing that then related to equivalent relative insolation energy.

There is an analog/digital conversion mathematical thingy called the Nyquist sampling theorem. It says a band limited (excluding any higher frequencies) continuous time signal comprising multiple wave frequency amplitudes (analog) can be digitally sampled and perfectly reconstructed from discrete (digital) samples of the simple net analog amplitude waveform at a sampling rate >= 2x its highest frequency component.

We experience the Nyquist sampling theorem every day in CDs (now also all digitally streamed music). The sampling rate was set originally by Sony at 44.1kHz (44,100 digitally sampled net amplitude of recorded analog audio sound samples/second). That will faithfully reproduce any sound wave (pitch, frequency) below about 22kHz. Average humans can hear from about 20Hz to 20kHz. The best younger ears can hear 12 Hz to 28KHz. Most older adults experience a drop in hearing acuity above 15kHz, used to design hearing aids centered on about 3kHz.

Sony set a practical Nyquist analog/digital audio music sampling standard, which analog groovy record audiofiles continue to deny to this day to their utterly foolish great analog equipment expense. They believe one thing; Nyquist proved otherwise. Climate analogies abound.

The fundamental physics/math problem with this now retracted on other grounds paper is that they used 33 years of satellite data to very poorly reconstruct via discredited and ill fitted PCA a ~350 year frequency full solar magnetic field strength wave form, when Nyquist says you need at least 700 years to reliably do that. And 700 years of solar magnetic field strength amplitude variation data DOES NOT EXIST.

Any generally knowledgeable peer reviewer should have rejected this paper on first principles of high school math and physics: CD basic digital music stuff. And that is why I reconsidered, now think Charles original opinion was correct, and then wrote up this ‘trivial’ guest post for him in thanks.

254 thoughts on “More Solar Cyclomania

    • Where do they compute the mean thermalization height changes, and the channeling of energy flow around the CO2 blocked spectrum?

    • John
      What is missing from the discussion, and absorption graph, is how the concentrations affect the transmission of IR. The composite graph (labeled “atmosphere”) implies the relative effects. What is really needed to understand the role of CO2 is a graph illustrating the absorption features for today compared to the pre-industrial atmosphere. That is, an overlay of the two points in time.

    • Note that the CO2 absorption spectra does NOT align with the Earth’s. However, that of water does.
      They also say “The ‘blocked’ radiation must ultimately return to the surface.” This is rubbish. They admit towards the end that it must be re-emitted because the molecule wants to return to its ground energy state, but do not state that it will do so very quickly. It will reradiate equally in all directions without preference. Some of this will be reabsorbed and reemitted by other molecules, but eventually it all leaks into space. Any re-radiation from the cold upper atmosphere to the much warmer lower troposphere and Earth surface cannot cause any heating (unless you want to discard the laws of physics).
      The three modes of energy transport in a gas molecule they do mention – rotational, vibrational, and electronic – are all quantum mechanical phenomena. Yet they do not mention the most important one in relation to temperature – translational energy. This, and only this, is amenable to analysis using classical statistical mechanics.
      They then jump to discuss blackbody radiation using the Stefan Boltzmann equation ie statistical mechanics, and try to use this to analyse what they already admit are quantum mechanical phenomena, while refusing to include translational energy.
      Of course, the Earth is not a blackbody and cannot be modelled as such but this is not going to stop these intrepid Scandinavians from trying, or at least from regurgitating the sainted Arrhenius. But even these graphs show that the part of the energy spectra involved (allegedly) in greenhouse warming lies at the far right tail of curve. Integrating the area under the curve would show that its contribution to the total energy budget is diddley-squat.

      • Crisp,
        Thank you for writing some proper physics.
        Another lack is an estimation of the minimum concentration of CO2 in the air that will generate a measurable T effect. One molecule of CO2 obviously is too small, 2 molecules, ditto, 4, 8, 16 …. millions … are still too small. Nobody wants to deduce the threshhold. To avoid it, they went early for a ratio mathematical approach, since the ratio cuts out the need for a concentration number, giving a unitless number. Geoff S

    • The Sunday-School story that we are told about IR, molecules with three or more atoms such as CO2 and H2O have the degree of freedom to allow them to absorb and re-radiate IR. But diner molecules with 2 only like N2 and O2 cannot.

      However research published during WW2 in 1944 showed that nitrogen can interact strongly with IR when one N2 molecule dissociates into two nitrogen atoms, and these two atoms then interact with another intact N2 molecule to form a threesome that is then able to interact with IR similarly to CO2. Furthermore, these authors identified a “night sky shine” of IR whose wavelength identified it as arising from this nitrogen threesome interaction.

      http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1945ApJ…101…39S/0000039.000.html

      There are multiple postings of this paper on the net but it seems to be completely ignored in the CO2 warming narrative. If nitrogen is indeed active in IR due to this threesome-formation behaviour, then the CO2 warming story is dead.

    • What I found beyond incredible is that none of the authors, Nature’s editors, or the peer reviewers spotted a much more fundamentally fatal mathematical problem in this paper’s analysis.

      The great and worldly Ristvan is stuck in the 1950s , it seems.

      The reason no peer reviewer at Nature spotted these glaring analytical errors is that this is now par for the course. They have become aclimatised to such speculative BS inference of non existing causation. It has been the corner stone of climate science since the 80s.

      Presumably the reviewers were chose from their usual clutch of climate pseudo-science suspects who automatically saw no problem with the applied methods. After all , they are their own.

      Ristvan is very generous to Nature, which no longer is worthy of the estime it once held.

      Insolation depends on the barycenter between Earth and Sol.

      Sorry, insolation is dependent on the DISTANCE between the photosphere and Earth.

      Jupiter on the ‘Earth side’ of its orbit pulls the Sun closer to Earth

      It would be more appropriate to talk of Earth being on the Jupiter side of its orbit. Since Earth orbits about 12x faster, there is no “Earth side” to Jupiter’s orbit.

      Also Jupiter has far more effect on the tiny Earth than it has on Sol, so Earth is drawn closer to the sun when in opposition to Jupiter, not when it on the same side as Jupiter.

      The Earth still essentially orbits the Sun. Where the sun is, is affected by J but the Earth still orbits the sun.

      Barycentres are rarely of much use outside of the 2 body system, which is a special case where the BC is the effective center of the orbit of both bodies. Most other talk of BCs is BS.

      • The variation in distance from sun of “E-M barycentre near perihelion on 6th Jan is shown here. The circa 12y cycle is clearly visible. 150y/12.5 cycles = 12y

        https://climategrog.wordpress.com/em_perihelion/

        JPL ephemeris.

        Please read the notes before jumping to conclusions about what you see ( that upward drift is not the earth getting closer ).

      • If the Sun moves in its SIM closer to Earth’s aphelion (position 1) decreasing the Earth orbit eccentricity …

        This is totally “cart before the horse” muddled thinking.

        Perihelion is, by definition, the closest approach of the Earth to the SUN. Such things are always defined in terms of the major and minor body. While the attraction is mutual, it is always the more massive body which dominates. To talk of the Sun moving towards the Earth’s perihelion is talking of the top of a mountain moving closer to a cloud.

        All the talk of “inertial motion” suggests that the author does not realise that all bodies concerned are in freefall.

        The proper way to analyse this is to see the Earth ( or Earth-moon couple ) as orbiting the sun with the instantaneous position of the sun being perturbed slightly by the massive gas giants.

        There are small perturbations of the eccentricity of the Earth orbit and perihelion distance by the same ( mainly Jupiter ).

        Since the sun is a massive ball of plasma , not an idealised point mass at its centre there is a gravitational gradient across the sun caused by the planets ( mainly Jupiter due to its mass and next by Venus due to its proximity ) which induce tide raising forces, as the sun and the moon does on Earth. This could potentially induce variations in its internal and surface structures.

        Spurious use of PCA and insanely unwarranted extrapolation of a weakly fitted model orders of magnitude outside the model training period would have made this paper a cruel parody of most of what climatology has come to represent over the last four decades.

        Maybe we are all just missing the joke !!

  1. Nyquiat is actually met.
    The actual issue is that 33 years is insufficient data to get FFT frequency bins to be small enough to resolve a mono tonal signal of 360 periodicity.

    That said the authors are actually claiming to be able to resolve the 11 year & 12 year cycles, which should be resolvable using 33years of data.

  2. “Jupiter on the ‘Earth side’ of its orbit pulls the Sun closer to Earth, and on the ‘far side’ of its orbit pulls the Sun away from Earth.”

    Wouldn’t Jupiter pull the Earth towards Jupiter even more strongly than it pulls the Sun towards the Earth? After all, the Earth is closer to Jupiter than the Sun is.

    When Jupiter is on the opposite side of the Sun from the Earth, I would expect it to pull the Sun towards Jupiter more strongly than it pulls the Earth towards Jupiter.

    • Jupiter is so massive the barycenter of sun-jupiter lies outsides the suns radius. So the sun jupiter dance around that barycenter.
      https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/barycenter/doppspec-above.en.gif
      So in real terms Jupiter doesn’t actually orbit the sun it orbits the barycenter between the two bodies in that weird dance.

      Earth actually orbits the sun as the sun-earth barycenter is inside the suns radius so for the jupiter-sun system you can simply assume Earth is part of the mass of the sun. So the Earth moves with the sun-jupiter dance much much more than directly via jupiter-earth interaction. It’s weird but it’s a standard 3 body space problem.

      I presume that is what they are trying to describe but failing badly.

      • “So in real terms Jupiter doesn’t actually orbit the sun it orbits the barycenter between the two bodies in that weird dance.”
        Probably better to think of it as the Sun is in orbit around Jupiter Sun barycenter {mostly}. But it’s not called orbit, Sun is moved mostly by Jupiter Sun barycenter, also moved a bit all other masses in solar system.
        Or Earth is in orbit or moved by Earth Moon barycenter, and we do call the Moon in orbit around the Earth Moon barycenter.

        But better to use Einstein, and space-time is curved by mass, Sun’s the causing biggest gravity well, other masses gravity well {Jupiter closest and biggest] altering Sun’s gravity well and everything going in straight line but straight line is altered by space-time being bent.
        So with Earth, the Moon is closest and altering Earth’s own gravity well the most, but in orbit within the Sun larger gravity well- Earth going in straight line around the sun and around Earth Moon barycenter.
        And of course everything going in straight line in regard to our Galaxy which has largest gravity well, but as get closer to masses within our galaxy the space -time curvature is altered.

        • Sun is moved mostly by Jupiter Sun barycenter

          Nothing is moved by a barycentre because a barycentre has zero mass ! The idea of a “centre of mass” is human concept like magnetic “field lines”.

          ONLY in the special case of a two body system is the line of mutual gravitational attraction exactly along a line which passes through the barycentre. That means that the DIRECTION of the gravitational force passes through the BC. It does NOT mean that the BC is “attracting” anything. It can’t, it has not mass.

          • The other way a “centre of mass” or barycentre is valid is when viewed from sufficiently far away that the separation of the planets and the star from each other become negligible.

            eg. this would be legitimate when considering the motion of the solar system relative to the galactic centre.

    • I should add if you think about the moon orbit of earth while we orbit the sun. The sun does pull on the moon but the moon motion ultimately is much more controlled by earth than the sun because it orbits us and follows our motion. Hence you can simplify it’s motion by looking at it in that manner.

    • Exactly, this would shift the earth/sol oscillation by 180° (pi) from that given, although it wouldnt make any difference to a 300yr insolation effect.

      Re ~11 yr solar cycle, were the earth ‘stationary’ in its orbit, the solar cycle would be 12 yrs. That the solar cycle is ~11 yrs and not 12 is due to the the fact that the earth isn’t stationary and each earth revolution (in the same direction as Jupiter of course) subtracts (unravels) a 12th of the “oscillation” per earth year, ergo an 11yr oscillation. That the solar cycle isnt exactly constant is due to the myriad lesser ‘pulls’ in the whole system.

  3. Cyclomania a Finnish movie about bicycles. Do you know what else is Finnish? Kamala means ‘horrible’ in Finnish. Horrible Harris, it has a nice ring to it.

    The other thing about the Fourier series and Nyquist, etc. … When you’re talking about reconstructing a waveform, you’re talking about reconstructing a repeating waveform. Just because you have a 700 year data set, and you do an FFT, and you see a 350 year frequency, that doesn’t mean it actually exists. If you have a 1400 year data set, and you see repetition, ie. a repeating cycle, you might have some confidence that your 350 year cycle actually exists. If your two 700 year data sets show no similarity, forget your 350 year cycle. On the other hand, if you have 7000 years of data, even if you see no repeating waveforms, you could extract an actual 350 year cycle from under the noise.

    The problem is different if you are dealing with a well known signal, wifi for instance. If the signal is well known, you can extract data even when it looks like you’re violating the Nyquist criterion.

    Anyway, the dweebs who throw an FFT at a data set, and proudly declare that they’ve found a frequency, usually don’t know what they’re doing ’cause they don’t actually understand the underlying math.

    BTW, if I want to do something different than my usual trodden path with math, I run off and find a tame math PhD. ie. Just because you’ve got a PhD in Physics or whatever, that doesn’t mean you won’t step into a big pile of mathematical doggie doo. M&M find such piles in all kinds of climate related papers.

    • There’s also the issue of aliasing – if frequency components above the Nyquist frequency are present in the input stream before sampling, they’ll show up in the reconstructed signal as spurious low-frequency content. So, maybe short-term fluctuations are showing up as this long-term cycle.

      • To avoid that, one needs to filter the input signal to eliminate the high frequencies. You can never remove the error after digitizing.

        For music, there is a problem with filtering out signals above 20 kHz. A simple RC filter will start causing phase shifts of the frequencies approaching 20 kHz. To avoid distortion, one needs an active filter with a much sharper cutoff and little phase shift before digitizing the signal.

        My old book on Fourier analysis starts with the caveat that it is for Linear, Stationary systems. The basic elements of the model cannot be changing and must have a linear response. Weather is chaotic, Not linear. We have a climate that causes drifts in all of the major variables, Not Stationary. You should not expect anything out of Fourier analysis of weather.

        I remember some work on the periodicity of the solar system barycenter that is dominated by the sun, Jupiter and Saturn. The fundamental frequency is close to the solar magnetic cycle. One cannot use Fourier analysis for that because the solar cycle is solar weather, (Solar storms sound familiar?) Its a non-linear chaotic system. One might see a signal by looking for a near lock of the phase of the fundamental frequency. Finding a skip in that (an extra cycle over the centuries would not be a fatal error if they tend to become synchronized again.

        • Gary Palmgren August 16, 2020 at 10:40 am

          My old book on Fourier analysis starts with the caveat that it is for Linear, Stationary systems. The basic elements of the model cannot be changing and must have a linear response. Weather is chaotic, Not linear. We have a climate that causes drifts in all of the major variables, Not Stationary. You should not expect anything out of Fourier analysis of weather.

          If that’s what your “old book” says, you need a new book. Your claim about Fourier analysis makes no sense. Here’s a Fourier periodogram of the sunspot data compared to the HadCRUT temperature data.

          In this you can see the main period of the sunspot cycle at just under 11 years along with some smaller peaks with slightly longer and smaller cycles. Sure looks like Fourier analysis works for sunspot data, which you claim is not possible because the sunspot data is chaotic and changing …

          You can also see that the HadCRUT data does NOT contain any such 11-year cycle, which shows that the surface temperature is NOT significantly affected by the solar cycles. Same comment. Fourier works just fine for weather data.

          So … perhaps YOU can’t cannot use Fourier analysis on weather data.

          However, some of us can, with good effect.

          w.

    • Alternative translations of “kamala” are: terrible abysmal dreaded evil ghastly horrendous horrid.

      All of which are appropriate in her case.

    • I have never understood how “Scientists” can claim that by sampling at a frequency slighter greater than twice the frequency of the greatest frequency is justified. Yes if you are sampling a pure sine wave and want to sample it this way and use the obtained data to generate another PURE sine wave, it works. But is even the wave of one single piano note a PURE sine wave? NO. Even if generated from one piano string? NO. Piano notes use 1, 2 or three strings. Don’t know if it is true but a piano tuner told me when I asked how do you get all of the strings tuned to exactly same frequency, his response was “I don’t. The tone is better if they are very slightly different.” How is this going be digitized and then reproduced. Worse, is that anyone that has seen the display of any audio signal will note it is NOT a pure Sine wave. Fifty some years ago I learned ”Square waves are equivalent to a sine wave at the same (fundamental) frequency added to an infinite series of odd-multiple sine-wave harmonics at decreasing amplitudes. Like a square wave, the triangle wave contains only odd harmonics. However, the higher harmonics roll off much faster than in a square wave (proportional to the inverse square of the harmonic number as opposed to just the inverse).
      It seems intuitively obvious, that the subtilties of the extremely complex wave form of an orchestra, violin, piano, etc. will be lost without the capability to sample frequencies many times higher than the highest pure sine wave contained and properly reproduce them.

      • Uzurbrain, the part they always leave out of the description is “highest frequency of signal components that contain useful information“.

        Certainly an orchestra may emit sounds that annoy our canine friends, but we can’t hear them. Perhaps you could call it human chauvinism.

        Read on for some context if you’re curious:

        Bizarrely the high end audio nuts sample at frequencies up to 192 kHz, depending on the size of their hard drives. Maybe the disk storage lobby made a deal with the audio hardware manufacturers.

        There is actually a good reason for this, if you really dig into the nitty-gritty details. When you sample anything you get nasty artifacts sometimes known as “birdies” if there is any signal in the input above the Nyquist limit. Basically the signal is precessing against the sample rate, creating audible sounds that aren’t in the original signal. This can sound really bad, described as “ratty” sound.

        To avoid this, every audio sampling system includes a “brickwall” filter before the sampling stage. A perfect brick wall filter has full output at 19.99 kHz and no output at 20.01 kHz. Actually not possible in the real world, but they try. The result may or may not sound good, depending on the skill and knowledge of the converter designer. That’s why it is 44.1 kHz and not 40 kHz. Leave a little room for real parts in the brickwall!

        If you sample at 96 kHz or 192 kHz, you can use a simpler brickwall filter. Even if it has flaws, we are expecting that they will show up in the inaudible region.

        I suspect that most of what you could hear if your ears were canine-modified would be valve clicks and string slide sounds that you probably don’t want to hear anyway. But that’s just me, feel free to pay extra for direct-to-disk vinyl and turntables on compressed-air isolation mounts. Be sure to use laser cartridges. With tube amps and those amazing but finicky high-end speakers. Keeps us technicians in walking-around money.

        • “Certainly an orchestra may emit sounds that annoy our canine friends, but we can’t hear them. Perhaps you could call it human chauvinism”

          Ummmm, not quite true. It might be true for one instrument at a time being played but maybe not even then. Two different instruments outputting three different frequencies each produce a mixing of the frequencies that can certainly exist within the human hearing range. It’s why an orchestra playing together can sound more “full” than than one single instrument.

      • Uzurbrain:

        You say: “I have never understood how “Scientists” can claim that by sampling at a frequency slighter greater than twice the frequency of the greatest frequency is justified.”

        The “greatest frequency” includes the multiples of the fundamental frequency, usually called “overtones” in music. You use the examples of “perfect” square waves and triangle waves, which have an infinite series of overtones. But it is not possible to physically generate these perfect waveforms, as that would require infinite velocity and/or acceleration. In reality they are a finite series.

        Let’s say you play middle C on the piano. It has a fundamental frequency of about 260 Hz. Let’s say that it has significant overtones up to the 9th multiple, 2340 Hz. Sampling at 5000 Hz would be sufficient in principle to accurately detect and then reproduce this waveform. Sampling at 44.1 kHz makes it trivial to do so.

        • Ed Bo, Agreed.
          Now do your calculations for a fundamental frequency of 5,000 hertz, a frequency well within the maximum bandwidth of AM Broadcast band. All harmonics above 10 kHz are lost, they are also filtered out, by design, to prevent/minimize splatter and crosstalk. Thus all you get is the first harmonic. The frequency of the highest note on the piano is C8 at 4186 Hz. All you get is the first harmonic. Also lost are all of the frequency mixing that makes frequencies twice 4186 or any of the millions of other combinations of the 88 notes on the piano, etc. That is why AM radio music sounds blah, like you are wearing acoustic ear protectors.

          • Uzurbrain:

            The idea behind audio sampling at 44.1 kHz is to be able to reproduce frequencies up to 20 kHz (which are virtually always harmonic overtones) with a practical analog “anti-aliasing” filter before the sampler rolling off the response between 20 and 22 kHz.

            If the fundamental frequency is about 4 kHz, this can easily reproduce the 3rd harmonic at 12 kHz, and potentially the 5th harmonic at ~20 kHz (possibly attenuated).

            Of course, there are many ways, both digital and analog, that the high frequency content can be lost or distorted. The Nyquist sampling theorem just says it is possible in principle.

            Remember, though, that when you have two similar but not identical frequencies, the combination gives you lower, not higher, frequencies.

    • Remember when GM discovered why the Chevy Nova wasn’t selling in Spanish speaking countries?
      But I also prefer “Horizontal” or “Heels Up” to “Horrible”.

    • Commiebob said:

      If you have a 1400 year data set, and you see repetition, ie. a repeating cycle, you might have some confidence that your 350 year cycle actually exists. If your two 700 year data sets show no similarity, forget your 350 year cycle.

      Absolutely true. My rule of thumb is that I need to see five cycles to think there might be true repetition … and I’ve even been fooled in that one.

      Inter alia, this is why I use CEEMD instead of Fourier to decompose a signal … you can see if a signal persist or it fades in and out.

      w.

      • Now of course, the question we are all left with at the end of the day is, to what extent do these empirical intrinsic modes actually represent physical reality, and to what extent are they merely a way to mathematically confirm or falsify the connections between two datasets at a variety of timescales? I fear I have no general answer to that question.

        For an analog signal, the answer is simple. Can you tune the frequency of interest with a radio? If yes, then the signal is real. If no, then it isn’t.

        For data, as far as I can tell, if you feed the signal into a bandpass filter and the frequency of interest comes out the other side, it’s real. With digital filters, you do have to be wary of things that don’t happen in the analog world. Ringing artifacts are an example of such. For that reason I would be inclined to use an IIR because those are physically realizable whereas an FIR can produce filter characteristics that aren’t physically realizable.

        As with all such problems, if it mattered sufficiently, I would be on the phone with an actual signal processing expert.

        • commieBob August 13, 2020 at 3:40 pm

          For data, as far as I can tell, if you feed the signal into a bandpass filter and the frequency of interest comes out the other side, it’s real.

          True, but … as Bill Clinton remarked, it depends on the meaning of “real”.

          In the real world we find things like a signal at some frequency in our data that starts out strong but dies out entirely in the last half … is this a “real” signal?

          I call this kind of thing a “pseudo cycle”, but YMMV.

          In any case, a simple bandpass filter will NOT distinguish between this and the same signal but with continuous amplitude from beginning to end, i.e. a “real” signal. So your test is necessary but not sufficient … I use CEEMD analysis for this very reason. Here’s an example of what I mean:

          Note that the variations in the Lake Victoria data would indeed “come out the other side” of a bandpass filter, but that definitely does NOT mean that it is a real repeating cycle.

          Best regards,

          w.

  4. Cyclomania goes back a ways and is a common name for Cyclothymia. There are at least a few bike shops named with some variation of the word. And a 2001 Finnish movie titled Cyclomania. Years ago I named a rock climb Cyclomania in ref to one of my climbing buddies.

  5. figures etc provided and eventually checked and found in error.
    how its supposed to work
    no wonder mannikin and buddies wont show their work?

  6. If the solar cycle was a steady 11 years, then 33 years of sampling would satisfy Nyquist. For example. You can determined if mains power is 50 or 60 hz with a very short sample and predict this going forward with high reliability.

    The problem is that 11 years is an average, while the actual cycle has a much more complicated underlying distribution.

    • Exactly, in other words a much wider frequency band.
      Strictly then, the sampling theorem does not apply?

      • Sorry,a bit late, but anyway…

        If samples are yearly, then yes. But if they are monthly numbers, or daily numbers, then this also changes the calculation of how much “bandwidth” you have. Using an “average” is a low-pass filter, complete with all the attendant distortions (phase changes and other delay related effects).

  7. Did you know there’s a direct correlation between the decline of Spirograph and the rise in gang activity?

  8. “for Jupiter, the barycenter is actually always OUTSIDE the Sun, because Jupiter has so much more mass than Earth compared to the Sun.” Also Jupiter is much farther from the Sun. The barycenter is a purely mathematical construct, just like a center of mass. A center of mass of a doughnut is outside of its body.

    • Yes but it is the centre of mass which attracts all the rest of the doughnut , otherwise it would fly apart 😉

      • Do you believe that the Moon is attracted to an always shifting point in the lower mantle, which all satellites ignore? Or that the International Space Station is attracted to a very deep special barycenter of its own?

  9. What is really upsetting is that the “study” tried to use TSI Total Solar Irradiance as the mdulating factor of Earth temps.

    In reality, it is the magnetism of the sun (sun spots make a good proxy) that effects galactic cosmic rays, which then nucleate clouds (via ionized particles in the atmosphere) and cool the planet. The GCRs also “nucleate” some magmatic chambers via adding energy to absorbed gasses causing increased vulcanism, Moana Loa (et al) being near and dear to my heart and location and a prime example in the 2018. We also see the shared magma chamber at 41.8km depth being hit today with an earthquake, priming the pump so to speak. Using a data set of a few thousand years of volcanic observations, I have charted a clear pattern of 22 year cycles increase in vulcanism (2 solar cycles, or really 1 solar system since at each 11 years the suns north and south pole flip, so it takes 2 cycles to complete a “full cycle” back to original configuration.

    So what no one has grokked until I did in 2018 was that you get both at the same time….increased clouds AND increased vulcanism, both obvious cooling events.

    Being a heliophysics guy, and working in the solar industry in the USA of which solar tax credits are expiring somewhat in 2020, and gone completely in 2022, I’ll be a bit too busy this year to publish this in a scientifically proper fashion, until well in 2021.

    But I wanted you all to be aware of this for now. The warmistas are going to be sorely lacking the larger greenhouses that they should have invested in.

    Based on magnetic patterning I predict cycle 25 to be much like 24, and not the “grand minimum”, but hopefully 26 is the grand minimum which would be a better outcome than if the GM stretched to cycle 27.

    stock out

    • Fresh Energy August 13, 2020 at 8:25 am

      Using a data set of a few thousand years of volcanic observations, I have charted a clear pattern of 22 year cycles increase in vulcanism (2 solar cycles, or really 1 solar system [cycle?] since at each 11 years the suns north and south pole flip, so it takes 2 cycles to complete a “full cycle” back to original configuration.

      So your claim is that GCRs, which vary on an 11-year cycle, somehow cause vulcanism on a 22-year cycle? Not sure how that would work.

      I haven’t examined the data for any claimed 22-year cycle. However, I have shown that there is no 11-year cycle in vulcanism, see Volcanoes and Sunspots I’ll take a look at the 22-year claim, but it seems doubtful.

      Finally, despite extensive investigation, I’ve never found a sunspot-related cycle in surface temperature of either ~ 11 or ~ 22 year length. Which of course means that there’s no actual evidence for your proposed mechanisms … or any other mechanisms.

      Hang on … OK, I just went and got the data and ran the numbers. If we look at the number of all eruptions since 1800 (data before that is sparse and unreliable) in the Smithsonian database available here. I analyzed the number of eruptions per year. There is no sign of an 11-year or a 22-year cycle. There is a 26-year cycle which as you might imagine doesn’t line up with the solar 22-year cycle.

      w.

  10. She should have found some way to blame it on global warming. Then the paper would be retraction proof.

  11. “Jupiter on the ‘Earth side’ of its orbit pulls the Sun closer to Earth, and on the ‘far side’ of its orbit pulls the Sun away from Earth.”
    Who is the genius that writes this exactly backwards, does he live on the Bizzaro Planet ?
    with Jupiter on the ‘Earth side’ the Sun has to be on the far side of the barycenter so the distance from Earth is greater

  12. @CTM

    [note, I believe the term cyclomania was invented by Willis, so I want to make sure he gets credit. Rud got it from me.~cr]

    I have always believed that it was Leif Svalgaard who invented that term. Here he is, back in 2008, talking about “numerology and cyclomania”, an apt description of some of the more fanatical comments seen here.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/28/sun-still-quiet-over-two-months-since-a-cycle-24-spot-seen/#comment-19287

    Having said that, I think even Leif would agree that events that _are_ predictable tend to have cycles in them, from simple annual revolutions, 11-year sunspot surges and multi-millennial Milankovitch cycles.

    The issue is the tendency to prematurely characterize a series of random, non-periodic (“secular”) events as cyclic, where the periodic nature has not yet been convincingly proven. But it is not really a problem, because that is the nature of science, proof is difficult.

    Time will tell.

  13. I am inclined think the TSI variations from Solar cycles may be small, too small to have “climate” (some sort of global annual average temp) but there may be weather effects from what is dumped into the Earths upper atmosphere?

  14. < So in real terms Jupiter doesn’t actually orbit the sun it orbits the barycenter between the two bodies in that weird dance.

    No, that is not correct. The Earth actually orbits around the barycenter of Sun + Mercury + Venus, that is, the Sun + the interior planets.

    • I am pretty sure that gravity from every mass in the solar system exerts a force, and thus exerts an influence on the motion of, the orbit of every other body in the solar system.
      In fact, I can pert near guarantee it!

      • Perturbation of the orbit of Neptune led to the discovery of Pluto – yeah Nicholas, you’re correct.

    • No, that is not correct. The Earth actually orbits around the barycenter of Sun + Mercury + Venus, that is, the Sun + the interior planets.

      That is still incorrect, Jean. It is the barycenter of Earth + Moon what actually orbits the barycenter of Sun + Mercury + Venus. And the orbit is affected by all the rest of the planets. Actually the Earth and the Moon are almost a binary system because the Moon is a very large satellite for such a small planet.

      The barycenter of the Earth-Moon system has important implications. Nicola Scafetta demonstrated in 2010 that the power spectrum of the speed of the Earth around the Sun displays a peak at 9 years periodicity only when the speed of the Earth-Moon system respect the Sun is considered, and not if only the Earth is considered.
      Scafetta, N., 2010. Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 72(13), pp.951-970.
      https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.4639

      Changes in the speed of the Earth have important climatic implications. When the orbit of the Earth increases its eccentricity, the average distance of the Earth to the Sun over one orbit doesn’t change, but because the speed of the Earth changes according to Kepler’s second law it spends more time away from the Sun and receives slightly less insolation over a year. It is the only one of the Milankovitch orbital changes that modifies the amount of solar insolation the Earth receives over an entire year. The other Milankovitch orbital changes just modify the distribution of insolation over latitude and seasons.

  15. Even worse than cyclomania is cyclophobia which is Leif and Willis’ problem. And it is worse because lots of phenomena manifest as quasi-periodical oscillations, including the very well known 11-year cycle in solar activity that is the manifestation of a magnetical quasicycle of ~22 years. This quasi-cycle could not have been discovered during the Maunder Minimum because it was not active. I guess Willis would have called Heinrich Schwabe a cyclomaniac, since he called the discovery of his famous 11-year cycle with only 18 years of data. https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whschwab.html

    Zharkova’s research is not solid and I have been critizicing her for a long time. Her model does a terrible job at hindcasting past solar activity, as Ilya Ususkin has manifested also in writing. See for example:
    Comment on the paper by Popova et al. “On a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles” https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05203v1

    I am not surprised that her paper has been found incorrect.

    The prediction of a coming solar grand minimum is popular and has lots of supporters. It is however wrong. We are just undergoing a regular centennial minimum that should last exactly SC24 and SC25. See:
    Feynman, J. and Ruzmaikin, A., 2014. The Centennial Gleissberg Cycle and its association with extended minima. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119(8), pp.6027-6041.

    So several of Zharkova’s articles will also be shown wrong as soon as SC25 reaches its maximum activity.

      • Sure, but you mislabel your graphs on purpose to support your model, because the evidence available does not support it. One example is your figure 3 from your paper:
        Zharkova, V.V., Shepherd, S.J., Popova, E. and Zharkov, S.I., 2015. Heartbeat of the Sun from Principal Component Analysis and prediction of solar activity on a millenium timescale. Scientific reports, 5, p.15689.

        https://i.imgur.com/naW9TtH.png

        You place the Medieval Warm Period between 1350-1500 during the Spører Minimum instead of around 1000-1100, the Dalton Minimum between 1750-1800 when it took place 1790-1830, and the Modern Maximum between 1900-2000, when it did not start until past 1930. The output from your model has no relation to the increasing solar activity registered in 14C records since around 1450.

        That figure should have not passed expert review, nor should your claims that your model reproduces past solar activity.

        • “Mislabeled your graphs on purpose”? Are you a mind reader? Where is the science supporting your claim that she “mislabeled” “graphs on purpose?” You are claiming she is a complete fraud. Where is your evidence of intent to commit fraud? Character Assassination is the last refuge of those losing an argument.

          • Just what I said. Since the evidence doesn’t support your model you discard the evidence. There goes the inconvenient Spører Minimum.

            Too bad the Spører Minimum is clearly visible in the naked-eye sunspot database:
            https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0702/0702068.pdf
            See their figure 1a.

            Increased cosmic ray radiation cannot cause a decrease in sunspots as far as we know. Now what? You trust your model better than the naked-eye sunspot database, right? Well, I don’t.

          • Hi Ms Zharkova
            In 2004 I published sunspot amplitude formula http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/SSN.htm, correctly predicting the SC24 peak amplitude. An extended version correctly identified Oort, Wolf, Sporer, Maunder, Dalton and possibly a new Grand minimum around 2050 (?) as shown here
            http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GMa.gif.
            Note 1910-20 min is also there but for the other two ~1550 and ~1190 there are no data.
            The relevant periods of Grand Minima are published by NASA and equation is on the graph so you, or anyone else can have a go reproducing it, if so inclined.

          • Thank you for the references. I will have a look.

            Please keep in mind so far we only used the magnetic waves produced by dipole magnetic sources. While in real life the real magnetic waves seen on the surface are superposition of the magnetic waves produced by dipole, quadruple, sextuple, octuple magnetic sources.

            Only by adding the other waves we can fit closely the simulated curve to the observed one for solar activity. It requires some time and efforts.

          • Sporer was in fact two separate centennial solar minima. one very long one from around 1430, and a shorter one from 1550.

        • Javier writes:
          “You place the Medieval Warm Period between 1350-1500 during the Spører Minimum instead of around 1000-1100, the Dalton Minimum between 1750-1800 when it took place 1790-1830”

          Exactly, and her model is at a lower amplitude in the 1700’s than the 1600’s, but maximum amplitude during the greatest centennial solar minimum of the LIA series, from 1430. And given that centennial minima occur on average every 107.9 years, that cannot even coincide with 400 years.

        • I second the appreciation of your replying here. Most climate scientists can’t take the intellectual heat, so they stay out of the kitchen. Real climate scientists realise that heat is necessary to forge the finest steel … so props to you.

          w.

    • including the very well known 11-year cycle in solar activity that is the manifestation of a magnetical quasicycle of ~22 years. This quasi-cycle could not have been discovered during the Maunder Minimum because it was not active
      Several misconceptions here. The solar ‘cycle’ is not a cycle [or even quasi-cycle], but a self-sustaining eruption lasting [approx.] 18 years. Each eruption starts while the previous one is still running. There is no magnetic ’22-year’ cycle as eruptions overlap, as they did even during the Maunder Minimum.
      We have gone over this ad nauseam, so no need to beat this dead horse here

      • Several misconceptions here.

        That’s your opinion, as usual. Others beg to disagree:
        “We present observational signatures of solar cycle 25 onset. Those signatures are visibly following a migratory path from high to low latitudes. They had starting points that are asymmetrically offset in each hemisphere at times that are 21–22 years after the corresponding, same polarity, activity bands of solar cycle 23 started their migration. Those bands define the so-called “extended solar cycle.”
        McIntosh, S.W. and Leamon, R.J., 2017. Deciphering solar magnetic activity: spotting solar cycle 25. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, p.4.

        Read the paper, the time the magnetic bands take to travel from their start at around 35° latitude to the equator is 22 years. No self-sustained voodoo.

        • Read the paper, the time the magnetic bands take to travel from their start at around 35° latitude to the equator is 22 years. No self-sustained voodoo.
          If you had paid attention to the paper, you would see that the bands start at 55° not 35°
          The length of the eruption is poorly defined. The extended cycle has been quoted to last anywhere from 17 to 22 years. What is important is that it is not 11 years.
          During the Maunder Minimum, the cosmic ray modulation was stronger than at any time since, see e.g. https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2013/01/swsc130003/swsc130003-fig10.jpg
          from https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2013/01/swsc130003/swsc130003.html
          The point is that the eruptions do not form a magnetic cycle as they overlap.
          https://leif.org/research/The-Mysterious-Polar-Fields.pdf

          Just [mis]qouting papers you don’t understand does not cut it.

          • Hi doc, nice to hear from you.
            Agree, magnetic field erupts at high latitude and dies away at low latitude some 17-18 years later (green lines) while full magnetic cycle (white & grey lines) has 22 year periodicity.
            http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/22yearSSC.htm
            The 11 year sunspot cycle is a numerical construct and not true representation of reality; ‘think magnetic’.

            keep safe.

          • The usual diverting tactics. You said “There is no magnetic ’22-year’ cycle”. It turns out there is. It has a physical basis as it reflects the displacement of the solar magnetic bands.

            The 11-year sunspot cycle is a manifestation of this 22-year magnetic cycle. Every cycle is due to something.

          • It turns out there is. It has a physical basis as it reflects the displacement of the solar magnetic bands.
            No, you are confusing cause and effect. The sunspot eruption [often wrongly called ‘the cycle’, but we live with that wrong notion just as we live with cosmic rays not being rays] is due to a self-sustaining dynamo process that converts poloidal magnetic flux into toroidal magnetic flux at progressively lower latitudes from where some of it is transported by poleward circulation of plasma to the polar regions forming new poloidal flux being the seed for the following eruption. The ‘bands’ are visible effects of this, not the cause.
            You can learn more here: https://leif.org/research/The-Mysterious-Polar-Fields.pdf

            “The shape of the solar corona near minimum had already in the late 19th century led to suggestions that the sun had a General Magnetic Field. It was only in the 1950s that the Babcock father-son team succeeded in reliably measuring this field and found that it was concentrated around the poles. The observed (and unexpected) reversal of this Polar Field at solar maximum in ~1958 guided Babcock to his celebrated Solar Cycle Model in 1961 in which the polar fields at minimum serve as the seed for the generation of the magnetic sunspots in the following cycle as elaborated theoretically by Leighton in 1969. The basic ideas of this Babcock-Leighton model still today form the foundation for our
            description [‘understanding’] of the generation and evolution of the solar cycle, and led to the suggestion by Schatten, Scherrer, Svalgaard, & Wilcox (1978) that the magnitude of the polar fields near minimum could be used to predict the magnitude of the coming solar cycle. Observations have generally borne this suggestion out, especially the successful prediction of the now ending Cycle 24. Yet, many uncertainties and mysteries remain. The transportation of magnetic flux from the sunspot zones (the ‘toroidal’ flux) to the Polar Regions seems to be due to a meridional circulation that itself is poorly understood (how many cells? to what depth? etc.). How does the flux get into the deep interior? (advection and/or diffusion?). Can we model this process and from the observed or guessed distribution of active regions predict the polar fields and thus in turn the next cycle? How can the polar fields (and that in coronal holes generally) ‘live’ for years? Are there other processes that could maintain [or contribute to] the polar fields? Do the fields always reverse near solar maximum? even if solar activity is confined to one hemisphere only (as perhaps during the Maunder Minimum)? How do the polar fields extend into and help shape the heliospheric magnetic field? Can we reconstruct the polar fields in the past? These, and other, questions call for observations from better vantage points than the ecliptic. Understanding the polar fields seems to be key to unraveling the mystery of the solar cycle and the dynamo that drives it.”

          • It is still a cycle in magnetic flux of ~22 years. According to McIntosh and Leamon the activity bands define the cycle.

          • It is still a cycle in magnetic flux of ~22 years. According to McIntosh and Leamon the activity bands define the cycle.
            There is nothing as dangerous as a thin veneer of little knowledge fueled by ardent belief.
            The bands do not ‘define the cycle’. At all times, there are two bands in each hemisphere and they are not bands of ‘activity’, but just locations of bright points [small magnetic bipoles trapping hotter plasma] generated locally by the shearing of flux by the ‘torsional oscillation’ [essentially as system of winds] . They are ‘effects’, not causes. BTW, McIntosh and Leamon believe [on thin evidence] that the time when a band reach the equator is important for the prediction of the next cycle, and predict that the coming cycle 25 may become one of the largest ever observed.
            Perhaps you should flaunt your ignorance less prominently.

          • Those are not my words. They are the words of McIntosh and Leamon:
            “They had starting points that are asymmetrically offset in each hemisphere at times that are 21–22 years after the corresponding, same polarity, activity bands of solar cycle 23 started their migration. Those bands define the so-called “extended solar cycle.”
            Are you calling them ignorant? I just happen to agree with them.

          • Those bands define the so-called “extended solar cycle.”
            Are you calling them ignorant? I just happen to agree with them.

            The bands show the extended ’11-year’ sunspot cycle, not a 22-year magnetic cycle [as it is usually understood]. A ‘cycle’ that was very prominent in modulating cosmic rays during the Maunder Minimum.
            Now, there is some controversy [see e.g. Ed Cliver’s paper https://leif.org/research/Extended-Solar-Cycle.pdf%5D about the length of the extended cycle [or even its existence]. Lengths between 13 and 22 years have been quoted. M&L’s value represents an extreme that most solar physicists have problems with. If M&L’s prediction of cycle 25 becoming one of the strongest ever [observed] fails [what do you think?] it is likely that their 22-year extended cycle will fall at the wayside as well.

          • McIntosh and Leamon say the magnetic bands are temporally offset by 22 years:
            “This perpetual interaction, or telecommunication, of the temporally offset 22 year long magnetic activity bands appear to drive the quasi-11-year cycle of sunspot production.”
            They show it in figures 1, 2 and 3 of the article.

            Looks to me they have a possible explanation for the 11 and 22 year cycles. After all the polar fields take ~22 years to reverse their polarity twice. Your 18 year cycle, on the contrary, appears the product of cyclomania.

          • The bands show the extended ’11-year’ sunspot cycle, not a 22-year magnetic cycle [as it is usually understood]. A ‘cycle’ that was very prominent in modulating cosmic rays during the Maunder Minimum.
            Now, there is some controversy [see e.g. Ed Cliver’s paper https://leif.org/research/Extended-Solar-Cycle.pdf%5D about the length of the extended cycle [or even its existence]. Lengths between 13 and 22 years have been quoted. M&L’s value represents an extreme that most solar physicists have problems with. If M&L’s prediction of cycle 25 becoming one of the strongest ever [observed] fails [what do you think?] it is likely that their 22-year extended cycle will fall at the wayside as well.

            The bands show both cycles, because successive bands are temporally offset by ~22 years.

            You know that the cycle analysis I use agrees with the prediction that SC25 should be similar to SC24. It also predicts a stronger SC26 (no grand minimum). Nevertheless the existence of the magnetic bands, their migration, and their temporal offset by ~22 years don’t rest on M&L’s prediction for SC25. The bands are real and their position is tracked by following EUV brightspots and the g-node. They can be wrong on their SC25 prediction and still be correct on their interpretation of the 11 and 22 year cycles.

          • The bands show both cycles, because successive bands are temporally offset by ~22 years.
            You just don’t get it. There is only one cycle: the [mis-named] 11-year one, but it lasts longer than 11 years. The estimates vary from 14 to 22 years [depending on which variable you are looking at and which researcher you agree with]. Thus the cycles overlap and at all times there are some stuff from two cycles visible. The one-and-only cycle is driven by a dynamo in the interior [actually one in each hemisphere] and there is only one dynamo driven by a persistent circulation that scoops up and amplifies [by induction] the [random] debris from the previous cycle and leaves new debris for the next cycle. This is not controversial and is amply supported by direct observations.
            Listen good and learn.

          • You just don’t get it. There is only one cycle: the [mis-named] 11-year one, but it lasts longer than 11 years. …
            Listen good and learn.

            You talk and talk but even the references you use contradict you.

            “The Sun has two characteristic migrations of surface features—the equatorward movement of sunspots and the poleward movement of high-latitude prominences. The first of these migrations is a defining aspect of the 11-yr Schwabe cycle and the second is a tracer of the process that culminates in solar polarity reversal, signaling the onset of the 22-yr magnetic cycle on the Sun. … We review the growth of observational evidence for the extended AND 22-yr magnetic cycles
            Cliver, E.W., 2014. The extended cycle of solar activity AND the Sun’s 22-year magnetic cycle. Space Science Reviews, 186(1-4), pp.169-189.

            Unless my knowledge of Shakespeare’s tongue is wholly inadequate the use of the preposition AND and the way Edward Cliver writes about the cycles indicates he supports, or at least does not oppose, the existence of three cycles, the 11-year sunspot cycle, the extended cycle, AND the 22-year magnetic cycle.

            Now you will tell us that you know that when your pal Eddy talks about those cycles he really doesn’t mean cycles. LOL. Sure I’ll take your word for it against what he writes in his article.

          • It seems likely that the 22‐year variation in sunspot/solar wind activity plays a role in the observed 22‐year modulation of galactic cosmic ray intensity.
            That was 25 years ago. In the meantime we [and he] have learned that the 22-year modulation of galactic cosmic rays is not due a similar variation of solar[and wind] activity but to cosmic ray particles drifting in opposite ways depending on the polarity of the heliospheric magnetic field. I have explained that already upstream. Again, you don’t understand the physics, but are just looking for something [anything] that you think bolsters your opinion.
            The same is the case for the geomagnetic indices modulation. This is not a solar effect but a geometric effect having to do with sign of the interplanetary field when it hits the earth. Again, you do not care to try to understand the issue. Looks almost like the Dunning–Kruger effect has got a hard grip on you.

          • It is still a cycle in magnetic flux of ~22 years
            I think you are confused about the ‘magnetic 22-year cycle’. The usual idea is that the 22-year cycle consists of two 11-year cycles with opposite ‘polarities’ so that it takes two 11-year cycles to return to the same polarity. But, what M & L claim is that each 11-year cycle in reality lasts about 21 years [the ‘extended solar cycle’], beginning and ending several years before and after the ‘usual’ [numbered] cycle. So that, for example, cycle 24 really began in 1999 and only ended in 2020, and cycle 25 really began in 2011 and will last until 2031. Again, the point is that the extended solar cycles overlap, with about 11 years ‘in the middle’ with visible spots and other activity.

          • Leif, always enjoy your postings. What I’ve never figured out about the putative 22-year cycle is what units it is measured in … is there an actual variable that actually varies with an ~22-year period?

            Thanks for all you do,

            w.

          • is there an actual variable that actually varies with an ~22-year period?
            No, not a physical quantity per se. There are, however, several variables that depend on variations of the geometry and locations with that period. The sign of the polar fields. e.g., varies with a 22-year period, and so do everything that depends on that, e.g. cosmic ray modulation. But the polar fields are not a physical quantity as such, but an extrinsic property of the polar regions. It is like the fog cover in California where you and I live. It varies with a 24-hour period; or like the population of SF that varies both with 24-hour [commuters] and 7-day periods. I wouldn’t call these actual coherent ‘variables’.

          • My reference to Cliver’s analysis was garbled. Here is the correct one:
            https://leif.org/research/Extended-Solar-Cycle.pdf
            From his conclusion:
            “To summarize, there is an extended cycle, as was known since the 19th century (Fig. 12)
            from sunspot data. An 18–22 year (∼70◦–0◦) extended cycle is not supported by the data
            although a 13–16 year cycle (Table 1), assuming a nominal 11-yr Schwabe cycle, that extends poleward to the ∼50◦ delineator between the equatorward motion of ephemeral regions/sunspots and the poleward movement of polar crown filaments is well-established, and is supported by observations of green line emission (Figs. 13 and 14) and zonal flows (Figs. 16 and 17).”
            The critical point is that there is only one cycle (11-yr) but it has ‘overhangs’ especially before the first spot shows, so that the total length is longer than 11 years. How much longer is a matter of debate, but such debate is irrelevant for the question of the ‘one cycle’-paradigm.

          • The critical point is that there is only one cycle (11-yr) but it has ‘overhangs’ especially before the first spot shows, so that the total length is longer than 11 years.

            You are misrepresenting what Cliver says. He talks about three cycles, the 11-year cycle, the extended cycle, and the 22-year cycle.

            Let’s see for example what he puts as keywords:

            “Keywords: Extended solar cycle · 22-Yr magnetic cycle · Schwabe cycle · Sunspots · Polar crown filaments”

            Or when he says in the abstract:

            “We review the growth of observational evidence for the extended and 22-yr magnetic cycles”

          • You are misrepresenting what Cliver says. He talks about three cycles, the 11-year cycle, the extended cycle, and the 22-year cycle.
            I know precisely what Cliver says and means. The extended cycle is the 11-year cycle with ‘overhang’, not yet another cycle. By the 22-year cycle, he means the misunderstood Hale polarity changes. You have to put things in the right context. Physically there is only one cycle, as he sums it up: “To summarize, there is an extended cycle, as was known since the 19th century (Fig. 12) from sunspot data.”
            It is quite amazing that you cannot grasp this simple fact.
            Try to learn from your betters.

          • Unless my knowledge of Shakespeare’s tongue is wholly inadequate the use of the preposition AND and the way Edward Cliver writes about the cycles indicates he supports, or at least does not oppose, the existence of three cycles, the 11-year sunspot cycle, the extended cycle, AND the 22-year magnetic cycle.
            No, he discusses the concepts that are floating around and how to reconcile them. Regardless of your [mis]understanding of what he meant, I can tell you that from a ten-year collaboration with Ed Cliver, I know what he meant, namely that there is but one cycle with ‘overhangs’ [making the extended cycle], and that the 22-year cycle is a red herring.
            Now, the is still the question whether there is a true, real 22-year cycle. The issue is the so-called Gnevyshev–Ohl rule (that every other 11-year cycle is larger).
            The presence of a large-scale, quasi-steady magnetic field of fossil origin in the solar interior has long been recognized as a possible explanation of the Gnevyshev–Ohl rule. Such a fossil field will lead to a 22-years modulation, whereby the cycle is stronger when the fossil and dynamo field have the same polarity, and weaker when these polarities are opposite. The fossil field explanation of the Gnevyshev–Ohl rule makes one strong prediction: while the pattern may become occasionally lost due to large cycle amplitude fluctuations of other origin, whenever it is present even-numbered cycles should always be of lower amplitudes and odd-numbered cycles of higher amplitude . But the data indicate that the odd/even pattern has reversed between the time periods 1700–1800 and 1850–1990. This would then rule out the fossil field hypothesis unless, as argued by some authors (e.g Usoskin et al.), that a sunspot cycle has been “lost” around 1790.
            So, you see, confusion reigns supreme. But the existence of a single basic 11-year cycle [even if modulated] stands firm, both theoretically and observationally.

          • the way Edward Cliver writes about the cycles indicates he supports, or at least does not oppose, the existence of three cycles, the 11-year sunspot cycle, the extended cycle, AND the 22-year magnetic cycle.
            Now if there were three real physical cycles [as opposed to cycles only in your mind] they should show up in the power spectrum [or periodogram or FFT or similar tools …], but they don’t.
            Here is the spectrum of the sunspot number:
            https://leif.org/research/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN-1700-2008.png
            No trace of a 22-year cycle
            A more sophisticated treatment yields:
            https://leif.org/research/Lomb-Sunspot-Cycle-Revisited.pdf
            Again, no trace of a 22-year cycle.
            Instead, Lomb concludes:
            “The analysis was repeated with the sunspot numbers modified following the scheme proposed by Svalgaard [5]. Results similar to those with the unmodified data are obtained though, as expected, with changes to the longer term periods. The longer term periods equivalent to f01 to f05 in table 1 become, 99.79, 67.32, 54.19, 170.49 and 44.31 years. The long trend period f02 from table 1 is now gone, but the period around 100 years remains with the modulation by this period obvious in a visual examination of a plot of the modified sunspot number data. Most interestingly, all five of these longer term periods in the modified sunspot data are subharmonics of the main 11-year periodicity”[…]”This study confirms the structure of the sunspot time series demonstrated in paper 1: a stable 11-year periodicity (the Schwabe cycle) that is amplitude and phase modulated by the long-term periodicities discussed above (there is no indication if any of the modulation periodicities are real or if they just represent a Fourier fit to a random variation.) This clearly implies that a clock mechanism must exist within the Sun for the 11-year periodicity to persist in the solar data as was first suggested by Dicke [10].
            Modern theories provide a possible clock mechanism in the conveyor-belt-like meridional circulation between high polar latitudes and the equator. In the Babcock-Leighton models of Charbonneau and Dikpati [11] and [12] remnant magnetic flux from decaying sunspots is transported away from the equator by meridional circulation towards the poles generating the poloidal field of the following cycle. This field is transported to the base of the convection zone where shearing by differential rotation leads to a new toroidal field at low latitudes. Buoyant flux tubes rise to the surface as sunspots. In this way the meridional circulation provides the clock regulating the 11-year cycle and maintaining its continuity. “

          • You are misrepresenting what Cliver says.
            And why would I do that?
            My purpose of this exchange is to deliver information and education by being strictly honest and forthright [as I always am].
            What is your purpose? What is behind your accusation of misrepresentation?

          • You are misrepresenting what Cliver says.

            And why would I do that?
            My purpose of this exchange is to deliver information and education by being strictly honest and forthright [as I always am].

            You deliver information and education, but you also promote your personal views and hypotheses as if they were the accepted truth without ever saying “in my opinion” or “my view”, and then you engage in vicious attacks to anybody that questions your opinions even when supported by the literature to question what you say. Then you resort to authority, your own, to settle the matter. Hardly scientific.
            Your coming here is a manifestation of your ego. You say here things that you don’t dare to publish, like:

            There is no magnetic ’22-year’ cycle as eruptions overlap.

            There is only one cycle: the [mis-named] 11-year one, but it lasts longer than 11 years.

            Where have you published this? Where has anybody published this? But if we question what you say we are ignorants. So what you say has to take precedence over what it is published. Give me a break.

            What Ed Cliver does in his 2014 article is to defend the existence of an extended cycle, something that is known since the 19th century when it was seen that from the first spots from a cycle to the last ones it took about ~14 years. But he does not negate the reality of the 11 and 22 year cycles, no matter what you say. The 11-year cycle is a reality in sunspots and TSI. You get paid to predict the solar activity of that cycle, not the activity of the extended cycle, because it is the change in TSI that determines the life of the satellites.

            You want to apply your own definition of cycle, but a cycle, according to dictionaries is “a series of events or actions that repeat themselves regularly and in the same order.” The repetition of the solar polar magnetic fields inversions constitutes a 22-year magnetic cycle whether you want it or not.

            As it happens in climatology, solar experts appear to only be capable of seeing the trees and not the forest. It is evident (and Occam consistent)that the underlying cause of all these cycles, which is still unknown, cycles at ~22 years. This is the time that it takes for every cyclical phenomenon considered to be at the same position in the cycle, sunspots, magnetic fields, filaments, zonal flows, magnetic bands. You take for example your extended sunspot polarity cycle and move 22 years and find an analogous situation, sunspots at the same latitude and with the same polarity. That’s how the period of a cycle is calculated, by measuring the time it takes to find the analogous position.

            So the most parsimonious interpretation is that the unknown underlying cause of solar activity variations cycles at ~22 years, the 11-year is a subharmonic due to the magnetic inversion, and the various extended cycles are 11-year staggered 22 year cycles that have a null value over part of the cycle.

            What is your purpose?

            I only care about the science, mind you. I don’t like the way you attack people that don’t share your opinions. Nothing personal.

          • You deliver information and education, but you also promote your personal views and hypotheses as if they were the accepted truth without ever saying
            I don’t have ‘personal views’. Everything I say is based on hard-won science. Science that I have significantly contributed to over more than half a century, and that is not controversial. Have you ever contributed anything?
            Now, I don’t ‘suffer fools gladly’. And the blogosphere today is full of them, claiming that they are seeking science, when they actually are not and have little idea about what science is. Misinformation [e.g. as you push] must be resisted and countered. The word [and idea of a] ‘cycle’ in [solar] physics has a precise meaning, just like ‘theory’, that often differs from its use among lay people [‘evolution is just a theory’; the sun’s ’22-year magnetic cycle’; dumbed-down attempts of explanations]. The scientific [at least in physics] use of ‘cycle’ implies a cause-and-effect relationship: something ‘drives’ the cycle, often reacted to by a ‘restoring force’. On the sun that is the interplay between differential rotation and meridional flows of ionized matter across magnetic fields. Modern dynamo theory strongly supported by observations shows the existence of a single, basic 11-year ‘cycle’ [in each hemisphere]. The effects of that eruption are felt over a longer than 11-year time span [the extended cycle] and overlap between cycles. The ‘Hale cycle’ is just a simplified notion so as to be intellectually undemanding [for people like you]. You don’t see many ‘published’ papers discussing this because it is not a scientific issue [just like you don’t see many papers debunking flat-earthers]. I mentioned an example of a possible real 22-year cycle [the fossil field explanation of the even-odd Gnevyshev-Ohl hypothesis]; no dumbing-down needed for that one.
            An example of your lack of understanding is your claim that “the very well known 11-year cycle in solar activity [] is the manifestation of a magnetical quasicycle of ~22 years. This [which?] quasi-cycle could not have been discovered during the Maunder Minimum because it was not active”. I think that even Shakespeare would agree that you have cause and effect reversed here. The Hale cycle is but the dumbed-down crutch to remember Hale’s polarity laws. The 11-year cycle was very much active during the Maunder Minimum as evidenced by the [well-known] very strong 11-year modulation of cosmic rays at that time.

          • It is evident (and Occam consistent)that the underlying cause of all these cycles, which is still unknown, cycles at ~22 years
            No, that is not evident. What happens is that the magnetic field at the poles is dragged into the solar interior, gets amplified, erupts as sunspots, that when they decay leave the field again at the poles. This circulation lasts 11 years, which is the one and only real cycle.
            This is non-controversial, main-stream solar physics [and not just ‘my opinion’]

          • Have you ever contributed anything?

            As a matter of fact I have. Academia sends me e-mails every couple of days telling me my citations are increasing and my name is being mentioned in articles recently uploaded to Academia. According to Google Scholar my articles sum 1094 citations today. Although not stellar, my contribution to science is far from insignificant. And I don’t give a hoot about your opinion of me.

            The scientific [at least in physics] use of ‘cycle’ implies a cause-and-effect relationship

            Everything has a cause, but the cause might be unknown to us. Heinrich Schwabe described the 11-year sunspot cycle with only 18 years of data and without any clue about its cause, yet it was a cycle.

            The ‘Hale cycle’ is just a simplified notion so as to be intellectually undemanding [for people like you].

            There you have an example of your opinion stated as fact followed by an insult. Yet as I have demonstrated repeatedly other authors differ:
            “A Hale cycle, one complete magnetic cycle of the Sun, spans two complete Schwabe cycles (also referred to as sunspot and, more generally, solar cycles). The approximately 22-year Hale cycle is seen in magnetic polarities of both sunspots and polar fields, as well as in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays reaching Earth, with odd- and even-numbered solar cycles displaying qualitatively different waveforms.”
            Owens, M.J., McCracken, K.G., Lockwood, M. and Barnard, L., 2015. <a href="https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2015/01/swsc150038.pdf"The heliospheric Hale cycle over the last 300 years and its implications for a “lost” late 18th century solar cycle. Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 5, p.A30.

            The 11-year cycle was very much active during the Maunder Minimum as evidenced by the [well-known] very strong 11-year modulation of cosmic rays at that time.

            The cycle was discovered by counting sunspots, not by measuring cosmic rays, and there were not enough sunspots between 1650 and 1700 for the cycle to be discovered then.

            That you state your opinions as fact and attack people that disagree, yet disguise what you do as “delivering education” brings a song to mind:

            We don’t need no education
            We don’t need no thought control
            No dark sarcasm in the classroom
            Teachers leave them kids alone
            Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone
            All in all it’s just another brick in the wall

            We have the scientific bibliography, thank you. It is the way to go in science. As the old adage goes “Nullius in verba”.

          • It is evident (and Occam consistent)that the underlying cause of all these cycles, which is still unknown, cycles at ~22 years
            More on the real 11-year cycle that is the actual underlying cause of solar ctivity:
            https://leif.org/research/Solar-Cycle-Gizon.pdf
            Ont this plot I have indicated the extended cycle:
            https://leif.org/research/extended-cycle-x.png

            You can learn a lot by listening to the experts [like me] instead of wasting everybody’s time with misunderstood oversimplifications.
            This completes your education this time around.

          • You can learn a lot by listening to the experts [like me] instead of wasting everybody’s time with misunderstood oversimplifications.

            That’s exactly what the alarmist climate-is-driven-by-CO2 “experts” say.

            The solar activity cycle cannot end until everything is the same it was at the beginning, and that happens after ~ 22 years when the magnetic fields and sunspot polarities go back to being the same. It is like turning a coin, you get a flat surface after turning it once, but to get the same side up you need to turn it twice. The 11-year cycle is a sub-harmonic of the 22 year cycle. The fact that sunspots, filaments, EUV brightspots and zonal flow migrations take somewhere in between 11 and 22 years to be completed is a strong indication that the 22-year cycle is the fundamental one. The fact that the extended solar cycle and the 22-year magnetic cycle do not fall out of phase indicates that the extended solar cycle is anchored to the 11 & 22 year cycles. The fact that the extended solar cycle is longer than the 11-yr solar cycle indicates that it is not a manifestation of the 11-year cycle or it would reset when the 11-year cycle resets, and it doesn’t. It can only be a manifestation of a more fundamental 22-year cycle.

            You could also improve your education if you were more open minded but, alas, it doesn’t appear possible.

          • in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays reaching Earth, with odd- and even-numbered solar cycles displaying qualitatively different waveforms.”
            just shows that even these authors can’t get it quite right. The difference is not between even and odd cycles, but between intervals from maximum to maximum [i.e. between polar field reversals] and has nothing to do with the sun per se, but is caused by cosmic ray particles gyrating in opposite directions for different magnetic field directions on opposite sides of the heliospheric current sheet. See e.g. slide 25 of https://leif.org/research/What-Geomagnetism-can-Tell-Us-about-the-Solar-Cycle.pdf The effect is most starkly seen at solar minimum when the current sheet becomes so flat that the sector structure disappears for several rotations as I suggested so long ago, see e.g. https://leif.org/research/Anomalous-Cosmic-Ray-Anisotropy-1954.pdf . Again, one can use the Hale cycle as a mnemonic to remember the effect, but it is wrong to associate it with a fundamental underlying solar 22-year cause. It is also an example of how you can jump on this without understanding what is going on.

            The cycle was discovered by counting sunspots, not by measuring cosmic rays, and there were not enough sunspots between 1650 and 1700 for the cycle to be discovered then.
            You said this just after invoked cosmic rays as showing your point. Again, an example of not wanting to admit that the solar cycle was operating during the Maunder Minimum.
            see e.g. An Active Sun Throughout the Maunder Minimum, Jürg Beer, Steven Tobias & Nigel Weiss, Solar Physics volume 181, pages237–249(1998):
            “Measurements of 10Be concentration in the Dye 3 ice core show that magnetic cycles persisted throughout the Maunder Minimum, although the Sun’s overall activity was drastically reduced and sunspots virtually disappeared. Thus the dates of maxima and minima can now be reliably estimated. Similar behaviour is shown by a nonlinear
            dynamo model, which predicts that, after a grand minimum, the Sun’s toroidal field may switch from being antisymmetric to being symmetric about the equator. The presence of cyclic activity during the Maunder Minimum limits estimates of the solar contribution to climatic change.”

            The re-iterate: the [perhaps so misnamed?] 11-year cycle is the one-and-only real cycle; it is controlled by a circulation [one in each hemisphere] lasting about 11 years; the cycle has ‘overhangs’ on both sides: effects are observable both before and after the visible sunspots and mark the ‘extended cycle’ [lasting anywhere from 14 to 21 years depending on which phenomenon one looks at]. A useful mnemonic to remember Hale’s polarity laws is the ‘Hale cycle’, but it is fundamentally wrong [although often mistakenly believed] to think that the process that takes place inside the sun, creating the solar cycle, lasts 22 years. It does not, as observations of the plasma flows inside the sun so clearly shows. What in this is so hard to understand?

            Being ignorant about some issue is not a sin. Not wanting to learn, is.

            Although not stellar, my contribution to science is far from insignificant.
            It would be of interest for you to show us a link [if any] to what you consider to most relevant to the topic at hand.

          • The 11-year cycle is a sub-harmonic of the 22 year cycle. The fact that sunspots, filaments, EUV brightspots and zonal flow migrations take somewhere in between 11 and 22 years to be completed is a strong indication that the 22-year cycle is the fundamental one. The fact that the extended solar cycle and the 22-year magnetic cycle do not fall out of phase indicates that the extended solar cycle is anchored to the 11 & 22 year cycles. The fact that the extended solar cycle is longer than the 11-yr solar cycle indicates that it is not a manifestation of the 11-year cycle or it would reset when the 11-year cycle resets, and it doesn’t. It can only be a manifestation of a more fundamental 22-year cycle.

            This makes no sense at all, but is typical pseudo-science from somebody without any understanding at all of the physics. The one-and-only cycle is driven by an observed plasma circulation. The idea of a ‘reset’ is nonsense. This is what happens: leading up to solar maximum, the polar fields begin to reverse due to new flux arriving from lower latitudes cancelling out the old flux and building up new flux. Some of that new flux will be dragging down into the sun because the meridional circulation is operating at all times [due to a slight temperature gradient with latitude]. On its way down, amplification due to induction is already happening so some [not much] of the new flux will be rise to the surface, not strong enough to form spots, but strong enough to form bright points, so a band of bright spots will begin to form at the edge of the polar cap at the time when the polar fields begin to change. As time goes on, more and more new flux arrives, the polar cap shrinks, the new flux is still being dragged down, some of it that as already n its way down will rise forming new bright points but at progressively lower latitude. Eventually, enough flux has arrived at depth to be ever more strongly amplified and rise, now strong enough to form visible dark spots and the ‘normal’ cycle will begin. Eventually, most of the flux will have risen and visible spots peter out, but there is still some weaker flux left, still forming bright spots at progressively lower latitude, until that eventually is also exhausted. In the meantime, debris from the spots is on its way to the poles and the whole thing repeats, but now with reversed polarities because of Joy’s law [that the line joining the two bipolar spots has a small tilt against the equator].
            So, the basic [11-year] cycle generates everything we see, explaining the extended cycle, the visible spots, overlapping bands, and the polarity changes, all in one go. Easy to understand, no mystery. No semantic problems, just simple observations of which we have centuries worth. What is not to like?

          • What in this is so hard to understand?

            According to you the only “real” cycle is a cycle that nobody knows how long it lasts, that is characterized by a central period of 11-years and “overhangs” at both sides.

            Since the central periods of 11-years follow each other, the “overhangs” overlap the previous and following 11-year periods.

            The central period plus the “overhangs” can last anywhere from 14 to 21 years, but not 22 years as that number is forbidden because it is a mnemonic for the polarity laws. Lasting 21 years is OK, but lasting 22 years would make the whole thing fundamentally wrong [although often mistakenly believed].

            Thinking that the “overhangs” last 5.5 years and the whole cycle lasts 22 years makes you an ignorant and unless you repent, also a sinner.

            Your proposition is so obviously ridiculous as to being risible.

            The evidence shows that for every phenomenon associated to the 11-year cycle in solar activity, a semi-analogous situation is reached after ~11 years and an analogous situation is reached after ~22 years. That is the definition of the period of a cycle.

            And you fail to disclose that other experts have a completely different view to yours:
            “Summary of Findings
            1. The ∼11 yr sunspot cycle is a result of the interaction between the (temporally) overlapping toroidal activity bands of the 22 yr magnetic activity cycle.”

            McIntosh, S. W., et al. “Deciphering solar magnetic activity. I. On the relationship between the sunspot cycle and the evolution of small magnetic features.” The Astrophysical Journal 792.1 (2014): 12.

            The figures in that paper show clearly that despite the magnetic bands taking 19 years from when they appear to when they disappear (the extended cycle), the next one to appear afterwards does so ~22 years after the one with the same polarity appeared. So there is a ~3 year waiting period that when added to the 19-year extended cycle gives the true ~22-year periodicity that is so clearly visible as the time to reach an analogous situation.

            Your disqualification of everyone that disagrees with you reveals your true character.

            Why is it that challenging the dogma makes you the target of attacks by the defenders of the orthodoxy? Science advances by questioning the conventional wisdom of the day.

          • 1. The ∼11 yr sunspot cycle is a result of the interaction between the (temporally) overlapping toroidal activity bands of the 22 yr magnetic activity cycle.”
            It is, indeed, a bold assertion that goes against the grain of traditional wisdom, but that alone does not make it right. Their ideas have not gotten much traction and are mostly ignored, mainly because they are not necessary as the exposition I gave above is a perfectly satisfactory explanation of the observations within the current [successful] paradigm.
            What is useful in the McIntosh et al. hypothesis is the support for the extended cycle, but that is hardly new. Any hypothesis stands or falls with the predictions it makes.
            Their predictions of solar minimum ‘somewhere in the last half of 2017’ and lately of SC25 becomes one of the strongest ever observed may be the downfall of their hypothesis. In fact, they have changed their mind on this, in 2018 [SORCE meeting 2018: https://leif.org/research/McIntosh-SC25-is-here.png ] they claimed that SC25 WILL [sic] be smaller than SC24, while now they say it will be much stronger.
            The observations of flows in the solar interior find no traces of a 22-year mechanism underlying the solar cycle. The argument that the sun ‘returns to the same situation after 22 years’, does not establish a physical underpinning for the hypothesis. By that argument, the ’22-year cycles’ overlap as cycle 20 and 21 form a cycle, but so do 21 and 22, and 22 and 23, and 23 and 24, etc, so that in 33 years we have two 22-year cycles, which is, of course, absurd, and certainly not useful.
            It is true that science can advance when new ideas confront traditional wisdom, but it does not follow that this always is so, most of the time it is not.

          • So far the funniest exchange in the thread has been this one (emphasis mine) …

            Javier:

            Unless my knowledge of Shakespeare’s tongue is wholly inadequate, the use of the preposition AND and the way Edward Cliver writes about the cycles indicates he supports, or at least does not oppose, the existence of three cycles, the 11-year sunspot cycle, the extended cycle, AND the 22-year magnetic cycle.

            Leif Svalgaard August 14, 2020 at 7:35 pm

            No, he discusses the concepts that are floating around and how to reconcile them. Regardless of your [mis]understanding of what he meant, I can tell you that from a ten-year collaboration with Ed Cliver, I know what he meant, namely that there is but one cycle with ‘overhangs’ [making the extended cycle], and that the 22-year cycle is a red herring.

            Gotta say, I fell out of my chair laughing at that one, very well played by Leif.

            I can only add my rule of thumb, which is:

            “Be very careful when disputing with a man who has a scientific effect named after him in the field of discussion”

            … e.g. …

            In the sixties Svalgaard and Mansurov discovered that the shape of diurnal variations of a magnetic field in high latitudes depend on the sign of IMF sector structure. Later this dependence was named the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect.

            So for those unaware of it, Leif has been a big name, not just working in the field of solar physics but well known in the field, for FIFTY FREAKIN’ YEARS! So I have to give Leif big props for putting up with Javier’s completely unjustified and ugly condescension … fortunately for me, the upside is, I’ve learned a lot out of the exchange.

            From Leif, that is. Nobody ever learns much from Javier.

            Regards to all, including Leif and Javier,

            w.

          • very well played by Leif.

            On that we only have Leif’s word for it, while Ed Cliver’s article is entitled:
            Cliver, E. W. “The extended cycle of solar activity and the Sun’s 22-year magnetic cycle.” Space Science Reviews 186, no. 1-4 (2014): 169-189.

            If Ed Cliver really believes the 22-year cycle is a red herring he disguises it very well, because he puts its name in the title of the article, and never in the article he even hints once that the 22-year cycle is not a real cycle.

            As usual, Leif arguments are “I say.” But the principle of authority is known to be a fallacy since Aristotle’s times.

          • You can laugh all you want, Willis. That means nothing.

            I present evidence B:

            Cliver, E.W., Boriakoff, V. and Bounar, K.H., 1996. The 22‐year cycle of geomagnetic and solar wind activity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101(A12), pp.27091-27109.

            “We present new evidence for this 22‐year cycle using the aa magnetic index for the years 1844–1994. Over this 150‐year interval, the 22‐year cycle can be observed through differences between the decay phases of even‐ and odd‐numbered cycles in (1) average values of a 27‐day recurrence index; (2) the results of a χ2 “event” analysis of 27‐day recurrences of both disturbed and quiet days; and (3) an apparent annual modulation of the 27‐day peak in the power spectrum of the aa index.

            The amplitudes of the 22‐year sunspot and geomagnetic activity cycles over the last 150 years are shown to be highly correlated. The 22‐year pattern of geomagnetic activity appears to be a reflection of the solar dynamo coupling of poloidal magnetic fields on the decline of one solar cycle to the toroidal fields at the maximum of the following cycle. It seems likely that the 22‐year variation in sunspot/solar wind activity plays a role in the observed 22‐year modulation of galactic cosmic ray intensity.”

            Oh my gosh! Looks like Leif is not telling us how it really is. Not only there is no evidence that Cliver is a 22-year cycle skeptic. Quite the contrary, article after article he talks about the 22-year cycle as a real one.

          • If Ed Cliver really believes the 22-year cycle is a red herring he disguises it very well
            Jeez, I know exactly what he meant, so my word stands. We had discussed this [he even acknowledges that in the article].
            And he does not say that the Hale Cycle is a ‘red herring’. He just mentions it in passing to remind the reader that there there are Hale’s polarity laws,and that they can be summarized by the notion of a ‘Hale Cycle’. “Today, this magnetic cycle is generally referred to as the 22-yr, or Hale, cycle based on a nominal 11-yr Schwabe cycle”. Meaning that people refer to that effect by the moniker ‘Hale Cycle’. Later on he goes on the say “There are several lines of evidence that the solar activity cycle is longer than the nominal 11-yr sunspot cycle […] the full duration of each [cycle] is, not eleven but twelve to fourteen years”. This is the extended cycle. Moreover: “Extended cycle lengths deduced from green line measurements are ∼17–18 years. As noted above, the surface torsional oscillations reported by Howard and LaBonte (1980) moved from pole to equator over a 22-year interval [making the extended cycle 22 years long]. Also: “The premise of the extended cycle is that the equatorward migration of sunspots during a given solar cycle [that is the usual 11-year cycle] can be extended to higher latitudes and earlier times by considering forms of solar activity that can be detected prior to sunspots.” But there is debate about this: “Wilson et al. also included coronal green line emission as evidence for a high-latitude (>70∘) origin for the extended cycle. The green line emission exhibits both a high-latitude branch associated with the rush to the poles and an equatorward-moving branch associated with sunspot formation. Figure 13 shows how the two may be conflated. In this figure, at about the same time the high-latitude emission in the northern hemisphere is moving equatorward to ∼60∘, the green line emission associated with the extended cycle is making its appearance near 40∘. One is inclined to connect the dots—thereby erroneously linking the two fundamentally different migrations of solar activity”. And there is more: “The behavior of the high-latitude branch has been recently modeled by Robbrecht et al. (2010) using data from the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (Delaboudinière et al. 1995). They associate the high-latitude EUV emission with the boundary of the polar coronal hole (Wang et al. 1997; Benevolenskaya et al. 2001). In simple terms, the sequential equatorward, then poleward, motion of the band of high-latitude coronal emission (and the underlying polar crown filament, Fig. 10) following polarity reversal is viewed as a reflection of the waxing and waning of the polar coronal hole as the polar field first strengthens during the decline of the cycle and then begins to weaken near minimum (Fig. 11) in concert with the rush to the poles.” Cliver’s conclusion is “To summarize, there is an extended cycle, as was known since the 19th century (Fig. 12) from sunspot data. An 18–22 year (∼70∘–0∘) extended cycle is not supported by the data although a 13–16 year cycle (Table 1), assuming a nominal 11-yr Schwabe cycle, that extends poleward to the ∼50∘ delineator between the equatorward motion of ephemeral regions/sunspots and the poleward movement of polar crown filaments is well-established, and is supported by observations of green line emission (Figs. 13 and 14) and zonal flows (Figs. 16 and 17).”
            One must remember that his paper is a review of several contentious view points.
            The point is that the ‘extended cycle’ is the result of activity of the 11-year cycle brought about by migration of the magnetic flux derived from the dynamo that also creates the sunspots.
            The importance of the extended cycle lies in the prediction of the next cycle from the debris of the current cycle: “The rush to the poles phenomenon first observed in solar prominences and subsequently in the coronal green-line emission and the zonal flows is intimately connected with polarity reversal and the ensuing development of the polar fields. The polar field strength at solar minimum is thought to be the most reliable precursor for predicting the peak sunspot number of the following cycle (e.g., Schatten, Scherrer, Svalgaard, and Wilcox 1978; Svalgaard, Cliver, and Kamide 2005).
            The notion of the Hale Cycle plays no role in this.
            Sometimes it is useful to actually read and understand papers instead of just looking for ‘interesting’ snippets out of context.

          • As I have said you present your opinions as if they were facts accepted by the solar expert community when they are not. It is clear that there are experts that consider the 22-yr Hale cycle as the fundamental one as I do. I already presented the evidence from McIntosh and Leamon (exhibit A):

            “Summary of Findings
            1. The ∼11 yr sunspot cycle is a result of the interaction between the (temporally) overlapping toroidal activity bands of the 22 yr magnetic activity cycle.”

            McIntosh, S. W., et al. “Deciphering solar magnetic activity. I. On the relationship between the sunspot cycle and the evolution of small magnetic features.” The Astrophysical Journal 792.1 (2014): 12.

            Here is another one (exhibit C):
            “8. The Dynamical Origins of Each Cycling Mode
            The real 22 yr sunspot cycle must be the result of a complex interaction between turbulent convection, rotation, and magnetism.

            10. Conclusions
            The fourfold-wreath cycle captures aspects of the 22 yr sunspot cycle (namely, the solar butterfly diagram)”

            Matilsky, L.I. and Toomre, J., 2020. Exploring Bistability in the Cycles of the Solar Dynamo through Global Simulations. The Astrophysical Journal, 892(2), p.106.

            They have the opposite view to yours. For them too the real sunspot cycle is the 22-year cycle. They say so. No interpretation required.

            Yet you have been attacking me, with your pal cheering, for sustaining an opinion that is shared by other experts, and is supported by some evidence.

            Fogtmann-Schulz et al. (2019), when analyzing solar activity through the Spörer Minimum using high-precision, annually resolved radiocarbon concentrations based on Danish oak dendrochronology, what they see is:
            “A time-resolved periodogram (Figure 3b) shows the 22-year Hale cycle to be present throughout most of the Spörer Minimum and that the period is elongated between CE 1490 and 1530. There is no sign of the 11-year Schwabe cycle at the 90% false-alarm level until CE 1545, where it appears with a shortened period of 8–9 years.” The Maunder Minimum also displays more power in the 22-year frequency than in the 11-year frequency.
            Fogtmann‐Schulz, A., et al. “Variations in Solar Activity Across the Spörer Minimum Based on Radiocarbon in Danish Oak.” Geophysical Research Letters 46.15 (2019): 8617-8623.

            The evidence shows that when solar activity is reduced to the point there are so few sunspots that the 11-year period can no longer be recognized, the 22-year period is still detectable above the 99% false-alarm level. This supports that the 22-year cycle is the fundamental one. If only half of the magnetic bands produce activity above noise level, then the 11-year subharmonic would disappear, while the 22-year periodicity would remain.

            You have failed to present a single quote that supports your striking view that:

            There is only one cycle: the [mis-named] 11-year one, but it lasts longer than 11 years.
            There is no magnetic ’22-year’ cycle as eruptions overlap.
            The ‘Hale cycle’ is just a simplified notion so as to be intellectually undemanding [for people like you].

            You don’t come here to discuss about scientific research on solar activity. You come here to [mis-re]present your position as the only one acceptable, when it is not, and to defend your personal orthodoxy attacking anyone that dares question it as an ignorant with a mental weakness.

            I think I have made my point. There are solar experts that believe the Hale cycle is the fundamental cycle in solar activity and say so in their recent publications. This is a fact that you can’t deny. For your [so far unique] position that there is only the 11-year cycle and there is no magnetic 22-year cycle we only have your word in the comments of a blog.

            Now Willis can laugh.

          • This whole [rather silly] discourse started by:
            Javier August 13, 2020 at 10:02 am
            Even worse than cyclomania is cyclophobia which is Leif and Willis’ problem. And it is worse because lots of phenomena manifest as quasi-periodical oscillations, including the very well known 11-year cycle in solar activity that is the manifestation of a magnetical quasicycle of ~22 years. This quasi-cycle could not have been discovered during the Maunder Minimum because it was not active.

            This has several problems:
            1) inappropriate use of denigrating ‘cyclophobia’
            2) the claim that the 11-year cycle is a manifestation of a magnetical cycle of 22 years as if that were a fact, when that claim is just a controversial and not generally accepted hypothesis of a few researchers
            3) that the cycles were not active during the Maunder Minimum while it is well-known that solar magnetism was cycling significantly during said interval

            I pointed out that these things were not true [evidence of bias and ignorance] and Javier’s litany of attacks got rolling. At least there have been a beneficial side effect of the exchange in that the readership got a chance to learn something about the sun [and even of the darker side of the attacker]

          • I already presented the evidence from McIntosh and Leamon (exhibit A):
            1. The ∼11 yr sunspot cycle is a result of the interaction between the (temporally) overlapping toroidal activity bands of the 22 yr magnetic activity cycle.

            As usual, you conflate ‘evidence’ with unproven ‘claim’.

          • In your discussio of
            Fogtmann‐Schulz, A., et al. “Variations in Solar Activity Across the Spörer Minimum Based on Radiocarbon in Danish Oak.” Geophysical Research Letters 46.15 (2019): 8617-8623. you claim that:
            The evidence shows that when solar activity is reduced to the point there are so few sunspots that the 11-year period can no longer be recognized, the 22-year period is still detectable above the 99% false-alarm level. This supports that the 22-year cycle is the fundamental one.”

            This is, however, at variance with what they actually said:
            “Band-pass-filtered data centered on the 11-year cycle show enhanced variability around the end of the minimum and the following years for both GSMs. For the MM, this period coincides with the reappearance of sunspots on the solar surface. The fact that we observe similar enhancements in the variability in band-pass-filtered records centered on the Schwabe cycle toward the end of the SM indicates that this feature might be a general feature of GSMs. We are, however, not able to investigate if the Sun was capable of generating sunspots during this period as very limited historical sunspot observations exist from this period. Indications of a similar behavior are observed in a band-pass-filtered record centered on the 22-year Hale cycle, that is, that it seems to die out during the deepest parts of the minima
            i.e. quite contrary to your claim. Such low behavior seems to be your trade mark.
            Again, there is no indication of the Hale Cycle being fundamental, as it ‘dies out’ when it should be most evident. But, it would be more correct to say that the data from those two Grand Minima are too noisy to conclude anything, except that the 10Be data shows that the Schwabe cycle was fully operational during both (c.f. Beer, and Berggren).

  16. Rud,
    Thank you for an interesting article that inspires more study and research! A thank you also to commieBob for the translation from Finnish; she will always be Horrible Harris to me now!
    As an avid Spirograph user when I received the original toy at thirteen, I have to say that the figures in the above picture are pathetic! I could do better than that after about an hour of exploring the possibilities; but maybe that was the point! And don’t get me started about the color choices!

  17. I found out about Zharkova’s paper retraction a week ago:
    https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/community/topic/1775-new-research-suggests-solar-cycle-25-could-be-strongest-in-50-years/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-12407

    After publication, concerns were raised regarding the interpretation of how the Earth-Sun distance changes over time and that some of the assumptions on which analyses presented in the Article are based are incorrect.

    The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented.

    S. I. Zharkov agrees with the retraction. V. V. Zharkova, E. Popova, and S. J. Shepherd disagree with the retraction.

    Zharkova’s is an example of what’s wrong with science. She pushes her theory-driven science that is not supported by evidence. In his reply to Ilya Usoskin she goes as far as to say:
    We believe that the Sun is on our side, because in a few years time our star will start the next grand minimum (2020–2053), as we predicted and everyone on the Earth will witness it, including [Usoskin]”
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320147498

    The Sun is on your side? Give me a break Valentina. You really asked for it.

    • Yup. Neither CR nor I caught that 2x goof. So not a typo, a real goof. Will try harder.
      Was always phonetically spelling challenged. Like my other goof audiophile not audiofile.

      • Yep Rud,
        I got chipped the other day for using “flaunted” instead of “flouted”. We all slip into errors that we would prefer did not happen.
        It is interesting that this article of yours has drawn comments from top researchers. Does not often happen, sadly, on WUWT.
        Maybe we should have an Anthony Watts award for the best author response each month. Maybe then we could even get one a month.
        Top marks this time go to Dr Svaalgard, whose brain works in ways compatible with good science. So does mine, so I can write that, but I am not famous as he is. Geoff S

  18. Hi Rud
    As far as i remember the Zharkova et.al. paper validity was questioned as soon as it was published.
    First time I came across term ‘cyclomania’ was when I was working on sunspot formula in late 2003 (published on 7th January 2004).
    Alexei N. Peristykh: Persistence of the Gleissberg 88‐year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
    Received 15 March 2002; revised 2 July 2002; accepted 9 July 2002; published 3 January 2003
    Quote:Suggestions of a role of the Sun in climate change were frequently not taken seriously or even ridiculed because of the excesses of the Schwabe cycle correlations sometimes referred to as “cyclomania”. /quote
    Page12/15 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2002JA009390

  19. This is a blog of poorly educated scholar in mathematics, I am afraid.

    We have published last week a preprint with the confirmation using the real ephemeris of the daily Earth-Sun distances that our results reported in paper Zharkova et al, 2019 are correct. So the paper Zharkova et al, 2019 has been retracted without any grounds!

    Read our preprint paper and the Appendices which use the real ephemeris of the distances.

    Archive paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.00439.pdf,
    Appendix 1 – S-E distances from the ephemeris https://solargsm.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Appendix-1.pdf
    Appendix 2 – solar irradiance variations based on this distance changes https://solargsm.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Appendix-2.pdf

    I assume now the author will try to overturn the ephemeris calculations? Or what else?

    Regards

    Valentina Zharkova

    • Well, no. Nature had very valid grounds for the retraction.

      I haven’t checked your new preprint, but IF your 2019 paper also got the ‘ephemeris’ correct according to your new work it was by luck, not by sound analysis.

  20. From Zharkova:

    We have published last week the confirmation using the real ephemeris of the Earth-Sun distance that our results reported in paper Zharkova et al, 2019 are correct. Read our preprint paper and the Appendices which use the real ephemeris of the distances.
    Archive paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.00439.pdf,
    Appendix 1 – S-E distances from the ephemeris https://solargsm.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Appendix-1.pdf
    Appendix 2 – solar irradiance variations based on this distance changes https://solargsm.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Appendix-2.pdf

    Regards
    Valentina Zharkova

  21. It’s interesting that Zharkova et al. have published what looks like very similar papers in a number of journals, starting in 2015, but no reviewers noticed any problems till it landed at Nature. Perhaps the Nature publishers felt the need to publicly nail a climate skeptic for doing what alarmist authors do all the time, with a prominent retraction.

  22. Funny story about the people who think music sounds better the more money you spend to listen to it: One of the things that these people spend (translation: waste) money on is super expensive speaker wires, some going so far as to use actual gold for terminals, etc.
    So some skeptics of all of this decided to test some particularly snobbish individuals to find the limits of what could be discerned.
    Ok, sounds reasonable…a blind sound test between different setups.
    To get a baseline level, they decided to pull a fast one…they told the people being tested they were comparing two high priced speaker wire setups, but in reality, they hooked up the speakers on one rig using the most expensive crap they could come up with, and on the other one, they connected the speakers using a coat hangers. Yeah, actual coat hangers, untwisted to make them straightish.

    Well, you may have already guessed what happened.
    The results (meaning which setup was chosen as “best”, soundwise) were completely random, pretty much no matter what they did, even using coat hangers instead of speaker wire.

    My guess is for long runs it does make a difference, but the calculation for voltage drop(and other types of attenuation) in a conductor is very well known, used by every electrician in the world every day.

    • Nicholas
      You said, “…a blind sound test between different setups.” Shouldn’t that be a “deaf sound test?” 🙂

      • Then they would not be able to hear it!
        What was important was, they could not see they were listening to coat hangers, and not 8 gage gold plated Monster cables.

    • In the interest of full disclosure, I have for almost my entire life been what what might call an audiophile.
      I always had among the best sound equipment and the biggest music collection of any of my friends.
      My love of music was only one reason.
      But I did long ago notice that at a certain point, spending more money was not necessarily evident in the sound.
      Back when vinyl albums were the dominant medium of purchased music, there was definitely an audible difference if one could get ahold of a disc pressed from the “master”.

      • The fact that you personally cannot tell the difference does not mean it is not there.
        In fact a 1000 people may not be able to hear the difference because it would depend entirley on how good your hearing was or is now.
        When I was much younger I had the privelege of hearing a very expensive sound system owned by an audophile who’s system was used in the UK as a test reference by many audio manufacturers and HiFi magazines. He tested many new products for them.
        He was also an avid live music goer and chose his system to be the closest he could get to the live sound.
        The sound, stage, depth, width and positioning were truly superb.
        Would his system suit everybody, probably not, would they find it too warm, too clinical, it all depends on personal taste doesn’t it?

        • “The fact that you personally cannot tell the difference does not mean it is not there.”

          Now hold on there Sparky!
          I never said that I could not tell the difference.
          I most often choose my words carefully, to convey what I mean to say…not something else.
          I said spending more money, “at a certain point”, was not “necessarily” evident.
          I did not say it did not matter, ever.
          Or that I could not tell the difference, ever.
          Clearly on the low end, one gets what one pays for.
          But not necessarily so on the high end.
          Then as now, objective testing shows that no matter what one is buying, some stuff is overpriced, and this is often (not always) most evident for some very pricey devices and equipment.
          With careful shopping, one could get very good fidelity with modestly priced equipment.
          I still have a Sherwood S-7110A amplifier that I bought second hand from my much older brother back in the mid 1970s, and it still sounds great. It is a simple but rather elegant piece of equipment, and it did not cost a lot of money.
          Here is what it looks like:
          https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fc/8a/9e/fc8a9ea8a8a2124f1d9556b67f33d433.jpg

          I should break that thing out of the closest and hook it up one of these days.
          For the time period, it was amazing…but is pretty much obsolete nowadays.
          Although there does seem to be a burgeoning market for such old school stuff.
          Nowadays, people are paying huge sums to buy stuff made with vacuum tubes!

          Some very expensive audio equipment provides incredible fidelity.
          And at a certain point, small increments of improvement might come with a high price tag, which many might deem silly, wasteful or ridiculous.
          Some stuff looks amazing, and some stuff has a name plate that carries with it cache’.
          Sometimes people spend money as a symbol of status, or for bragging rights.

          I am not talking about any of that…just talking about what I said.
          By the way, my impression back then was that live sound was usually crappy as all get out compared to the sound on produced studio recordings.
          I can recall the first time I ever saw Pink Floyd at the Philly Spectrum, and although thrilling and amazing, it was certainly not so due to sounding better than the same music when played back on good equipment on one of their records.
          Years later, that is so so much the case.
          Recently I went to NYC to see David Gilmour for a few shows…one at Radio City Music Hall, and then the next night at Madistone Round Garden.
          Amazing sound.
          I was right up close at The Garden, a few rows back on the floor.
          Walking out of the arena, the feeling I had when it was over was of being in a sensory deprivation tank.
          The sound felt like it was focusing right into the core of my body…I felt every note internally, with no detectable noise at all.
          And the lights!
          I thought at the finale, when all the lasers focused on one point, that the air was going to ignite.
          It sure looked like it was or had done so.

          I knew, and still know, some people too.
          My friend was a sound engineer at Sigma Sound, and I was lucky enough to sit in one some truly amazing studio sessions.
          Darryl Hall for one stands out in my memory.

          I saw the David Bowie show at the Tower Theatre where he recorded his first live album.
          That place had/has good sound, although not like RCMH.
          (Other memorable shows from that venue…
          Blondie in 1979, second row center, feet from Debbie Harry, from this same tour:
          https://youtu.be/8Bgbpm7aFp4

          And Devo…yes Devo. They were amazing…I got dragged to the show and wound have having the musical surprise of my life at how tight and good they were. That was around this time period:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBoj-JzQDnc)

          English Beat live on Daytona Beach…I mean the actual beach, in the sand…for free, Spring Break 1983. Wow!

          Bruce Springsteen was among the first I saw though, who brought studio album-quality sound to live shows at places like The Spectrum.

          Amongst my favorite concert memories over the years, seeing Springsteen play the night after John Lennon was killed was one…he opened with Twist and Shout after recounting his early memories of the Beatles, and how the first song he ever learned to play was Twist and Shout.

          And then there was the last concert ever played by anyone ever at Philly’s John F. Kennedy stadium (the stadium concrete structure was found to be dangerously damaged…I always wondered if it was from Pink Floyd that night)…it was Pink Floyd on September 19th, 1987…one week after the start of the tour.
          Their first real tour in over ten years.
          It was pea soup fog that night, and they started playing when no one was expecting it, the fog was split in two by the haunting sound of Richard Wright playing the first note, on his electric piano through an echo box sound effect, a Binson Echorec unit, of the tune called Echoes.
          AFAIK, it was the first time they had played that song live since the early 1970’s.
          They only played it 11 times before retiring it again.
          Gilmour never played it live again until 2006.
          I will never forget that amazing moment, or that sound, or the feeling I got from it.
          I can still hear it on foggy nights.

          (There are some you tube videos of this show, although no one, AFAIK, caught that first note.)
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1365RI9xfY
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsnLyM20EA0

          That tour was their first live performances in many a year…since the Wall in 1980. AFAIK

          I saw one of the shows of that promotion tour, The Wall…not a real tour…just a few shows…at the Long Island (Nassau) Coliseum…and the sight of Gilmour standing on that wall in a dark stadium, playing the solo at the end of Comfortably Numb, with a single bright white spotlight sending his shadow through hundreds of feet of thick smoke right into my face…now that was memorable.
          Here is a you tube of that song from that show:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX3jpBVG1Q8

          And here is a picture of how it looked from near where I was sitting…but this pic is from below line of site of the spotlight…I was in nosebleed seats directly in front of the spot backlighting him:
          https://i.pinimg.com/236x/d5/36/e2/d536e2ab932c8f90cc291b614100cfa0–david-gilmore-comfortably-numb.jpg?nii=t

          Memorable, yes…
          But not as good sound-wise as sitting at home with my headphones on.
          Terrible acoustics in places like that.

          Nothing wrong with my ears.

    • I use thick heavy, not very expensive, speaker wires because it is in their nature to get tripped over. The thick ones don’t tug out of the equipment so easily and are harder to trip over.

      Be careful when you decide why other people do things, yo mainly only reveal your own pre-conceptions.

      • Yeah, I said nothing about people having others reasons for buying stuff besides how it sounds.
        I was specifically talking about one thing: People that believe things that do not make logical sense or are not supported by objective evidence.
        The best conductor is silver.
        Copper is second.
        Gold conducts less well than copper.
        Gold will not get an oxidation layer, but the layer of copper conductors is so thin and the metal itself so soft, it is effectively not an issue under any ordinary circumstance.
        There is no objective factual basis for buying overpriced or excessively heavy wire, or conductors of exceptional purity, or special gold terminals, or any of that.
        As for wire pulling out if tripped over, if you have wires where someone can trip over them, you are probably not the person I will take advice from on such matters.
        And if I was worrying about the wires pulling out, I would not want ones that would cause the speaker to tip over rather than pulling the wire out of the terminal. That makes no sense.
        Something has to give…either a person takes a dive, or the wire pulls loose, or something falls over or gets dragged across the room.
        Having the wires simply pull out and needing to be reattached seems like the least bad option…if one is gonna run wires in a manner which can be tripped over.
        But that is just my opinion.
        Maybe you would prefer to go to the hospital to get a broken armed set than have to reconnect speaker wire.
        Or maybe you find it such a chore to reconnect a wire, you would rather your equipment is damaged or completely smashed.
        IDK.
        Maybe follow every recommendation every written and do not route wires in such a manner.
        Like you say, wire is cheap. You can run one through the walls or ceiling or attic for not a lot of money. Less than the cost of an ER deductible.
        I just do stuff like that myself for free…but that is just me.

    • Thanks. I am an almost econ Ph.D (undergrad thesis was accepted for the Ph.D) with a JD/MBA from a famous (infamous?) University. Am actually mostly a math model junkie with con law credentials.
      So this Climate stuff is my amateur, not professional, math model research world. Why CR asked me to investigate for WUWT. He knows me well, as we have lunch now about once a month since his relocation to South Florida.

  23. Thanks, Rud. The problem was larger than what you report above. Her calculations of the earth-sun distance were simply wrong.

    I pointed this out a couple months ago on a site I can’t remember where newly published papers are discussed. I actually went and got the ephemeris measurements and pointed out that her numbers were simply incorrect. So I’m very glad that it went this way.

    There is another unmentioned error. This is the belief that the gravity of two objects in free-fall, like say planets circling the sun, affect each other. There is such an effect, but it is solely tidal.

    So if you were in a small closed escape pod floating in outer space with no windows, you wouldn’t know if a planet came zipping by … because you, the pod, and everything within the pod are affected equally by the gravity of the planet.

    Well, almost equally … the one exception is the tidal force. However, unlike gravity, the tidal force falls off as the cube of the distance between the objects. So while the sun is massive enough to cause tides on earth, and the moon is near enough to cause tides on earth, Jupiter is neither near enough nor massive enough for any significant tidal force on the earth.

    So all of her calculations about the barycenter are meaningless, because the forces that she thinks are related to the barycenter don’t exist because all of the objects are in freefall.

    Funny side story. Searching for the mystery discussion site where I’d posted the ephemeris data, I came across the report of Zharkova’s “Major Breakthrough” at Tallbloke’s Talkshop. In the midst of boasting how he and others had finally been proven right, he says:

    We have been ridiculed for years by the WUWT wankers among others for working on this theory.

    Down in the comments someone said, very reasonably:

    I’m not sure calling people “wankers” is the way forward. Goodbye

    To which Tallbloke replied:

    Not something I often do, but in the case of Willis and Leif’s attitude to cutting edge research in this area, well deserved.

    That comment aged about as well as the “cutting edge research” … but don’t worry, Rog Tallbloke won’t be either dismayed or apologizing …

    w.

    • Here’s the Nature quote from the retraction:

      ===
      “Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article.”
      ===

      As I said, I pointed this out a month or so ago.

      w.

    • Just looked at Zharkova’s new claims. She finds it very significant that the timing of the equinoxes w.r.t. the aphelion/perihelion times (when it is furthest and nearest to the sun) shifts by twenty days in two thousand years. She says this slow change in equinox timing, which is about a quarter of an hour per year, “has important implications for changing the solar irradiance magnitudes incident on the Earth.”

      It’s not clear to me that Prof. Zharkova understands that the solar variations from differing distances to the sun make no difference to total radiation received by the earth. Yes, the variation from aphelion to perihelion is quite large, about 22 W/m2 peak to peak at the top of atmosphere compared to the average solar irradiation of 340 W/m2.

      But despite that very large variation, we see no corresponding variation in the temperature of the planet.

      The reason is that when the earth is nearest to the sun (perihelion), it’s moving faster so it spends less time there. And on the other hand, when the earth is furthest from the sun (aphelion), it’s moving slower so it spends more time there.

      And by the magic of the inverse square relationships, those two exactly cancel each other out, so there’s no difference in the total energy received. None.

      As a result, yes, Zharkova may indeed be right that the equinoxes are shifting at a quarter of an hour per year. I say “may be” because I haven’t run the numbers.

      But assuming she is right, I am totally unclear as to what difference she thinks this might make.

      w.

      • Gosh, I wish I had spotted that to add to my sarcastic takedown. But did not bother to even look. My post in response to a CR request was only was about her retraction, not her new defense. Well done, WE.

      • The length of this cycle is about 26,000 years. Closer to 25,770 years.
        So in 1000 years, we should expect that the precession is about 365.25/25.7. About 14 days and a few hours.
        So in two thousand years, the actual change is close to 28 days than 20 days.
        This cycle has historically been called the precession of the equinoxes, but it has more recently been agreed that this terminology is at best an incomplete descriptor.

        The 112,000 year cycle of apsidal precession combines with axial precession to influence the time of perihelion.
        It seems to be generally recognized that the gravitation influence of Jupiter and Saturn have the largest contribution to this cycle, with the oblateness of the Sun and the effects of relativity (similar to those noted for Mercury, but smaller in magnitude) two lesser known factors with a sizable contribution. Of course, all manner of interactions have some effect, including the combined influence of the gravity of the smaller planets.

        If the Earth was uniform with respect to albedo and land surface area compared to that of water, etc, between the northern and southern hemisphere, we could expect this change to not mater for the Earth as a whole, but it would still tend to make Summers warmer when the perihelion coincides with the solstice for that hemisphere, than when the opposite is true 13,000 years later.
        Having an ocean at one pole and a continent at the other is surely a large factor as well.

        It has occurred to me while writing this comment that there might be another subtle factor…that of the shape of the Earth, which is not particularly close to an actual sphere, and not even very close to the oblate spheroid if the interior of the planet was uniform, and if the Earth did not have huge differences in land mass and mountain ranges between the hemispheres.
        And, what if the northern hemisphere weighs more than the southern, or vice versa?
        I do not known if anyone has calculated the magnitude of this class of parameters on the amount of solar radiation received by the two hemispheres. The Earth is kind of lumpy, but my sense of it is that this factor is small. Still, if it is significant, it will be additive to other changes.

        https://media.giphy.com/media/xzRAvJPmxCM7K/giphy.gif

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Earth_oblateness_to_scale.svg

        One thing is for sure…stuff is complicomated.

      • Back when the signs of the zodiac used in astrology were originated, if one was an Aries, for example, it meant that the Sun was in that constellation at sunrise.
        Now though, it has shifted to a sufficient extent to move the Sun completely out of that constellation in the morning sky during the interval defined as “Aries”, ~March 20th to ~April 21st.

      • Also interesting to note that for the Earth, the difference in the distance from the Sun from perihelion to aphelion is about 3.11 million miles.
        For Jupiter, the range is from 507 million miles at aphelion, to 460.24 million miles at perihelion with a precession rate of 0.21252668 degrees/century, which works out to about (check my math) 180,000 years for a full cycle.

      • Note that this amount of obliquity in the orbit of Jupiter amounts to a difference of over 47 million miles between perihelion and aphelion…fully 10% of the distance between the Sun and Jupiter at Jupiter’s perihelion!

    • Jupiter is neither near enough nor massive enough for any significant tidal force on the earth.

      Do you think so? The pull from Jupiter is the main cause for the changes in Earth’s orbit eccentricity. But if you think that changes in Milankovitch forcing are insignificant…

      • Javier August 13, 2020 at 2:18 pm Edit

        Jupiter is neither near enough nor massive enough for any significant tidal force on the earth.

        Do you think so? The pull from Jupiter is the main cause for the changes in Earth’s orbit eccentricity. But if you think that changes in Milankovitch forcing are insignificant…

        I said TIDAL FORCES, Javier. Not “the pull from Jupiter”. Tidal forces.

        As to whether the “changes in Milankovitch forcing are insignificant”, depends on the time scale. Over a hundred or two hundred years they make no measurable difference.

        w.

        • Well, you said:

          There is another unmentioned error. This is the belief that the gravity of two objects in free-fall, like say planets circling the sun, affect each other. There is such an effect, but it is solely tidal.

          This is clearly not correct. Even in free fall the space deformation caused by Jupiter mass, which we call its gravity, together with those from Venus and other planets, affects the Earth changing its orbit. That’s why our planet’s orbital eccentricity changes. That same space deformation produces the gravity gradient responsible for tidal forces.

          So yes, planets circling the Sun in free fall affect each other through gravity. In essence free fall means that there are no other forces acting but gravity, therefore gravity is still acting in free fall.

          And in my book, forces capable of moving planets out of their orbits are never insignificant even if they take thousands of years.

          • Javier,

            Good point on space deformation. I’m waiting for a Willis response. ?? Newtonian physics is only an approximation of what is going on and some folks forget that. Of course relativity might also be an approximation, but a better one.

          • Javier says:
            Even in free fall the space deformation caused by Jupiter mass, which we call its gravity, together with those from Venus and other planets, affects the Earth changing its orbit.

            Irrelevant in the context of SOLAR cyclomania. Maybe relevant in long-timescales regarding earth-orbital “cyclomania”, which Milankovitch described.

    • There is another unmentioned error. This is the belief that the gravity of two objects in free-fall, like say planets circling the sun, affect each other. There is such an effect, but it is solely tidal.

      So if you were in a small closed escape pod floating in outer space with no windows, you wouldn’t know if a planet came zipping by … because you, the pod, and everything within the pod are affected equally by the gravity of the planet.

      Well, almost equally … the one exception is the tidal force.

      Exactly. Not sure why this seems so hard for some to understand. And the tidal forces from any or all of the planets on the sun are insignificant.

  24. Will Valentina Zharkova and/or someone who doesn’t like the term please define and specify what a mini-ice age actually is, and where the definition can be found for it. Thank you.

  25. Incorrect use of Nyquist sampling theorem but the original results are still dubious.
    1) Sampling must be atleast double the frequency you wish to detect.
    They didn’t do just 2 measures for start and finish but for every year ie. rate of 350/1 which is atleast 175x the rate required for detection of a 350 year cycle.
    However..
    2) You would need to be sampling for a whole period (cycle) eg. +1, -1
    The problem is not the 33 samples but the fact they can only see a 33 year span. You may suspect cycles less than 33 years but you can’t verify them unless you have atleast 3 cycles in the data. It would be unreliable to extrapolate 33 years into 350 years. A 350 year span may show a cycle but you would need another 350 to check once and better with a total of atleast 1050 years.
    Bad example: You could use 33 years to identify a 7 & 11 & 14 yr cycles then extrapolate them to 350 years but that ignores any possible 17+ year cycles which occur independent of the smaller cycles measured.

    What you can do is use data from sun, moon & planet positions and model the gravity effects and estimate positions into the past and the future. If the paper measures B (cycles) & C (climate) can we find the A (related to movement in our solar system) which determines B?
    function(B) = C
    function(A) = B
    then
    function(A) = C to cut out the middle man

    There are more factors impacting our climate than just Sun, clouds, albedo & GHG. How much each contribute are still being debated and simulations using averages don’t simulate the real climate behaviour. Our weather changes because the inputs vary from the mean. Our climate is the average of those weather changes not the average of the inputs.

    • Yah, I could have phrased that better. Thought the Nasa reference would suffice, wrong.
      A barycenter is a mathematical ‘center of gravity’ around which objects orbit eccentrically. It is the orbital eccentricity that varies, not the constant mathematical barycenter. Which thanks to nonlinear dynamics is only precisely calculable for two body problems, and not N body solar systems.

  26. Unbelievable, you guys, or most of you, valentina has made a prediction starting this year, it will be years till it be known if she is right or wrong,you simply do not know,yet the tone of some of you , her science is not proved wrong or right ,it is too be seen ,not ridiculed, youl all come back now and apologise if she is proved right ,wont you boys?

    • Unbelievable, you guys, or most of you, valentina has made a prediction starting this year, it will be years till it be known if she is right or wrong
      Well, she has also [using the same method] ‘postdicted’ solar activity in the past [for thousands of year, no less] and those where all wrong, so trusting her to do better for future activity does not seem to be worthwhile.

      • Another example of how this thread has turned into a ridiculous “I know better than you” take sides” with the chief muck stirrer wadding in, not only that the fallout from alienating yourselves from GSM folk who happen to agree with the lie of global warming which this forum advocates, one has to ask why this topic which the producer knew would cause controversy, what exactly are you trying to do slag of a scientist who has only made a prediction ,a prediction not one of you can prove false or correct even the ” willis” cant foretell the future let alone come up with his own paper of a prediction.

        • B d, I fear your comment doesn’t make sense. Who is the “chief muck stirrer”? You? Me? Javier? Nicholas?

          Next, you talk of the “the lie of global warming which this forum advocates” … I haven’t the slightest idea what you are on about.

          Next, NOBODY can prove a prediction false or correct until the deadline is past … but two months ago I clearly showed that her math was total crap. Took a couple months, but she’s had to retract the paper because as the journal found out … her math was total crap.

          So I can’t tell if her prediction is correct, B d, nobody can. But I’ve shown she is very poor at math. And by “very poor”, I mean that as soon as I read her paper back then I knew her math was total crap. And I demonstrated it by ACTUALLY DOING THE CALCULATIONS.

          Finally, she diagnosed and detailed a 300-year-cycle based on 33 years of data. That is scientific ignorance and arrogance beyond belief. You’re welcome to think she’s on to something. Sane folks think differently.

          And when I’m able to see that something’s wrong at first glance, a huge error that she didn’t even notice during the entire process of writing the paper … do you really think I should pay attention to her predictions?

          Really?

          w.

          • ” do you really think I should pay attention to her predictions?”

            But you are Willis ,not only are you paying attention, you have gone beyond attention ,your point such as it is could of been made in two sentences, so now that your contradiction has been pointed out.

            For those who are bystanders in this ridiculous thread what we are seeing is a witch hunt ,exactly like what happens to climate skeptics, not only has her prediction been ridiculed, personal insults have been thrown,

            If a prediction is wrong/ part wrong,part right ,right then we learn from it ,it is a contribution to science ,
            Dismissing a prediction before the time of the prediction has run its course ,is not science , the tone of the article is dismissive, which like sheep most of you have followed suit,

            WIllis if you disagree so strongly you get the funding for research in this subject ,you get published, and let’s see if your paper can stand scrutiny, not ridicule.

            And Willis I have not said I agree or disagree with zharkova, I have read the paper in question that does not make me a follower of zharkovas, I think it’s fairly obvious Willis what I’m saying is I’m very surprised at the tone ,and ridicule a prediction attracts,

            40 years of failed climate predictions rightly deserve ridicule , barely 2 months into a prediction that will take years to show if it’s in part correct or not does not deserve ridicule.

          • B d Clark August 17, 2020 at 3:05 am Edit

            ” do you really think I should pay attention to her predictions?”

            But you are Willis ,not only are you paying attention, you have gone beyond attention ,your point such as it is could of been made in two sentences, so now that your contradiction has been pointed out.

            Discussing someone’s prediction ≠ paying attention to their prediction.

            For those who are bystanders in this ridiculous thread what we are seeing is a witch hunt, exactly like what happens to climate skeptics, not only has her prediction been ridiculed, personal insults have been thrown,

            I didn’t ridicule her prediction. I pointed out that her math is crap. I pointed it out a couple months ago and guess what?

            Her math WAS crap.

            Not only that, but she used her method to hindcast the past, and guess what?

            Her hindcasts were crap.

            Now, that is not any kind of “witch-hunt”. That’s the normal scientific process. Someone makes a claim, a hindcast, or a prediction. Other scientists then try to poke holes in their ideas. In her case, I didn’t have to poke a hole, there was an error big enough to drive a Greyhound bus through.

            WIllis if you disagree so strongly you get the funding for research in this subject ,you get published, and let’s see if your paper can stand scrutiny, not ridicule.

            Her subject is the putative effects of sunspot-cycle-related phenomena on earth’s climate. Here are 24 of my posts on the subject. And they’ve been reviewed, but not by the kind of crappy peer-review that let Valentina’s paper slip through with an error so big it stood out like a stubbed toe.

            They’ve been subjected instead to WUWT review, which is harsher and more penetrating than any peer-review could be. If you can find errors in any of them, let me know.

            And Willis I have not said I agree or disagree with zharkova, I have read the paper in question that does not make me a follower of zharkovas, I think it’s fairly obvious Willis what I’m saying is I’m very surprised at the tone, and ridicule a prediction attracts,

            B d, if I were to predict that the sun would not rise tomorrow, and my prediction was based on incorrect physics, and someone found a huge mathematical error in my work, and my predictions of past sunrises were out by miles … yes, people would point and laugh at my prediction without waiting for the denouement.

            And that is exactly what has happened to her. You seem to think that she’s the first person to be seduced by the barycenter. Those of us who have played this game for a while know that there are a bunch of people who made predictions based on the barycenter … and AFAIK, not one of them has panned out.

            40 years of failed climate predictions rightly deserve ridicule , barely 2 months into a prediction that will take years to show if it’s in part correct or not does not deserve ridicule.

            Hey, if you want to sit up all night and see if the prediction that the sun won’t rise tomorrow is true, be my guest. I’m just saying that you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows …

            Regards to you, stay well,

            w.

    • her science is not proved wrong or right

      Her science has been proven wrong. It is not only that her model has been demonstrated by Ilya Usoskin that it is no better than random when hindcasting past solar activity even from 1700.

      Her retracted paper is based on a misconception about something that it is very well known, the orbital movements of the Solar System bodies. She found out that the Sun moves around the barycenter of the Solar System and she just assumed that the orbit of the Earth was fixed around the barycenter of the Solar System, so the distance of the Sun and the Earth would change on average from year to year, changing the insolation the Earth receives on an annual basis.

      This notion is nuts and one wonders what knowledge the reviewers of the paper had on something that is so fundamental to the paper. The Earth does not orbit the barycenter of the Solar system, the Earth orbits the barycenter of the Sun + the interior planets, which is very close to the Sun’s center of mass. Thus the Earth follows the movements of the Sun around the barycenter maintaining what essentially is a constant year average distance to the Sun (1 A.U.) that is only modified very slowly through the changes in Earth’s orbital eccentricity produced by the pull of all the planets relative to their mass and distance producing the well-known 95, 105 and 405 kyr periodicities in eccentricity that have a huge effect on Earth’s climate.

      If Jupiter was placed in the orbit of Mercury then we would be talking about an irregular orbit of the Earth around the Sun. But thankfully that’s not the case and the differences in the distance between the Earth and the Sun are averaged over a year so the insolation doesn’t change from year to year except in the small amount due to solar activity variability.

      Her model is wrong, her concept of the Solar System dynamics is wrong. When the science is wrong, who cares if the predictions pass or not? If the Earth enters a mini-ice age that would not make Zharkova’s science right, so we would still have to look for a different explanation.

      • You really are a joke Javier you argue her science is wrong ,yet you and a solar physics guy argue on this thread about the fundementals of basic solar science, you cant even agree on basics, yet your telling another scientist there wrong, science jarvier is about predictions and reproduction, her predictions will take years to prove right or wrong, another fundemental your not willing to follow.

        You along with Willis have a lot more going than just saying she is wrong , every opportunity you get you attack this woman,stating she is wrong is a opinion and you have every right to do so, stating a prediction is wrong that takes years to show if it’s right or wrong ,is wrong and is here say, means nothing , your continual attacks rather than a opinion shows to me you and others have a vested interest, agenda .as I’ve already said any science good or bad forwards that branch of science,because we learn, by your continual suppression, attacks goes against the fundementals of good science,. A point you and Willis are in denial about.

        • You don’t seem to understand that I don’t say she is wrong about her predictions. Nobody knows the future. I say she is wrong in her methods and assumptions, and that has been demonstrated. If her science is wrong her predictions are irrelevant.

          I also criticize her attitude for the same reason I criticize Leif’s. They are both too sure about things nobody really knows. Past interpretations of the evidence have overwhelmingly been wrong or incomplete, yet there is a cognitive bias that most people assume our knowledge of science is now adequate and the majority of our interpretations will turn out to be correct. That is risible. Future generations will “know” that our knowledge was not adequate. We should always be cautious about saying things like “the 11-year cycle is the only one real” or “we are entering a grand minimum in solar activity”. They are based in an inadequate level of knowledge.

          • No Javier you dont seem to realise you and sval are drawing upon decades of solar science which contradict each other, with both of you flying the flag for a opposing camp.

            So according too you two there is no consensus on the workings and mechanisms of the sun, yet you criticise another scientist for a different approach. You really need to get your own camps in order before you attack another scientist, it seems on such basics and in depth analysis of the solar system according to you two all you have is a bunch of theroys contradicting each other.

          • you dont seem to realise you and sval are drawing upon decades of solar science which contradict each other, with both of you flying the flag for a opposing camp.

            That is not correct. Leif and I agree on the evidence, we just disagree on its interpretation, and this is the most usual reason for scientific discussions.
            – We both agree there is a 11-year sunspot cycle that reflects on an 11-year cycle in TSI.
            – We both agree there is an extended cycle when one looks at other solar features migrations that take longer than 11-years from when they appear to when they disappear.
            – We both agree that there is a 22-year cycle manifested in the polarity of polar fields.
            Those are the facts and we agree on the facts.
            We disagree on whether the evidence supports that the fundamental cycle is the extended cycle (Leif’s view), or the 22-year cycle (my view). But the evidence is insufficient at this point to rule out conclusively any of the alternatives. There are no opposing camps. It is more a matter of point of view like arguing about a glass half-full or half-empty. There would not be a discussion if Leif was more humble about what he really can demonstrate and did not try to invalidate my position while insulting me. There are no discussions about this in the literature because unlike Leif most solar experts consider this a matter of opinion at this point. As I have shown several scientists share my point of view.

            There are no camps to sort, but even if there were, that would not be an impediment to point that Zharkova’s model and assumptions don’t hold water as that is a completely unrelated matter. She seems to be very good at mathematics, but has a very poor understanding of some important physical aspects, like Astronomy and Climate and rests her conclusions on very poor sources, like the barycenter crowd or Akasofu’s deprecated temperature charts.

            I understand she has a following because she goes regularly to the press with her popular predictions of an impending mini-ice age to sooth the global warming burns. But that has exactly zero value in science. Manipulating the public one way or the other is usually a sign of bad science.

          • There are no discussions about this in the literature because unlike Leif most solar experts consider this a matter of opinion at this point.
            No, this is not correct. Real scientists do not have ‘opinions’. Pseudo-scientist and Fringe people have ‘opinions’; real scientists may have ‘working hypotheses’, that should not be confused with ‘opinions’. Scientists do not ‘insult’ each other; they may attack the hypothesis but never the person. Stating that a hypothesis is without merit [or is nonsense] is not an insult of the person holding that hypothesis. Saying that one scientist ‘misrepresents’ another one, or ‘not telling how it is’, is an attack of a person and marks the attacker as a pseudo-scientist or even an activist of a fringe world view. We see a lot of that here on WUWT, to wit: your postings.

          • Real scientists do not have ‘opinions’.

            If you want to call your opinions hypotheses that is fine with me. Is this a working hypothesis or an opinion?:
            https://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf

            The concept of real scientists and real science gives me the creeps. Who decides who is a real scientist? You? Apparently you label yourself as a real scientist and others as pseudocientists, particularly those that do not share your hypotheses. As far as I know anybody that learns to use the scientific method and puts it to use to research a question is a scientist. There are good and bad scientists, though, but that is to be judged on merits. Kicking scientists out of the club for not being real climatologists is what the alarmists do. You share too many traits with them. You defend the orthodoxy, you invalidate anybody that disagrees, you speak for all “real” scientists and know what they think even if they write the opposite. All very authoritarian.

            Isn’t calling somebody an ignorant a personal attack? Who sets the bar on ignorance? You again? So anybody that knows less than you is an ignorant? Or only those that don’t agree with you.

            If you don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting what others say, perhaps you should limit yourself to exact quotations of what they say, as Willis always demands. Particularly since I remember when you claimed you had shaded a figure to indicate periods of contamination when the shading had been done by the authors of the figure to claim just the opposite.
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/24/the-bray-hallstatt-cycle/#comment-1910750

          • Is this a working hypothesis or an opinion?:
            https://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf

            That is, obviously, as stated [‘my view’] an opinion. Strange, that you cannot see the difference.
            Who decides who is a real scientist?
            The postings, comments, [and papers] make the distinction clear. One know pseudo-science when one sees it.
            anybody that learns to use the scientific method and puts it to use to research a question is a scientist.
            Except that that does not fit you. You do not ‘research’ anything, just ‘search’ for phrases that support your views. You claimed to have done ‘research’. I asked for a link to what you consider your best research of the topic at hand. So far, you have not produced any…
            Isn’t calling somebody an ignorant a personal attack? Who sets the bar on ignorance? Ignorance shows. It is obvious when presented. You have shown many examples. What more is needed?
            Particularly since I remember when you claimed you had shaded a figure to indicate periods of contamination when the shading had been done by the authors of the figure to claim just the opposite.
            I clarified that issue right away. I presented that figure to make a point, not to promote it to be my work.
            If you don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting what others say, perhaps you should limit yourself to exact quotations of what they say
            In that particular case, I was saying that I knew exactly what Cliver meant, because we have worked on this together [as he mentioned]. That was not misrepresentation in any sense, so your accusation was baseless, but typical.
            I re-iterate: you are not a scientist. You do not use ‘the scientific method’. You do not do research. All this is so blindingly obvious. To pretend otherwise does a disservice to WUWT.

          • Sure, sure. Everything is based on your personal criteria. And you like to give your opinions about everything and call them hypotheses, even if you don’t know about what you are talking about. For example, I have stated many times that I am a molecular neurobiologist with papers in journals like Science and Cell. So yes, I am a real scientist with a good knowledge of the scientific method. For scientific fields outside my specialty I can read the bibliography and see what is based on suppositions, what is actually demonstrated and how solid is the evidence, like any other scientist. That’s why I know climatologists have not demonstrated that the increase in global temperatures is due to the increase in GHGs despite they been as confident as you are. So I know that when you say the the Hale cycle is not a real cycle you are bullshitting. There is sufficient evidence of the existence of the Hale cycle and every scientist that writes about it treats it as a real cycle. Even more, some scientists declare it to be the fundamental cycle. So since “Nullius in verba,” I know that you are not telling the truth about it. You are telling your opinion [or hypothesis] but you treat it as it was a fact. So you are the one that is not talking like a scientist. Good scientists are less confident and more careful when they talk about their hypotheses, particularly when there are competing hypotheses that have not been proven wrong.

          • A hale cycle one magnet cycle of the sun is a term not a cycle in its self .its the two schwabe cycles or 11 year cycles going full circle , hale is a convenient way or less long winded to explain one complete magnetic cycle of the sun ,its seems convenient in helping explain increase and decrease of GCR at a given time in a schwabe cycle. The true cycle of the sun is a schwabe cycle.

            I think you guys are splitting hairs.

            Can I be a scientist now please.

          • I know that you are not telling the truth about it.
            How one knows who is not a ‘real scientist’?. I know hundreds of scientists in our and other fields and they NEVER accuse other scientists of lying, not telling it as it is, accuse anyone of misrepresenting other scientists., etc. They know the difference between opinion and scientific hypotheses. In short, they never behave like you.
            It may well be possible to be a scientist in one field and a lay and ignorant person in another field. You have still not demonstrated any knowledge or expertise in the field under discussion here; still not produced a link.
            We should always be cautious about saying things like “the 11-year cycle is the only one real” or “we are entering a grand minimum in solar activity”.
            Scientists are generally a very conservative lot. It takes very convincing [even extraordinary] data or theories to overthrow generally accepted ideas [current paradigm or dogma]. These are accepted because they work. The onus is on dissenters who say otherwise to show that their ideas work ‘better’ in some sense. Just being contrary does not cut it.
            Past interpretations of the evidence have overwhelmingly been wrong or incomplete
            Even if not generally true, there are cases where past interpretations were wrong, e.g. that the 22-year Hale Cycle is a physical ‘cycle’ driven by mysterious processes in the solar interior and given rise to the ordinary sunspot cycle in some unspecified manner. The very word ‘evidence’ is normally frowned upon in physics. It is too intimately connected with a belief indicating whether the belief is true or valid. So, ‘evidence’ presupposes a belief. We would rather use the words ‘data’ or ‘observations’.
            particularly when there are competing hypotheses that have not been proven wrong
            You have this backwards: it is not up to us to prove hare-brained hypotheses wrong; it is up to the proposers to prove them right, and mostly they are not.

          • they NEVER accuse other scientists of lying, not telling it as it is, accuse anyone of misrepresenting other scientists

            Now you are describing your opinion of the club from which you think you are entitled to kick me out. Except that I have also known my share of scientists and have the opportunity to watch a good deal of scientific misconduct, so scientists lie, don’t tell it as it is, and misrepresent things and people when it is important to them, exactly the same as other human beings. So according to you to be a scientist one has to turn a blind eye to scientific misbehaviour and never say anything bad about other scientist even if true. Because the alternative is that you think that scientists are a special kind of human beings that never do wrong.

            Not being an expert in a field does not mean that one cannot get things right while the experts get it wrong. A mind is a powerful instrument when properly used. In 1815 Jean de Charpentier met with a villager in the Swiss Alps, Jean-Pierre Perrudin. He told Charpentier that in earlier times glaciers had a very much larger extensions, completely filling the Val de Bagnes and being responsible for transporting the erratic blocks that were too big for being transported by water. At the time the expert consensus was that the blocks were a relic of Noah’s flood. Charpentier wrote “I nonetheless found his hypothesis so extraordinary, indeed so extravagant, that it merited the effort of being contemplated and taken into consideration.” From that he developed his theory of greatly expanded glaciers and together with Karl Schimper view of alternating expanding and receding glaciations explained it to Louis Agassiz, who made the hypothesis his own, never acknowledging his since ex-friends contribution. From that incident is thought to come the quote attributed to Alexander von Humboldt, who knew them all well, “There are three stages of scientific discovery: first people deny it is true; then they deny it is important; finally they credit the wrong person.”

            You have this backwards: it is not up to us to prove hare-brained hypotheses wrong; it is up to the proposers to prove them right, and mostly they are not.

            I see you have a problem with the scientific method and it is you who has this backwards. Hypotheses cannot be proven right. At most people fail to prove them wrong and if they have enough supporting evidence they are accepted by the majority, but in Thomas Huxley’s words, a single ugly fact can slain the most beautiful theory. Karl Popper explains this in a way that even scientists who are not very good with the scientific method can understand. Whereas verifying the claim “All swans are white” would require assessment of all swans, which is not possible, the single observation of a black swan is sufficient to falsify it.

            If a hypothesis is hare-brained it fails to gain traction so nobody bothers trying to falsify it. If it gains traction because it explains a great deal of the available evidence then it is the duty of scientists to try to falsify it. Richard Feynman was very clear about this: “Real science is all about trying to prove your theory wrong. You do everything you can to prove it wrong, then have other people do what they can to prove it wrong. When all of you fail at doing that, when the theory has been refined such that it fits all the evidence and you can’t figure out how else to test it, then it is most likely the truth.”

            You are the one that is saying that the Hale cycle is not real. That is your hypothesis. I have not developed any hypothesis about this. I am just going with the scientific bibliography where everybody accepts the cycle and talks about it. If you think the Hale cycle is not real you should be able to falsify its existence. So I don’t have any hare-brained hypothesis respect the Hale cycle that I need to support. The Hale cycle is what has been described, a 22-yr cycle in solar magnetism. I am not adding anything.

            Exhibit D (I might run out of letters):
            “Generally speaking, many of the intriguing problems in solar physics are related to the causal connections between the Schwabe and Hale cycles. Most of the numerical indicators of solar activity are associated with the 11-year Schwabe cycle, while the Hale cycle seems to reflect the quasi-periodic recurrence of generally complex magnetic phenomena.”
            Balogh, A., et al. “Introduction to the solar activity cycle: Overview of causes and consequences.” The Solar Activity Cycle. Springer, New York, NY, 2015. 1-15.

          • and have the opportunity to watch a good deal of scientific misconduct, so scientists lie, don’t tell it as it is, and misrepresent things and people when it is important to them, exactly the same as other human beings.
            You miss the point: it is not scientific behavior to accuse other people of such things. Science is conducted at the level of observations and experiments, not at the slimely level of going after the person. That is the difference between us. And, as I have stressed: ‘real’ scientists do not behave as you do.

            You quote Feynman “Real science is all about trying to prove your theory wrong”. What have you done to prove your theory wrong? Nothing. You have made no contributions to the field whatsoever.

            On hypotheses: the fundamental dynamo solar cycle is not a hypothesis [and not mine]. It is derived from, supported by, and forced upon us by observations, and is well understood theoretically. You have not understood that the so-called Hale Cycle has long just been a handy mnemonic. Even the recent promoters of that cycle concept have begun to walk back from it. They now talk about the ’22-year magnetic polarity cycle’ instead of the solar activity cycle and even go so far as to refer to *22-year cycle* in quotation marks.

            On the other hand, the [recent] idea [a hypothesis] of the magnetic activity bands driving the 11-year activity cycle [as well as shorter eruptions] is, however, an interesting [and new] one. It makes the strong prediction [using their idea of ‘terminators’] that SC25 will be one of the strongest one ever observed. If this is borne out, one will need to take the idea more seriously. If not, the hypothesis will fall. This is normal science, and can be conducted without the venom that you dish out.

            Last, you have still failed to produce a link establishing any credentials at all.

          • Science is conducted at the level of observations and experiments, not at the slimely level of going after the person.

            Of course, but we are just discussing science at a blog, not conducting science, and you seem to forget that you have a history here at WUWT of personal disqualifications and attacks to a lot of people that defend theories that you deem unworthy. Your pattern is to attack people and if they respond in kind like I do then you accuse them of unscientific conduct. How hypocritical. If you have a personal problem with me the solution is to ignore me. I am not going after you, just criticizing your unsupported assertions that the only real cycle is the 11-year cycle and that the Hale cycle is a mnemonic, for which you have produced no evidence. I don’t have to produce anything just because you ask for it. You are free to stop discussing with me anytime.

            What have you done to prove your theory wrong?

            What theory? I don’t have a theory regarding the Hale cycle. I am just following what is published in the literature, and producing evidence for that. You attack me, call me ignorant, doubt my mental capacity, and judge me unscientific just because I say what is written in the papers, and then you want to take the role of the victim here. What a joke!

            Your role here at WUWT is that of a scientist bully trying to impose your views over things that are far from established as if they are the revealed [by you] truth, attacking anybody that disagrees. That is a very unscientific conduct.

            Quite frankly I don’t see any difference between you and the climatariat, except that you believe in different things. The behavior is the same. Anybody that disagrees with the orthodoxy and authority must be attacked and disqualified. No disagreement is allowed.

            The Solar Dynamo theory is not at odds with the Hale cycle, and quite the contrary, as NASA states a successful model for the solar dynamo must explain among other things “Hale’s polarity law and the 22-year magnetic cycle.”
            https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml

            You have not understood that the so-called Hale Cycle has long just been a handy mnemonic.

            I just have your word for it and I don’t trust you. Remember: “Nullius in verba.” Why should anybody trust what you say? Because you are the authority? That is very unscientific too.

            that SC25 will be one of the strongest one ever observed. … If not, the hypothesis will fall.

            I don’t think you understood their hypothesis. The prediction could fail and the hypothesis could still be right. The prediction is not born out from the hypothesis but from an observation:
            “A visual comparison of Fig. 2d and 2a hint at relationship between the separation of terminators and sunspot cycle amplitudes: low cycles appear to correspond with widely separated terminators while larger amplitude cycles correspond to more narrowly separated terminators.”
            These type of “rules” based on a few occurrences tend to be weak and fail sometimes (violations), like the Gnevyshev-Ohl rule.

            Prior to that observation they were predicting a weak SC25 in their 2017 paper: “We anticipate that a short ascending phase would appear to favor a weaker cycle 25 (than 24; cycle 24’s ascending phase was shorter than that of cycle 23) as there is more overlap time between the oppositely signed bands.”

            McIntosh & Leamon magnetic bands hypothesis does not yield so far a good method for solar activity prediction, as they are based on extrapolations of the magnetic bands and future temporal intervals that given intrinsic cycle variability cannot be trusted much.

            So no, a failure of their prediction cannot be blamed on the hypothesis but on their observation of a relationship between terminator distance and solar activity. This observation can be wrong without affecting the hypothesis. The magnetic bands are still real since they are based on observation.

          • Quite frankly I don’t see any difference between you and the climatariat, except that you believe in different things
            And that is precisely your problem and your bias. WUWT is a useful forum for discussion of climate change. It would be a pity if the discussion is marred by assertions [such as your cyclomania] that are colored by political considerations. I have striven to provide a scientifically sound background for the solar aspect of the discussion. You, on the other hand, have constantly labelled my contributions as ‘bullshit, lies, misrepresentations, and worse, while at the same time shown that you have little [if any] understanding of the science at hand [while refusing to link to credentials you claim to have]. The readership is ill served by your behavior.
            I’ll try to summarize the McInstosh et al. claim here:
            Bands of the 22-year magnetic polarity cycle are embedded in the Sun’s convective interior and first appear at high latitudes (∼55°) before travelling equatorward. These bands interact with the oppositely polarized magnetic band from the previous cycle at lower latitudes in each hemisphere, modulating the occurrence of sunspots on the low-latitude bands (which have opposite magnetic polarity and sense of handedness) until they eventually cancel across the equator. This equatorial cancellation signals the end [the ‘terminator’] of the sunspot cycle and leaves only the higher-latitude band in each hemisphere. Sunspots rapidly appear and grow on that band for several years until a new oppositely signed band appears at high latitude — an occurrence that defines the maximum activity level of that new cycle and triggers a downturn in sunspot production. The interaction of these 22-year activity bands drives the (quasi-)11-year cycle of sunspots that form the decadal envelope of solar activity. McIntosh et al. claim that rotational energy at the bottom of our Star’s convection zone is the major driver of the Sun’s long-term evolution [which, BTW, is not original with them; that is what many others also believe].
            As I have already explained, the bright point bands have a natural and simple explanation in terms of conventional solar dynamo theory driving the true 11-year solar activity cycle, so no new hypothesis is necessary. The strong prediction of a very strong SC25 [after an abortive earlier prediction of very weak cycle] is a do-or-die thing for their hypothesis. According to McIntosh et al. the terminator has already arrived [April, 2020] so their prediction is now firm.
            To re-iterate, the magnetic bands and associated phenomena are satisfactorily explained by conventional theory and no ‘fundamental 22-year cycle’ is needed.

          • I’ve got no problem with anybody here except apparently with you, and since you have problems with several other people, it is clear that you are the cause and I am the consequence. That’s my hypothesis anyway. My sin, not yielding to what you say.

            There are several things that don’t repeat the same way for 22 years, the modulation of cosmic rays has a rounded top at A>0 cycles and a pointy top at A<0 cycles. The 11 yr cosmic-ray cycle appears to lag the sunspot cycle by ∼1 yr for odd cycles but is in phase for even cycles. The Gnevyshev-Ohl rule groups sunspot cycles in pairs. And then the magnetic bands described by McIntosh and Leamon. It is clear that a Hale cycle is more than just two Schwabe cycles.

          • If your going to copy text Javier get it right its ,qA0 there is no hale cycle Javier however you dress it up any manifesttation from a cycle A Becomes part of cycle B depending on transition and + – minima in my example . A cycle starts with a magnet point ,ends at a opposing point ,transition through B to start at the original point, that’s why we number SCs 24 25 ect we dont number a imaginary hale cycle.theres no point.

            I see you graced me with science Javier atta boy, now Javier you seem to think I disagree with people and you use that in a derogatory sense, correct Javier but I happen to agree with more people than I disagree with , its human nature Javier, it does seem I disagree with everything you say because I have only seen you argue with other people in sun physics, I cant recall you ever commentating on any other subject, but try expanding your social skills and you might find other people agree with you.

          • B d, I don’t know what you are talking about. A>0 refers to 11-year magnetic cycles where the North polar field strength is >0, and A<0 to the opposite. This is the terminology used by Balogh, A., Hudson, H.S., Petrovay, K. and von Steiger, R., 2015. Introduction to the solar activity cycle: Overview of causes and consequences. In The Solar Activity Cycle (pp. 1-15). Springer, New York, NY.
            See their figure 2 (panel b) entitled “Schwabe and Hale cycles.”

            Besides solar activity I usually engage also in conversations about paleoclimatology. I have published a fair number of articles here at WUWT and at other places between 2016 and 2019.

          • I know what it means , you did not correctly write down the symbols, as is seen in every paper I’ve read on this subject.

          • Take your quibbles to Balogh et al. Their address is in the paper. I did quote it correctly as I have shown. I do not know what exactly qA stands for but the meaning is clear.

          • This is the terminology used by Balogh, A., Hudson, H.S., Petrovay, K. and von Steiger, R., 2015. Introduction to the solar activity cycle: Overview of causes and consequences.
            As they, correctly, point out: “The 11-year activity cycle is a dominant characteristic of the Sun. It is the result of the evolution in time the solar dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field.” The solar dynamo cycle maintains the magnetic field. Because of Joy’s law the polarities change every 11 years. The polarity change [easily remembered using a 22-year magnetic periodicity as a good mnemonic] is thus a simple consequence of the actual physical 11-year real activity cycle.

            As I have reminded you, a large part of what is known about solar magnetism and its variation in space and time derives either directly or indirectly from my work on this subject over the past half century. It is satisfying that with the current extensive spacecraft missions and the great ground-based new observatories now coming into use, our modern view of the solar cycle is being consolidated on a firm foundation and may lead to better predictions of space weather and hazards, so sorely needed for a space-faring civilization increasingly relying on assets in space.

          • They don’t say what you add to the quote. What they say is:
            “Generally speaking, many of the intriguing problems in solar physics are related to the causal connections between the Schwabe and Hale cycles. Most of the numerical indicators of solar activity are associated with the 11-year Schwabe cycle, while the Hale cycle seems to reflect the quasi-periodic recurrence of generally complex magnetic phenomena.”

            Instead of the mnemonic you mention they see the Hale cycle as the reflection of the recurrence of solar magnetic phenomena. That’s what they say. A more fundamental role that the one you are trying to convince us most solar experts entertain.

          • Javier said:
            A more fundamental role that the one you are trying to convince us most solar experts entertain.

            Arnab Rai Choudhuri [one of the foremost experts on the solar cycle] in “The Meridional Circulation of the Sun: Observations, Theory and Connections with the Solar Dynamo” [arxiv 2008.09347 Aug. 21, 2020] reviews what is known about the solar dynamo:
            “Sunspots are regions of concentrated magnetic field (typically of order 3000 G) and the 11-year sunspot cycle (also called the solar cycle) is the magnetic cycle of the Sun. This cycle is believed to be caused by a magnetohydrodynamic or MHD process known as the dynamo process”…
            That is the fundamental cyclic process that “solar experts entertain”.

          • C.R.A. Augusto et al. in “The 2015 Summer Solstice Storm: One of the major Geomagnetic Storms of Solar Cycle 24 Observed at Ground Level, Solar Phys (2018) 293:84 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-018-1303-81 also get it right:
            “Solar Cycle 24, has been weaker than prior periods in recent cycles. Historically, sunspots (intense magnetic activity areas that appear as dark spots compared to the surrounding regions) are indicators of the 11-year solar magnetic activity cycle.”

          • Then you have a problem with them too, since you defend that the cycle is not 11-years, but 17-years.
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/12/it-appears-solar-cycle-25-has-begun-solar-cyle-24-one-of-the-shortest-and-weakest-ever/
            By the way, you were wrong then. SC25 started December 2019, not April 2018. Check:
            http://www.sidc.be/silso/node/166

            I personally have no problem with the 11-year, 22-year and extended cycles. They are all manifestations of the same phenomenon, and therefore they are all real.

        • B d Clark August 18, 2020 at 4:59 am

          You really are a joke Javier you argue her science is wrong ,yet you and a solar physics guy argue on this thread about the fundementals of basic solar science, you cant even agree on basics, yet your telling another scientist there wrong, science jarvier is about predictions and reproduction, her predictions will take years to prove right or wrong, another fundemental your not willing to follow.

          B, you seem to think that whether Javier is disputing science with Leif means he can’t say Valentina is wrong … BZZZT. The two are not related. Javier could be totally wrong about Leif and right about Valentina, or vice versa.

          You along with Willis have a lot more going than just saying she is wrong , every opportunity you get you attack this woman,stating she is wrong is a opinion and you have every right to do so, stating a prediction is wrong that takes years to show if it’s right or wrong ,is wrong and is here say, means nothing , your continual attacks rather than a opinion shows to me you and others have a vested interest, agenda .as I’ve already said any science good or bad forwards that branch of science,because we learn, by your continual suppression, attacks goes against the fundementals of good science,. A point you and Willis are in denial about.

          Longest sentence in the thread to date, you really out to invest in a few periods, they look like this (“.”). You can use them to divide it up your thoughts into digestible chunks.

          In any case, you say “stating she is wrong is a opinion ” … do you understand how math works? I showed her math was totally wrong a year ago. That is not an “opinion”, it is a fact, as exemplified by another fact—she had to retract the paper. Again, not an “opinion”.

          As to her prediction, her theory is unable to hindcast the past, so there’s no need to wait to see if it can predict the future.

          You are defending the indefensible. And as to the barycenter, neither you nor Valentina seem to have grasped that it is a mathematical fiction. It doesn’t radiate. It doesn’t have any mass. She thinks when the earth-barycenter distance changes the TSI must change … sorry, not true, and again that’s not an “opinion”. TSI depends on the earth-sun distance alone, no other heavenly bodies or barycenters are involved.

          In summary:

          • Her math is crap.
          • Her theory is not physically supported.
          • She is unable to hindcast the past with her theory.

          Now, if you want to sit around with your thumb up your … fundamental orifice waiting to see if her prediction is right, be my guest.

          The rest of us have things of actual importance to do, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t join you.

          w.

          • You also seem to be playing me into agreeing with zharkova, I’ve already told you I am not taking any sides I havent expressed a opinion if shes right of wrong, as well you know,
            And now your playing the grammar game again, your getting desperate Willis.

          • B d Clark August 18, 2020 at 10:49 am Edit

            You also seem to be playing me into agreeing with zharkova, I’ve already told you I am not taking any sides I havent expressed a opinion if shes right of wrong, as well you know,

            No clue what you’re talking about. Quote what I said that erroneously makes you think that I care about whether you think she’s wrong.

            You don’t seem to get it. I have no interest in the slightest in your opinion of whether Zharkova is right or wrong. None. You’ve given me no reason to.

            One of us showed that her math ability is … thin. The other of us might not even be able to do the calculations, and still doesn’t seem to grasp that she made a huge, obvious error and never noticed it.

            I know which one I trust …

            And now your playing the grammar game again, your getting desperate Willis.

            I “played the grammar game” in the hope that you’d see the humor and use it to improve your English. Please excuse me for trying to assist you in that regard. Forget I said anything.

            But “desperate”??? Dude, you don’t seem to understand your position in this. You’ve contributed NOTHING of scientific value to the discussion. You’ve claimed I shouldn’t say Valentina is wrong, when I’ve PROVEN she’s wrong by doing the math. You’ve insisted that despite her math error, and despite her clear misunderstanding of what the barycenter is and does, and regardless of her theory not being able to hindcast … despite all of that, you say we should suspend judgement for twenty years so we can see just how wrong she is.

            And you think that makes me “desperate”???

            I’ll tell you what it makes me.

            It makes me laugh …

            w.

          • Willis I’ve told you umpteen times I have no opinion wether zharkova is right or wrong ,why do you keep thinking I do, obsessive ridicule for over a year by yourself against zharkova which you freely admit too, says to me theres something wrong with you, your continual vulgar and thinly vailed insults to me,says your losing any grasp of a reasoned debate, ,Willis you cant flaw a prediction tills its run its course, however much you insult the author.

          • B d Clark August 18, 2020 at 6:32 pm

            Willis I’ve told you umpteen times I have no opinion wether zharkova is right or wrong ,why do you keep thinking I do

            I guess I wasn’t clear. I have absolutely no interest in whether or not you have an opinion of Zharkova. Your mentation about this, regardless of the form it takes, is of no importance at all on my planet.

            obsessive ridicule for over a year by yourself against zharkova which you freely admit too, says to me theres something wrong with you,

            QUOTE THE WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO! I have done NOTHING about Zarkova from the time a year ago when I demonstrated she was wrong, up to the publication of this post. NOTHING. Not one word. So your claim that I have engaged in “obsessive ridicule for over a year by yourself against zharkova” is a DAMN LIE, and an ugly one.

            your continual vulgar and thinly vailed insults to me,says your losing any grasp of a reasoned debate,

            You tell flat-out lies about me, you falsely accuse me of things I’ve never done, and now you want a “reasoned debate”?

            Fine.

            When you regain your reason and stop lying about what I did, let me know.

            Willis you cant flaw a prediction tills its run its course, however much you insult the author.

            Bullshit. If I predicted the sun wouldn’t rise three days last week, and the sun still rose, and you looked at my math and found huge errors … at that point, with that history, when I pompously declaimed that the sun wasn’t going to rise tomorrow you wouldn’t wait for sunrise. You’d just laugh in my face as soon as I predicted the sun wouldn’t rise … and deservedly so.

            So no. Some predictions are worth waiting for, and some aren’t. Hers aren’t. I know this because unlike you, I actually understand and went through the mathematics involved in her theory. Her theory is a joke. You are free to follow it. You are not free to bust me for not believing in your foolishness.

            And I have NOT insulted Zharkova, and if I have implied anything like that I apologize. I said her math ability is crap. It is. Not an insult. A fact. I said her theory was a joke. It is. Again, not an insult. I said she didn’t seem to understand what the barycenter is and what it means. True.

            But AFAIK I have not said one word about her personally, except to point out that she made a huge math mistake, one that I saw as soon as I read the paper. All true, none personal.

            w.

          • “I have done nothing against zharkova from that time a year ago”DAM LIES”

            As you said in this thread Willis “Thanks, Rud. The problem was larger than what you report above. Her calculations of the earth-sun distance were simply wrong.

            “I pointed this out a couple months ago on a site I can’t remember where newly published papers are discussed. I actually went and got the ephemeris measurements and pointed out that her numbers were simply incorrect. So I’m very glad that it went this way.”

            I’m not lieing Willis as I said your own addmission, I’ve also noticed you having a pop at her on other threads on here, so by your reaction to my previous post you dont like it being pointed out you are obsessive against zharkova, a couple of lines of your own opinion would of sufficed.

            You play character assassination Willis you are trying to do it to me, and zharkova.

          • B d Clark August 19, 2020 at 2:03 am

            Thanks, Bd. Everything is easier when you quote what I said. I’d said:

            “I pointed this out a couple months ago on a site I can’t remember where newly published papers are discussed. I actually went and got the ephemeris measurements and pointed out that her numbers were simply incorrect. So I’m very glad that it went this way.”

            When I wrote that I thought it was a couple of months ago. Then someone upthread said it was at PubPeer, so I went and looked at it. To my surprise, it was a year ago. The joys of late youth, the river of time accelerates. Like the frog said, “Time’s fun when you’re having flies”.

            Since that time a year ago, I can’t recall having said anything about her, although I may have mentioned her in passing. I certainly have NOT had any kind of year-long obsession about her as you falsely alledged.

            I’ve also noticed you having a pop at her on other threads on here, so by your reaction to my previous post you dont like it being pointed out you are obsessive against zharkova, a couple of lines of your own opinion would of sufficed.

            Once again you wander off into handwaving rumor. If you have EVIDENCE of what I said, I’m happy to discuss it. However, I cannot argue against your vague allegation that I said … something … sometime …

            And “obsessive against Zharkova”??? Dude, you have no clue how unimportant she is in my life. She’s way down there with you on the list of folks I NEVER think about unless someone else brings up their name.

            You play character assassination Willis you are trying to do it to me, and zharkova.

            Not true, Bd. There’s no reason for me to go to the trouble of trying to “assassinate” either your character or that of Zharkova—you two are doing an excellent job on your own.

            w.

          • Bd, you ask why I don’t wait to see if her prediction pans out. I don’t have to wait because

            a) her theory is unable to hindcast the past, and

            b) her theory is based on a totally incorrect understanding of solar and planetary movement.

            Although I often disagree with Javier, in this case he is 100% correct when he says:

            Her science has been proven wrong. It is not only that her model has been demonstrated by Ilya Usoskin that it is no better than random when hindcasting past solar activity even from 1700.
             
            Her retracted paper is based on a misconception about something that it is very well known, the orbital movements of the Solar System bodies. She found out that the Sun moves around the barycenter of the Solar System and she just assumed that the orbit of the Earth was fixed around the barycenter of the Solar System, so the distance of the Sun and the Earth would change on average from year to year, changing the insolation the Earth receives on an annual basis.
             
            This notion is nuts and one wonders what knowledge the reviewers of the paper had on something that is so fundamental to the paper.

            That is indeed the error I mentioned as sticking out like a stubbed toe, the one I saw as soon as I read her paper … and the combination of an incorrect theory and an inability to hindcast tells me I don’t need to wait 20 years to know if she is right.

            We already know today that she is wrong.

            w.

          • So you dident bother to answer to my last reply ,the one were I showed you had replied to zharkovas 2 months ago your relentless hate campaign, by your own addmission , I doubt anyone will take you assumptions serious after I’ve exposed you ,

          • B d Clark August 19, 2020 at 12:02 pm

            So you dident bother to answer to my last reply ,the one were I showed you had replied to zharkovas 2 months ago your relentless hate campaign, by your own addmission , I doubt anyone will take you assumptions serious after I’ve exposed you ,

            It seems you missed my answer, which is just two comments above your comment. Here’s a link to it.

            Best regards,

            w.

        • I’ve got no problem with anybody here except apparently with you, and since you have problems with several other people
          First, why do have a problem with me?
          Second, I don’t have problems with anybody. Some [including you] say things that are not right [most out of ignorance, some because of their agenda], so they must be corrected so we can keep at least some standard at WUWT. After a while, though, such correction becomes too tedious and people tune out.

          There are several things that don’t repeat the same way for 22 years, the modulation of cosmic rays has a rounded top at A>0 cycles and a pointy top at A<0 cycles. The 11 yr cosmic-ray cycle appears to lag the sunspot cycle by ∼1 yr for odd cycles but is in phase for even cycles.
          I have already explained that these things are not due to solar activity being different in even and odd cycles, but are due to the cosmic ray themselves behaving differently depending on the sign of the heliomagnetic field. The G-O ‘rule’ [even<odd] is often broken, e.g. for SC22 and 23, 4 and 5, and 8 and 9, so is not a real solar property, but just coincidences [with no explanation]. The magnetic bands and the extended solar cycle are both explainable as consequences of the 11-year cycle as I have repeatedly explained to you, so are not of interest as fundamental issues, nor useful as just empirical rules.

          • Javier, an example of your ignorance and how that pollutes WUWT. You claimed in connection with the Zharkova debacle about what influences TSI::
            “The Earth does not orbit the barycenter of the Solar system, the Earth orbits the barycenter of the Sun + the interior planets…
            This is incorrect [apart from the nonsense about what orbits what]. TSI comes from the shining sun not from some [non-radiating] barycenter [no matter how defined], so the actual distance to the sun is what is the determining factor. There are small corrections due to the Doppler effect: The first order Doppler parameter is d = (dR/dt)/c which can be as large as ±25 ppm (R is distance; c is speed of light, dR/dt is speed in direction of the sun). When we approach the Sun, d is negative so:
            a) The incoming photons have more energy by a factor (1-d),
            b) The Earth collects photons at a rate larger by a factor (1-d),
            so the resulting Doppler correction becomes (1-d)^2. Thus is but a small correction, so to zeroth order TSI depends just on the distance to the shining sun. No barycenter nonsense is involved.
            P.S. you have still not shown us a link establishing your credentials.

          • A large part of what is known about solar magnetism and its variation in space and time derives either directly or indirectly from my work on this subject over the past half century. Because the solar convection zone is a place of turbulent overturning of millions of convection cells it is hard to maintain any coherent structures in either space [circulations] or time [cycles, the solar ‘clock’]. Proponents of such structures therefore tend to place the origin [or ‘home’ so to speak] of them in the interior below the convection zone [the tachocline]. There are tantalizing clues to the existence of ‘clocks’ in the radiative interior, e.g. for sector strucure https://leif.org/research/Olsen-Rotating-Dipole-Revisited.pdf , for flare organization https://leif.org/research/Magnetic-Fields-at-Hale-Solar-Sector-Boundaries.pdf, and for a possible fossil field https://leif.org/research/Gough-Is-the-Sun-a-Magnet.pdf . A note: Douglas Gough is the greatest living expert on the dynamics of the solar interior [in addition to being a student of Fred Hoyle] (and yes: it sometimes pays to pay attention to experts, lots of good stuff in his ‘verba’). All this stuff is, of course, highly speculative. But speculation [clearly marked as such and not being pushed as ‘fact’ or ‘evidence’] is a very valuable commodity on any frontier of science.

          • Javier claimed:
            They don’t say what you add to the quote.
            But they did say exactly what I quoted.

            they see the Hale cycle as the reflection of the recurrence of solar magnetic phenomena.
            But not, as you would have it, as the underlying cause of the 11-year cycle. Indeed, as I have shown, the ‘reflection’ is a consequence of the one and only solar cycle [what they, correctly, called the ‘dominant’ cycle]. Again, you are trying to twist their words to fit your agenda. Bad behavior.
            The entire book is a celebration of the 11-year true cycle. Indeed, its very title:
            “Introduction to the Solar Activity Cycle”. Also note that they stress that “The polarities reverse every 11 years, producing the 22-year Hale cycle”, not the other way around. The Hale ‘cycle’ is not the cause of the polarity reversals. Although this seems to be a trivial difference, it is at the root of this whole discussion about what are consequences and what are causes. The polar field reversals are well-observed and well-understood as part of the normal evolution of the fundamental Schwabe Cycle.

          • Advice for Javier:
            https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science-31211ae8c5b0
            “The reason is simple: most of us, even those of us who are scientists ourselves, lack the relevant scientific expertise needed to adequately evaluate that research on our own. In our own fields, we are aware of the full suite of data, of how those puzzle pieces fit together, and what the frontiers of our knowledge is. When laypersons espouse opinions on those matters, it’s immediately clear to us where the gaps in their understanding are and where they’ve misled themselves in their reasoning. When they take up the arguments of a contrarian scientist, we recognize what they’re overlooking, misinterpreting, or omitting. Unless we start valuing the actual expertise that legitimate experts have spent lifetimes developing, “doing our own research” could lead to immeasurable, unnecessary suffering.”

          • Leif Svalgaard August 22, 2020 at 10:17 am

            Unless we start valuing the actual expertise that legitimate experts have spent lifetimes developing, “doing our own research” could lead to immeasurable, unnecessary suffering.”

            Mmm … I see a couple problems with that, particularly in climate science. First, which of these are the “legitimate experts” with “actual expertise” that you describe?

            • Michael Mann
            • Steve McIntyre
            • Kevin Trenberth
            • Judith Curry
            • Anthony Watts
            • Nic Lewis
            • Gavin Schmidt
            • Naomi Oreskes
            • James Hansen

            Next, there is a huge problem with “legitimate experts”, which is that while their knowledge is often very deep, it is also often not very wide. This is a funny thing to me, because I’m a generalist. Scott Adams talks about a “skills stack”, a list of all the varied skills you have … mine is more varied than any man I know of.

            And this leave me in a funny position with respect to “legitimate experts”, a position that I can describe no better than you have, so let me steal your words.

            When legitimate experts espouse opinions on those matters, it’s immediately clear to us generalists where the gaps in their understanding are and where they’ve misled themselves in their reasoning. When they take up the arguments of a mainstream scientist, we recognize what they’re overlooking, misinterpreting, or omitting.

            A great example of this are thunderstorms. “Legitimate expert” climate modelers either ignore or parameterize them in their models.

            Me, I worked in refrigeration, so I look at them as natural emergent refrigerators using water as the working fluid. This gives me a whole host of both insights and tools to examine the thunderstorms that might never occur to a legitimate expert.

            Next, having worked with heat engines allowed me to see that a thunderstorm is a dual-fuel engine that is powered by of a combination of excess heat and excess water vapor, a most curious insight that I’ve never seen from anyone else.

            In addition, I’m a long-time seaman. This gives me the insight about the winds underneath and around the thunderstorm, and how they affect both the albedo and the evaporation. What happens is that the thunderstorm-generated winds increase the evaporation at the base, and this allows the thunderstorms to continue in existence as the surface temperature falls. This means it can drive the surface temperature BELOW the initiation temperature.

            Why is that important? Well, my experience with governed and thermostatically controlled systems lets me recognize that driving the temperature BELOW the initiation temperature is a requirement for governing a lagged system like the surface temperature.

            You can see that Scott Adams idea of a “skill stack” is a most important insight … without being a generalist I couldn’t have seen a tenth of that.

            In any case … that’s where “legitimate experts” are on my planet. My challenge and my advantage is that I learn things backwards from most folks.

            When most folks want to understand something, they first look to see what all of the “legitimate experts” have said. You know, they go to school, study what is known about the subject. After four years they’re allowed to have an independent thought.

            In my case, that’s a mistaken path. Probably not for you, but I’m clear that I’m a freak of nature, and it’s a mistake for me.

            Me, I figure until I try to understand a subject myself, I won’t know which of the modern multitude of experts is actually legitimate. Plus I want to maintain what in Zen Buddhism (another part of my skill stack) is called “beginners mind”, a very desirable state of affairs where you can look on things without prejudgment.

            So when I start studying in a new field or sub-field, I just go and get the data and play with it. I don’t work at understanding it, not my style. I play with it. I pull it apart and put it back together to see what I can find out about how it works. I make pretty pictures of it that bring insight. I try to tease the real relationships out of the actual observations.

            Then, and only then, do I go to see how my ideas line up with the experts who might or might not be legitimate. I see if they’re following the same path or not. I harvest whatever insights I can from them. I see what they seem to be overlooking.

            Then I go back to play with the data again.

            That’s how I ended up studying the critical and totally overlooked question of why the climate is so stable—I wasn’t already indoctrinated into the incorrect idea that the important issue is the tiny variations of a percent or so in the global temperature.

            So … like I said, I agree with you, Leif, we do need to listen to “legitimate experts” … now if only our experts could agree on which one(s) of them are legit … me, I think about 97% of climate scientists are trying to answer the wrong question. See here for a discussion.

            Best to you, and thank you for the marvelous education regarding the eighteen-year-long 11-year cycle … most fascinating.

            w.

          • First, which of these are the “legitimate experts” with “actual expertise” that you describe?
            I would say:
            • Steve McIntyre
            • Judith Curry
            • Anthony Watts

            Next, there is a huge problem with “legitimate experts”, which is that while their knowledge is often very deep, it is also often not very wide.
            That is very true. ‘Climate Science’ is very ‘wide’, spans several disciplines. But more importantly, has become political so science has taken a back seat.

            The field of solar-terrestrial relations is also ‘wide’, and few scientists have the broad expertise [that I am fortunate to have, at least in some measure] that is needed. But then, even fewer arm-chair ‘scientists’ qualify. Now, one can accumulate practical, observational expertise [e.g. you and Anthony] that can serve as ‘legit’ background and as a sound substitute for formal training. In addition, actually working with the data instead of merely quote and cherry pick other people’s work gives one legitimacy.

            This is one of the reasons I insist on seeing a link to Javier’s purported work to see how well he has applied ‘the scientific method’ he boasts of having done. But, alas, he has resisted to provide a link. Perhaps for good reason…

          • Good demonstration of your bias, Leif. You are given a list of 5 consensus and 4 skeptic people, and you pick 3 skeptics. But I already knew you are an easy prey to your biases.

            Your advice is unsolicited. Plenty of people from out of a scientific field made very important contributions to it. Alfred Wegener was a meteorologist and polar explorer. James Croll was a self-educated janitor.

            I don’t aspire to that. I just aspire to get a better understanding of how climate changes on Earth over time and what are the main causes. The Sun is an important piece of that according to paleoclimatology.

          • Plenty of people from out of a scientific field made very important contributions to it
            But you have not, and considering your comments here, will not.
            And I pick skeptics because skepticism is a valuable attribute.
            Would you rather go with the infamous 97%?

            Even if I’m not a janitor, I have, in fact made important contributions to several different scientific fields [because I have long time experience in them]. What have you done?

          • The Sun is an important piece of that according to paleoclimatology.
            That is sometimes believed, but the evidence is very weak and the fervent wish for it to be so have repeatedly been dashed. I was once part of distinguished group of scientists credited with reviving the sun-weather-climate debate [https://www.amazon.com/Sun-Weather-Climate-John-Herman/dp/1410221997]. Alas, our hopes did not pan out.
            The major changes of climate have not been due to the sun. One may cite the ‘faint sun paradox’, ice ages and glaciations, and surely the recent climate changes [‘global warming’].

      • The Earth does not orbit the barycenter of the Solar system, the Earth orbits the barycenter of the Sun + the interior planets
        TSI comes from the shining sun not from some [non-radiating] barycenter [no matter how defined], so the actual distance to the center [actually the surface, offset at a constant distance (the radius) from the center] of the sun [actually of where the sun were 8 minutes ago when the radiation was emitted] is what must be considered; no barycenter nonsense enters the issue.

  27. In between centennial solar minima, each sunspot cycle maximum occurs close to when the Earth-Venus inferior conjunctions are lining up with Uranus, and with Jupiter roughly in line with Uranus in even numbered cycles, and with Jupiter roughly in quadrature with Uranus in odd numbered cycles. [This defines the shorter roughly 10.4 years length cycles between centennial minima] This series can repeat only a limited number of times before the Earth-Venus syzygies get ahead of Jupiter, at which point a centennial minimum occurs. Earth, Venus, and Jupiter then continue the same qudrupole alignments with Neptune as a surrogate for the duration of the centennial minimum, until they can regain quadrupole alignments with Uranus again. Which in the case of the current centennial minimum will be from solar cycle 26. So no grand minimum this time, this centennial minimum is short as they ever get, effecting only solar cycles 24 and 25. But the next two centennial minima from the late 2090’s and from 2200 will be the longest pair for some 3500 years.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/schwabe-cycle-variability-ulric-lyons/

    • Thanks, Anthony. If you read the pubpeer discussion you’ll see that I pointed out the glaring error in her math last year.

      w.

  28. principAL component, please

    I think we are agreed that we often comment here on matters involving lack of principle.

  29. I’m very sorry to arrive to this post so late, I’ve been on holidays. But I am very, very surprised that nobody seems to have noticed something fundamentally wrong in the author’s (Charles Rotter’s) understanding of the Nyquist limits. The author writes:

    The fundamental physics/math problem with this now retracted on other grounds paper is that they used 33 years of satellite data to very poorly reconstruct via discredited and ill fitted PCA a ~350 year frequency full solar magnetic field strength wave form, when Nyquist says you need at least 700 years to reliably do that. And 700 years of solar magnetic field strength amplitude variation data DOES NOT EXIST.

    It makes NO SENSE to talk about a frequency of either 350 years or 700 years. Frequency’s units are the INVERSE of time. 1Hz is 1second^(-1). You can talk about periodic signals with PERIODS of 350 years or 700 years, but those would mean frequencies of (1/350y) or (1/700y). And Nyquist limits are about FREQUENCIES, not periods. What the Nyquist limit says is that to properly sample a periodic signal with a period of 350 years you need at least a sampling frequency of 2*(1/350y), or 1 sample every 175 years. As the authors of the original paper are most probably using DAILY samples in their 33 years signal, rather than 1 sample every 175 years, they are already sampling waaaaaay faster than anyhting needed to capture signals with a period of 350 years.

    I am sure that the retracted paper has a million flaws, but breaking any Nyquist limits is not one of them.

    • I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong … but AFAIK the Nyquist limit assumes a basically unlimited sample size which encompasses many cycles. I mean, clearly if you take three samples, one every 175 years, you can’t reconstruct doodley-squat … you need data over a bunch of cycles to do that.

      For me, the issue is not Nyquist. It is the length of the cycle compared to the length of the sample. You can see it in discrete Fourier analysis — if you have a sample length of 30 years of monthly data, a discrete Fourier analysis won’t identify any cycles with a period longer than 15 years.

      And while other analysis methods like CEEMD can push somewhat past that, there’s no mathematical method I know of to diagnose a 350-year cycle if all you have is 33 years of data.

      And this is triply true in climate science, where what I call “pseudo-cycles” often appear out of nowhere, last for some period of time, and then disappear completely.

      As a result, I like to have at least three and preferably five complete cycles to declare an actual cycle … and even then I’ve been fooled.

      TL;DR version? In climate science, diagnosing and defining a cycle when you have less than a tenth of a cycle’s data is a fool’s errand.

      w.

      • Willis,
        When the data allow it, your method os splitting it into an early part and a late part to see if periodicities still happen in each part, is a good rule of thumb that had served you well. But, I have been puzzled by the seeming absence of a more sophisticated math way to do that sort of validation over many breakdowns of the data, not just first part versus second part. There might be an overall test, but if there is I cannot put a name to it. Geoff S

          • One last thought, Geoff. Generally, what I use for this question is CEEMD analysis, which has the huge advantage of showing the evolution of the cycles/pseudocycles over the period of record. Here’s an example. Someone said that sunspots lined up with Lake Victoria levels. I did a CEEMD analysis of each one and compared the relevant cycles.

            As you can see, although a Fourier analysis will indeed show some strength in the Lake Victoria data in this range, the CEEMD analysis shows that it’s a spurious correlation.

            All the best to you,

            w.

  30. The thread was getting way too long, so Javier, I’m continuing here.
    You said:
    Although not stellar, my contribution to science is far from insignificant.
    And I responded:
    “It would be of interest for you to show us a link [if any] to what you consider to most relevant to the topic at hand.”

    We are still waiting for that link. So, if you have any, please post it here.

    • David Hathaway in Living Reviews in Solar Physics volume 12, Article number: 4 (2015) summarizes what we know about the solar cycle:

      “1. The solar cycle has a period of about 11 years but varies in length with a standard deviation of about 14 months.
      2. Each cycle appears as an outburst of activity that overlaps with both the preceding and following cycles. This overlap is only about 18 months when measured by the occurrence of sunspots but stretches to years when measured by ephemeral regions, torsional oscillations, and coronal emissions. [the extended cycle]
      3. Solar cycles are asymmetric with respect to their maxima — the rise to maximum is shorter than the decline to minimum, and the rise time is shorter for larger amplitude cycles.
      4. Big cycles usually start early and leave behind a short preceding cycle and a high minimum of activity.
      5. Sunspots erupt in low-latitude bands on either side of the equator, and these bands drift toward the equator as each cycle progresses with little variation from cycle to cycle.
      6. The activity bands widen during the rise to maximum and narrow during the decline to minimum. This width is primarily a direct function of the sunspot number or area with little, if any, further dependence on cycle size or phase.
      7. At any time, one hemisphere may dominate over the other, but the northern and southern hemispheres never get out of phase by more than about 10 months. [internal clock]
      8. Sunspot groups tend to emerge at longitudes where previous groups had emerged (active longitudes/activity nests).
      9. Sunspots erupt in groups extended in longitude but more constrained in latitude, with one magnetic polarity associated with the leading spots (leading in the direction of rotation) and the opposite polarity associated with the following spots.
      10. The magnetic polarities of active regions reverse from northern to southern hemispheres and from one cycle to the next, but exceptions occur. [3% of active regions do not follow this Hale Law]
      11. The polar fields reverse polarity during each cycle at about the time of cycle maximum.
      12. The leading spots in a group are positioned slightly equatorward of the following spots, and this tilt increases with latitude.
      13. Cycle amplitudes exhibit weak quasi-periodicities like the 7 to 8-cycle Gleissberg Cycle (100 years).
      14. Cycle amplitudes exhibit extended periods of inactivity, like the Maunder Minimum, where sunspots are not observed but low level magnetic activity continues.
      15. Solar activity exhibits quasi-periodicities at time scales shorter than 11 years (quasi-biennial).
      16. Predicting the level of solar activity for the remainder of a cycle is reliable 2–3 years after cycle minimum.
      17. Predictions for the amplitude of a cycle based on the Sun’s polar field strength or on geomagnetic activity near cycle minimum are significantly better than using the climatological mean.

      Nowhere does he mention any 22-year cycle, which is in any case just a intellectually undemanding mnemonic describing facts #10 and 11 without firm observational support for a deeper physical cause hiding in the solar interior. From time to time, attempts have been and are being advocated for additional [but generally unspecified] physical processes operating to produce real 22-year variations [e.g. to explain the even-odd rule], but these have met with very limited or no acceptance.

Comments are closed.