Why Will This Solar Minimum Be Different?

Because earth’s magnetosphere is weakening significantly.
____________

Why Will This Solar Minimum Be Different?

Adoni

The little ice-age patterns are repeats of historical weather/climate over thousands of years, if not many, many thousands of years when the sun’s electromagnetic field weakened.

Unique, at least compared to the most recent Minimums, the Maunder and Dalton, is that the earth’s magnetosphere is also weakening significantly which may be a precursor to a magnetic pole reversal.

Cosmic rays are exploding, inducing increased cloud nucleation leading to greater rains.

Also, the sun and earth magnetic fields are the drivers of the shifting wind patterns of our stratosphere.

The answer is there, and many, many scientists have been forecasting exactly what is unfolding and it ain’t from the Global Warming Fraud–which is, in my opinion, a globalist elite crime against humanity.


15 thoughts on “Why Will This Solar Minimum Be Different?”

  1. Well said Adoni,
    The BIG question now is how deep this solar minimum going to go.

    There is a good report at https://www.perspectaweather.com/blog/2019/10/4/1100-am-potential-role-of-low-solar-activity-this-winter-as-solar-minimum-deepens-and-the-wide-ranging-impacts-of-increasing-cosmic-rays

    [NOTE — perspectaweather was previously known as Vencore, Inc. and supplied GWPF with a report about 18 months ago on this topic. This is the update to that report. ]

  2. The “…Global Warming Fraud… is, in my opinion, a globalist elite crime against humanity.” Agreed.

    But it is not the globalist elites who are telling the Greta Thunberg’s of the world that they are not going to grow up and have a family. This pernicious message has been delivered to school children for a generation by the Marxist/anarchist teachers who are still mourning the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    • If there is ever a day of the rope or a form of judgment day there will be no shortage of guests of honor to the necktie party.
      Not all sins go unpunished for ever in this world and the PC crowd and globalist oligarchs have been getting away with sinning for a long, long time.

      • Yes there are Marxists in the globalist oligarchy however the capitalists and democrats are also part of the globalist oligarchy and they got to go also because they are allied to the Marxists, Jews and the secret societies plus they are turning society to crap. The classic definition of capitalism is private ownership of the means of production and it has something to do with investing. However the capitalism that has to go is a political ideology that says that monied interests must rule society for private gain which is what we have and it is the political ally and paymaster of Marxist and satanic political and social movements. Same basic problem with democracy. Big commies and big capitalists buy or infiltrate the democratic political parties to take over the government gradually and legally. It helps if you think of communism and democracy as being techniques used by the political capitalists to get what they want. Slaves, power and approval.
        Fixing the problem is like getting rid of cockroaches. You have to get them all or what is the point?

  3. yes and that’s also deadly when you get a magnetic reversal. It’s an extinction that usually happens during a reversal and then followed by a major ice age.

  4. From Valentina Zharkova
    I am writing a response to the concerns raised on Pubpeer about our article entitled “Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale”, which was recently published
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3.

    I. About Solar Inertial Motion (SIM)
    SIM was calculated by many authors in the numerous papers published about 20- 60 years ago (see Appendix 1 for some references and citations from the papers).
    However, as the discussion in Pubpeer below our paper has shown, this was not the case for some contributors who are keen supporters of the human-induced temperature increase.
    On this reason, we have investigated the process of SIM very closely and found a few very important points about SIM, which can help to resolve the puzzle and answer some specific comments from Pubpeer.
    1. First point we discovered is that each author investigating SIM stated that SIM is not a Kepler’s motion (Jose, 1965, Newhall et al, 1983), it is a different motion caused by perturbations by gravity from larger planets (see also Appendix 1).
    For example, here are a citation from Newhall et al, 1983, A&A, 125, 150 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A%26A…125..150N/abstract who stated in the paper (and we cite) ‘The first study was published by Jose (1965). He noticed this sentence in Newton‘s Principia (see Cajori (1934)):‘‘. . . since that centre of gravity centre of mass of the solar system) is continually at rest, the Sun, according to the various positions of the planets, must continually move every way, but will never recede far from that centre.”
    Hence, ‘Solar inertial motion is not following Kepler’s law, it is a different kind of perturbation motion following Newton’s law of gravitation.’
    2. Second point we discovered is that the SIM is defined by at least 4 large planets: Jupiter (J), Saturn (S), Uranus (U), Neptune (N) (see citations from the papers in Appendix 1).

    3. Third point we discovered is that most researchers believe that the planets rotate about the barycentre while the Sun wobbles about it. This also applicable to other stars (see the link below and citation of the text from it).
    For example, NASA webpage, which includes only the effect of Jupiter https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/ also describes in a video the Sun’s motion about the barycentre Sun-Jupiter (see Fig. 1 below)

    Fig. 1. Barycentre of the motion of Jupiter around the Sun and the Sun about the barycentre (as accepted by NASA and JPL ephemeris).

    Moreover, the NASA webpage https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/ clearly states that (and we cite)
    ‘our entire solar system also has a barycenter. The sun, Earth, and all of the planets in the solar system orbit around this barycenter. It is the center of mass of every object in the solar system combined.
    Our solar system’s barycenter constantly changes position. Its position depends on where the planets are in their orbits. The solar system’s barycenter can range from being near the center of the sun to being outside the surface of the sun. As the Sun orbits this moving barycenter, it wobbles around.
    This wobbling effect is used in detecting exoplanets. Detecting a star’s wobble is one way to find out if there are planets orbiting it. By studying barycenters—and using several other techniques—astronomers have detected many planets around other stars!’

    As you can see the NASA page clearly states that all the planets rotate about the barycentre while the Sun wobbles about it as well.

    4. Fourth point we discovered is about the essential difference between how the JPL ephemeris are calculated for the Earth+Moon (and Venus) motion about the Sun and about the barycentre.

    With a help of specialists, we obtained and plotted the JPL ephemeris for the rotation of Earth+Moon system in the 1800-1900 about the Sun (cyan curve) and about the barycentre of the solar system in 19th century (magenta line) (see Fig. 2, top plot).

    It is clearly seen that the Earth and Venus orbits oscillate with the variable orbit parameters about the barycentre, while their orbits remain nearly constant in a rotation about the Sun.

    Fig. 2. Earth orbits (top) and Venus orbits (bottom) about the Sun (Earth – cyan line, Venus –red line) and about the barycentre (Earth – magenta line, Venus – black line). Y axis shows the orbit aphelion (top) and perihelion (bottom).

    We checked the document how the JPL ephemeris are calculated for the Earth orbits about the Sun following Folkner et al, 2014, The Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and DE431, IPN Progress Report 42-196 • February 15, 2014. It states (and we cite) ‘The modelled accelerations of bodies due to interactions of point masses with the gravita- tional field of non-spherical bodies include: (a) the interaction of the zonal harmonics of the Earth (through fourth degree) and the point mass Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter; (b) the interaction between the zonal, sectoral, and tesseral harmonics of the Moon (through sixth degree) and the point mass Earth, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter; (c) the second-degree zonal harmonic of the Sun (J2) interacting with all other bodies. ‘

    This confirmed our suspicion that for the Earth orbit about Sun the JPL ephemeris are calculated considering the effects of only Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and 300 asteroids and did not include not of the other three large planets Saturn, Neptune and Uranus required to account for SIM (see Appendix 1).

    The joint perturbation of these four planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) would further affect the rotation of the Earth about the Sun, surely deviating from the semi-SIM Earth orbits presented in the comments 15 and 72 below our paper. We envisage that the newly calculated Earth orbits will be closer to the orbits about barycentre including SIM shown in Fig. 2 by magenta line.

    We appreciate that integration of all contributions to the Earth orbit is a complex task, especially for the Earth+Moon system. However, the fact is that the Earth rotation about the Sun has not been done consistently because these JPL ephemeris calculations of the Earth orbit about the Sun did not include into the integration the effects of Uranus, Neptune and Saturn in addition to Jupiter already included. However, Uranus, Neptune and Saturn together with Jupiter define the real position of the barycentre of the solar system and the Earth motion about the Sun.

    5. Fifth point we discovered is that even for the JPL ephemeris of the Earth+Moon motion about the Sun with the effect on by large planet Jupiter (and some smaller planets) we managed to show that the distance between the Earth and Sun keeps decreasing from 1700 to 2600 by about 0.004 au (induced only by the gravitation from Jupiter).

    Even for these cyan JPL orbits with only Jupiter effects, which seems to be unperturbed we calculated the variations of the Earth-Sun distance over the period of 1700 to 2600 shown in Fig. 3.

    Fig. 3. Earth-Sun distance variations in time for the Earth rotation about Sun derived from JPL ephemeris for the Earth+Moon rotation about the Sun.

    It can be seen that this distance is steadily increasing since 1700 until 2600 by a magnitude of up to 0.004 au.

    So even in the current JPL approach to the Earth orbits affected by Jupiter the Sun still moves closer to the Earth in the next 600 years, as it did in the past 400, that confirms what we suggested in the paper.

    Moreover, if all large planets are added to the Earth motion about the Sun, this would add a further displacement of the Earth to/from the Sun during the period of 2000 years, similar to that shown for Jupiter in Fig.4 above. And the summated displacements by all four planets can easily reach larger magnitudes close to those we evaluated in the paper.

    II. The summary of the results of our recent paper (Zharkova et al, 2019).

    A. The facts reported in the paper without any reference to solar inertial motion (SIM):
    1. Our summary curve is derived from the solar magnetic field measured by ground-based magnetic synoptic maps obtained by the Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) http://wso.stanford.edu/synopticl.html by applying Principal Component Analysis, finding eigen values an eigen vectors of magnetic oscillations and adding together the two largest eigen vectors (principal components) as described by Zharkova et al, 2015, SR. This summary curve describing solar activity (average sunspot) index as shown by Zharkova et al, 2015 was expanded to 120 thousand years (Fig. 1 in the paper).
    2. From this summary curve we found that each 5 grand cycles were repeated many times as shown for 10000 years (paper’s Fig. 2, top plot).
    3. Then we run an averaging filter of 1000 years over the summary curve, suppressing the large oscillations of 11 year cycle. This helped us to detect the oscillations of the baseline (zero-line) of magnetic field with a period of 2000-2100 years (see paper’s Fig. 2, bottom plot). Note, these oscillations by one and half order of magnitude lower than those of 11 years oscillations in the summary curve (compare axis Y for these two curves).
    4. In the past 120 000 years there were about 60 these baseline oscillations (combination of paper’s Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
    5. In order to understand a nature of these oscillations we tested the current cycle of 2000 years and discovered that its minimum was during a Maunder Minimum and it is growing now until 2600 as shown in paper’s Fig.3.
    6. As also shown in the paper’s Fig. 3, the current 2000 years cycle correlate very closely with Solanki curve for solar irradiance, which in our plot was simply reduced to separate it from our curve as they are virtually inseparable.
    Our curve also follow the general trend of solar irradiance derived by Lean et al, 1995, 1998, 2000
    1. Lean, J., J. Beer, and R. Bradley. 1995. Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Since 1610: Implications for Climate Change. Geophysical Research Letters, v.22, No. 23, pp 3195-3198, December 1, 1995.
    2. Lean, J., and Rind, D. 1998. Climate forcing by changing solar radiation. Journal of Climate 11, 3069–3094.
    3. Lean, J. 2000. Evolution of the Sun’s Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 16, pp. 2425-2428, Aug. 15, 2000.

    Fig. 4. Solar irradiance since 1610 as reconstructed by Lean et al (1995) and Lean (2000). The thin line indicates the annual reconstructed solar irradiance, while the thick line shows the running 11 average.

    7. Furthermore, this current curve of baseline magnetic field oscillation over 2000 years is also found to correlate very closely with Akasofu’s baseline temperature variation (increase from 18 to 20 century) ( a straight line) (see Fig.3 in our paper). Note, a straight line in the Akasofu curve is over-plotted with real temperature variations showing sharp maxima and minima caused by various terrestrial and solar activity processes.

    B. Solar Inertial Motion and its link to the baseline magnetic field oscillation
    Secondly, we discuss the relation of the baseline magnetic field variations to solar inertial motion (SIM)
    Only after we established the features reported in items 1-7 above and shown in Fig. 1-3, we started looking what can cause them. This is when our attention came to solar inertial motion (SIM) and the numerous papers on it from 80s until recently (see the list of authors and citations from their papers below).
    8. Hence, we discovered from the papers of many authors who did SIM calculations that the Sun moves within a circle of 4.3 solar radius (696 000 km), that results in the magnitude of the maximum displacement of the Sun from a focus of the terrestrial orbit (supposedly to be in the centre of the Sun) of about 0.02 AU. Again, we used what people calculated for SIM decades before us (see the list of authors and citations from their papers in Appendix 1).
    9. Furthermore, we found, again from the papers by others investigating SIM, that Sun moves in the SIM circles which radius increases like in a cone shown in paper’s Fig. 4 (right plot). The radius of SIM increases towards 2600 that leads to maximum in baseline oscillations. Then the SIM will start moving in smaller and smaller radii over the next 1000 years until it returns back to the focus of the ellipse.
    Hence, at first the radius of SIM is small (see paper’s Fig. 4,right plot) as it was during the Maunder Minimum (MM) coinciding also with the minimum of 2000 cycle. Then for the next 1000 years from MM the radius of SIM is increasing in time approaching the maximum near the base of the cone.
    10. This leads to the baseline variations over 2000 years we reported in paper’s Fig. 2 for another 1000 years.
    11. Then we did some general analysis and evaluation of the Sun-Earth distance change with this SIM motion if the Sun moves closer or further from the different parts of the Earth orbit. This is also would be valid for the orbits of other planets.
    12. Given a close correlation between the variations of baseline oscillations with the solar irradiance curves by Solanki et al, 2011 (Fig. 3 in the paper) and by Lean et al, 1995-2000 (Fig. 4 in this report) and the temperature increase on Earth reported by Akasofu, 2010 this logically allowed us to link the items 1- 7 items with items 8 – 12.

    III. Addressing the specific concerns 15 and 72 from Pubpeer

    Now we will address the specific concerns highlighted in the letter and comments 15 and 72 from pubpeer, for which we needed to do some additional research above using JPL ephemeris.

    1. General concern. Specifically, concerns have been raised regarding the interpretation of how the earth-sun distance changes over the time frames presented in your article. In particular a concern has been noted that, despite the fact that it is true that the distance of the Sun in related to the Solar System barycentre (SSB) does vary, the Earth also moves around the SSB in a commensurate fashion ensuring that the semi-major axis of earth’s orbit around the Sun remains approximately constant over the time frames discussed your paper.

    Answer. (see section I above). The statement that the Earth distance to the Sun is approximately constant is not exactly correct. What Dr. Rice et al suggest that our planet Earth orbit wobbles together with Sun just to keep the distance from the Sun to Earth constant is a very puzzling suggestion, to say the least. We addressed this concern in two ways.

    First, we used the JPL ephemeris for the rotation of Earth+Moon system about the Sun (cyan curve) and the JPL ephemeris for their about the barycentre of the solar system in 19th century (magenta line) (see Fig. 2 above).

    It is clearly seen from this report Fig. 2 that the Earth and Venus orbits oscillate about the barycentre with the variable orbit parameters as we suggested, while their orbits remain nearly constant in a rotation about the Sun. This difference is caused by the missed effects of other three large planets (Saturn, Neptune and Uranus) on the Earth orbit calculation about the Sun (see the points 1- 4 discussed in the section about SIM in section I).

    Second, in point 5 we presented the Earth-Sun distance plot in Fig. 3 (this report) derived from the current JPL ephemeris for Earth orbit about the Sun considering only large planet Jupiter over the time of 2000 years from 1700 till 2600.

    So even in the current JPL approach to the Earth orbits affected by Jupiter the Sun still moves closer to the Earth in the next 600 years, as it did in the past 400 as we suggested in the paper.

    Moreover, if all large planets are added to the Earth motion about the Sun, this would add a further displacement of the Earth to/from the Sun during the period of 2000 years so that the summated displacements induced by all four large planets can easily reach larger magnitudes close to those we evaluated in the paper.

    2. Answer to comment 15 on Pubpeer:
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24#15
    Comment 15 (cited from the webpage):
    ‘It seems pretty clear that there is an assumption here that a difference in the relative position of the Sun with respect to the SSB directly translates to a change in the Earth-Sun distance which is simply not true. Even if you ignore basic principles of orbital dynamics which tell us why the key orbital parameters of the Earth remain effectively constant on these timescales any simulation data clearly demonstrates the absence of evidence for the claims of changing peri and apo-apsis made here.
    I attached what I hope is another way for Dr Zharkova to visualise what Dr Rice is trying to convey.
    This figure shows the per-orbit (Earth orbit) averaged position of both the Sun and the Earth with respect to the solar-system barycentre at 0,0 for the years 2019-2059. the Sun is undergoing the same motions as the paper describes, and indeed it does so with a maximum magnitude of approximately the claimed 0.02 AU. What the author has neglected is the fact that the exact same motion is seen by the Earth such that, on these timescales, the Earth-Sun distance at any time is unchanged. NB. In case it isn’t clear the reason why the two do not exactly overlap is simply because the Earth series shows the centre of the orbit but the Sun is located at a focus of the orbit.
    The source for this is JPL Horizons ephemerides which I think we can agree is an extremely reliable simulation for this timeseries. Incidentally, this dataset also agrees with the established rate of change of the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit.

    Fig. 5. Proposed in comment 15 SIM motion of the Sun (top plot) and the simulated orbits of the Earth if considering only the gravitational effects of Moon, Mars, Venus and Jupiter.

    Authors answer to the comment 15.
    The author of the comment suggests that Earth wobbles its orbit along with the Sun, which follows SIM. I doubt that the Earth orbit is wobbling orbit as it is shown in this comment.
    This wobbling of the Earth orbit happens (we refer to section I, points 1 and 2) because the calculations presented in this comment 15 were done considering the point mass of Earth, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter (Folkner et al, 2014, The Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and DE431, IPN Progress Report 42-196 • February 15, 2014) and not considering other three large planets (Saturn, Neptune and Uranus) required for the correct calculation of barycentre position and SIM .
    This approximation is not consistent with solar inertial motion as per document describing the JPL ephemeris calculated for the Earth orbits about the Sun. We are confident that if included into JPL ephemeris, the joint perturbation of these four planets would affect the rotation of the Earth about the Sun deviating from these semi-SIM Earth orbits presented in this comment and flowing closer the orbits about the barycentre shown in Fig. 3 by magenta line.
    Therefore, the answer to this comment is that the presented calculation of the Earth+Moon orbit about the Sun is not consistent with SIM as it does not consider the other 3 large planets besides Jupiter.
    This is why their Earth orbit in this comment follows the wobbling Sun in its SIM instead of moving on its own orbit about a barycentre as one would expect according to NASA webpage (section I, point 3) and logical arguments.

    3. Answer to comment #72 on Pubpeer:
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24#72

    Comment 72 (we cite the text)
    This is a truly fascinating discussion thread. However, there is a huge problem of people talking past each other. It is quite clear that Dr. Zharkova is not addressing the primary objection being raised. But it is not at all clear whether this is because she does not understand the objection or because she refuses to recognize it.
    It seems clear that Dr. Zharkova believes the earth’s orbit is fixed with respect to the solar system barycenter, and so when the sun moves with respect to the solar system barycenter this changes its distance to earth. Others suggest that, as succinctly stated elsewhere†, “the Earth travels around the solar system barycentre with the Sun, not independently of the Sun.”
    Perhaps Dr. Zharkova can explain the theoretical or empirical basis for her view, which is clearly contradicted by the simulations already described above in #15.
    Perhaps a cartoon would help focus the area of disagreement. See below.
    Fig. 6. A cartoon explaining the area of disagreement about the Earth orbits as proposed in comment 72.
    † Source = quoted comment on ATTP website ( https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/nature-scientific-reports/ ).
    Answer to comment 72.
    We addressed in Section I the primary objection raised by this blogger that the solar inertial motion (SIM) is not Keppler motion but the perturbation caused by gravitational forces by large planets as stated by Jose (1965) and Newhall et al. (1983) (see items 1-4 in section I above) as considered by all the authors listed in Appendix 1.
    1. Similar to the comment 15, the answer to this comment 72 is that the presented in the blog calculation of the Earth+Moon orbit about the Sun(Fig. above, right plot) is not consistent with SIM because it does not consider the other 3 large planets besides Jupiter.
    This is why the Earth orbit shown in this comment on the right follows the wobbling Sun in its SIM instead of moving on its own orbit about a barycentre as NASA website and logics would suggest, wherever it is for the position of the four large planets.
    When the effect of all four large planets are considered the Earth orbit about the Sun will look like in Fig. above, left plot. The Earth does not follow the Sun as it is shown in this comment (and cyan line in Fig. 3 above), but moves on the orbits close to magenta ones shown in the Fig. 3 above.
    2. Furthermore, we have shown above (see section I item 5) that the distance between Earth and Sun affected only by large planet Jupiter (in addition to Moon, Mars and Venus) is decreasing since 1700 by about 0.004 au. This distance is expected to decrease even faster if the effects of the other three large planets (Saturn, Neptune and Uranus) are considered. This definitely, would increase the solar irradiance to the Earth over the next few centuries as we predict.
    3. Another point towards the increased solar irradiance at the Earth because of SIM is related , to the detected variations of Earth axis towards the ecliptics plane as reported by Newhall et al, 1983. They reported the noticeable variations of the inclination of the Earth axis to the ecliptics that derived from JPL ephemeris even in the current approximation.
    We hope that we have fully answered the key comments 15 and 72 by the bloggers in Pubpeer.

    Appendix 1. General comments about SIM derived from the papers.

    1. From Fairbridge and Shirley, 1987, Solar Phys. 110, 191 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987SoPh..110..191F/abstract

    ‘We employ the JPL long ephemeris DE-102 to study the inertial motion of the Sun for the period A.D. 760 2100. Defining solar orbits with reference to the Sun’s successive close approaches to the solar system barycenter, occurring at mean intervals of 19.86 yr, we find simple relationships linking the inertial orientation of the solar orbit and the amplitude of the precessional rotation of the orbit with the occurrence of the principal prolonged solar activity minima of the current millenium (the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder minima). The progression of the inertial orientation parameter is controlled by the 900-yr ‘great inequality’ of the motion of Jupiter and Saturn, while the precessional rotation parameter is linked with the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion previously identified by Jose (1965).

    Solar inertial motion is not following Kepler’s law, it is a different kind of motion, a precession kind.

    2. From Charvatova, JASR, 2007 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AdSpR..40.1026C/abstract:
    ‘The solar inertial motion (SIM) means the motion of the Sun around the barycentre or centre of mass of the Solar System. It has been studied since 1965 (Jose (1965), Fairbridge and Shirley (1987), Juckett (2000)). The significant properties of the SIM due to the giant planets (Jupiter (J), Saturn (S), Uranus (U), Neptune (N)) have been found in our Institute: e.g., Bucha et al. (1985), Jakubcova ́ and Pick (1987), Charva ́tova ́ (1988, 1990a,b, 1997a,b, 2000) and Charva ́tova ́ and Strˇesˇt ́ık (1991, 1994). ‘
    ‘The SIM is the significant phenomenon: The Sun moves inside the circular area which diameter is 4.34 rs (or 0.02 AU (Astronomical Unit) or 3.106 km), rs is the solar radius. When the Sun moves along the trefoil, the motion area is reduced up to 3.5 rs. The Sun returns at the trefoil part of its orbit always after 179 years. The ordered parts of SIM last about 50 years. The intervals of disordered (chaotic) SIM last about 130 years and differ one from another. ‘ (VZ comment – do we really to believe that the Earth has the similar chaotic orbits?)

    Fig. A1 – an example of SIM within the square of size 10^-2 AU showing a circle motions of the sun within 4.3x Rsun.
    3. From Charvatova, 2009, New Astronomy https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009NewA…14…25C/abstract

    See also https://motls.blogspot.com/2011/06/interview-is-climate-change-caused-by.html
    Relations between the solar inertial motion (SIM) and solar var- iability have been studied for more than 40 years. The SIM is the motion of the Sun around the centre of mass of the Solar System due to variable positions of the giant planets (J – Jupiter, S – Saturn, U – Uranus, N – Neptune). The first study was published by Jose (1965). He noticed this sentence in Newton‘s Principia (see Cajori (1934)):‘‘. . . since that centre of gravity (center of mass of the solar system) is continually at rest, the Sun, according to the various positions of the planets, must continually move every way, but will never recede far from that centre.” The SIM studies have been made by means of statistics, by means of spectral analyses, by means of studying a behavior in the basic exceptional formations (e.g. during the trefoil intervals (Charvátová (1990b)), etc.
    Further investigations of the relations between the SIM and solar (also solar-terrestrial) variability were published, e.g. in Fairbridge and Hameed (1983), Bucha et al. (1985), Jakubcová and Pick (1987), Fairbridge and Shirley (1987), Charvátová-Jakubcová et al. (1988), Charvátová (1988, 1990a,b, 1995a,b,c, 1997a,b,, 2000, 2006, 2007), Charvátová and Strˇeštík (1991, 2007), Landsc- heidt (1999), Shirley et al. (1990), Shirley (2006), Zaquarashvili (1997), Juckett (2000, 2003), Paluš et al. (2000, 2007) and Wilson et al. (2007).
    Charvátová (1988, 1990a,b, 1997a) ‘divided the SIM into two basic types : the ordered ones in a trefoil according to the JS motion order and the other disordered (chaotic). (VZ comment: If the Earth would wobbled orbits like these we could have much conditions on the Earth). (Note: the conjunctions of the planets J and S occur once every 19.86 years, with each successive conjunction advancing by 117.3° in a prograde direction.) In case of the ordered trefoil motion, the Sun orbits the centre of mass of the solar system along a loop (arc) about once every 10 years (JS/2). The Sun always returns to the ordered trefoil SIM after 178.7 years and this type of motion lasts about 50 years. The most disordered parts of the SIM correspond with the pro- longed (Grand) decreases of solar activity, over the last millennium known as the Spörer, Maunder and Dalton minima.’

    4. Paper by Richard Mackay, 2007, Journal of Coastal Research SI 50 955 – 968 ICS2007 (Proceedings) Australia ISSN 0749.0208 http://faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/enviropol/envirophilo/fairbridge.pdf

    Evidences that SIM is affecting the Earth directly.
    5. Newhall et al, 1983, A&A, 125, 150 have calculated the planet orbits for 40 years and reported the change of the Earth eccentricity during this period, that is consistent with the magenta curve in Fig. 2. They also reported the noticeable variations of the inclination of the Earth orbit to ecliptics that is a consequence of the SIM.
    They stated in the paper ‘The first study was published by Jose (1965). He noticed this sentence in Newton‘s Principia (see Cajori (1934)):‘‘. . . since that centre of gravity (center of mass of the solar system) is continually at rest, the Sun, according to the various positions of the planets, must continually move every way, but will never recede far from that centre.”

    ‘Solar inertial motion is not following Kepler’s law, it is a different kind of motion.’
    6. Fairbridge and Sanders, 1987, reported the change of inclination of the Earth axis to ecliptics (obliquity) during SIM motion of the Sun (that can cause the variations of terrestrial temperature).
    7. Fairbridge and Shirley, 1987 described dynamical functions of SIM (Table III) and presented different types of the solar orbits gained during SIM. These orbits are so variable that it would be very strange if the Earth would follow these wobbling orbits.
    8. Charvatova, 2007 reported that SIM is closely correlated with the geomagnetic index aa as per image below (top image in the figure below) and solar activity index (bottom image).

    Fig. A2 – The links of SIM with the geomagnetic index aa (top image) and solar activity index of sunspots (bottom image) (from Charvatova, 2007).

  5. and as of TODAY we are now at 74% spotless days
    beating the last minimum in 2008 and a lot more days left in the yr to go far lower yet
    inside my home was 16.c today
    outside was a max of 14.5
    overnight was 5.5
    and Im scrounging pallets for firewood and shivering cold all day and night unless under a quilt
    spring in australia isnt usually this cold for this long.
    media ignore this and focus on qld and NSW where inland heats blowing across .
    funnily enough the BoM keep saying the IOD from the indian ocean isnt going to work for Aus getting rains for spring etc
    meanwhile WA is getting rather decent influx of exactly that damp air and stormy weather they say isnt happening;-))0

    • True Laurel, However, the spotless count days should be many more. They count a spot even when it was just a blemish and could grow. And some so called spots were so small to be not more than a dust grain in size and not really worth mention…

      • And let’s not forget that we have far better ways/equipment to to see this small/short lived spots compared to the way they counted spots a few hundred years ago.

    • i even read somewhere that a ” sudden stratospheric warming ” over antartica will dry – burn australia, exacerbing the drought.. go figure..

  6. I wonder about all the pollution India and China put up. This has to have a similar effect to a small volcanic eruption. What if we get a VEI 6 plus what we are throwing up?

    • It would probably cause a further drop in average temperature for a while just like in 1816 when Tambora erupted.
      If you go further back the Toba eruption during the last major glaciation forced a further drop in average temperatures and for the people in that part of the world it was a near extinction level event. A similar event today would be a serious threat to the existence of much of humanity… Cold, hunger, criminal activity, exposure and disease would kill billions.

  7. The northern hemisphere is in for a rude awakening! Most of the artic melt was caused by mutiple worldwide stratovolcanic eruptions and droughts probably caused by the dark particulate falling first to the ground on snow and ice “Coincidence”. ??? Don’t think so….. We had a similar effect weather-wise after Mnt Pinutubos eruption in 1991 though it was short lived. Atlanta got 100 degrees towards the end of September though by Early May of the following year north Georgia had snow accumulations and the smokies and Mount Mitchell had unprecedented amounts of snow.

Comments are closed.