Here is some research I have been reading about the sun and celestial mechanics. A large part of it has to do with climate change, and a potential lengthy cooling period coming up for the sun as well as the earth. Personally, I have no idea what to think, but I did find the research below fascinating.
The solar cycle was expected to restart in January of this 2008 at the latest, according to most predictions. So far, there have been only a small number of tiny sunspots, but compared to a normal cycle, nothing… The current solar minimum has now lasted more than twice the length of most solar minimums on record. This could mean nothing more than a slow start to the cycle, something that happens at regular intervals…or it could mean the hypotheses of the papers below have some truth to them.
Either way, we will know who is right about the time of that most “fearsome” date of 2012. Haha. Not that I believe any of that millennial mumbo-jumbo, but there it is. If the sun is going into a massive cooling phase, there will be no denying the evidence by then.
Here’s an article from The Australian that talks about one theory as to what is going on with the sun and the earth:
These next links are to studies of the motion of the barycentre (center of gravity) of the solar system in relationship to the sun’s gravitational center.
- The earlier research on barycentric motion was conducted in 1987 by Fairbridge and Shirley at Columbia University in New York:http://www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/
- A while back I found this research done in 1999 in the attached PDF (http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/66/11/PDF/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf) from a Czech scientist named Charvatova who cites the research of Fairbridge. His research shows diagrams of the barycentric motion that look like little spirographs. (More on Spirographs) The diagrams were very compelling for me as part of his evidence.
- In 2007, research was conducted by Wilson, Carter and Waite in Queensland, Australia:http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/138/paper/AS06018.htm
Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.
Or, as the author of the report stated to a member of the press:
It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 – 30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 – 2 C.
Interestingly, there is a guy out there named John Casey on the web, calling himself the “SSRC” (Space and Science Research Center) and predicting the same thing based on his reading of the intersection of several long and short cycles in the sun. Many of the mainstream solar researchers seem to be dismissive of him, and consider him to be pushing that his ideas be accepted as fact and acted upon politically. In short, it seems more like a political campaign than a scientific one. On the sites that discuss these theories, there is discussion about all of the above ideas, but almost no discussion about Casey’s. Usually that means one of two things; either he’s completely off and they’re dismissing him with good reason, or he’s a total genius that came up with a good method of predicting solar activity that conflicts with other ideas in such a way that they can’t accept his ideas. From what I read on his site and about him elsewhere, I’m more inclined to think the former. In any case, here’s his web site and info:
John. L. Casey, President, Verity Mgmt. Svcs., Inc., and Director of the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC). http://www.spaceandscience.net
In true internet tradition, there is already a web site to monitor this solar cycle. Funny how these things go viral on the web, and whole communities start watching them. If you’re interested, you can see the site I’m talking about here:
Update Sep 24, 2013:
About NASA – the team of solar scientists at NASA is headed by David Hathaway. The NASA team has been consistently wrong about what would happen with the solar cycles. They’ve repeatedly had to revise their predictions as time moves forward. With the current cycle, they’ve revised their predictions downward on at least two occasions, and the sun’s actual activity still remains lower than their current predictions, even after the two downward revisions. The Hathaway team has remained disinterested in the types of research put forth in this blog post. They have failed to incorporate any of such ideas into their models or predictions. As a result, their predictions have been weak and inaccurate. Here’s a link about it: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/06/nasas-november-solar-prediction/
Personally, I’m not surprised by the slow rate of acceptance of these ideas in mainstream science. History demonstrates that it takes, on average, three generations for new scientific ideas to be accepted. First, someone generates the idea. Then, the scientific “geniuses” of the time pooh-pooh the idea, saying it is “flawed” and “silly.” It contradicts everything they were taught in school, and so they refuse to even give it proper examination or consideration. Next, those scientists and experts slowly die off, while a new generation of scientists is being raised and educated with those new ideas in the background. Eventually, the new scientists rise to dominance and begin to question the idea and give it serious consideration. Finally, the next generation of scientists is raised with an open mind to such ideas, and begin to agree with the newer, more accurate models, and those models become accepted as the dominant theory. This is how it went with the scientific ideas of the past, and how it is going with the scientific ideas of the present. I’d expect the barycentric motion ideas presented in this blog post to be fully accepted as accurate, useful, and having a high predictive value – in about 60 years.
In the meantime, we have only David Hathaway and his ilk in the mainstream, and their models have much lower predictive value, and have been just plain wrong since the sun took a turn toward a much less active period.
Some further additions:
Added Nov 2, 2009:
- Solar storms tied to planetary orbits by NASA
- Prediction of solar radio interference via planetary orbits by Radio Corporation of America
- More on Barycentric motion from Germany in 1981
- Russian scientist agreeing with the Barycentric data
Added Nov 24, 2009:
Added Oct 10, 2010:
- Of the 25 most spotless years since 1849, 3 of those years were: 2007, 2008, and 2009.
- Despite an increase in solar activity as the sun moves toward solar maximum, the sun has continued to have a record number of spotless days during 2010.
Added October 19, 2010:
Added December 20, 2010:
Added December 21, 2010:
Added June 20, 2011:
- Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Added Sep 24, 2013:
A Few Comments to the Anthropogenic Global Warming Believers
Having been called “retarded,” and other such things for expressing the ideas above, I find it necessary to address the “Anthropogenic Global Warming” folks directly with the below message:
I am open to the possibility that all of the data about the sun found above might be completely wrong.
I am also open to the possibility that all of the anthropogenic global warming advocates might be wrong.
Are you open to both of those possibilities too?
Or are you satisfied in your certainty that your pet theory…or the scientists’ latest pet theory…is completely correct and infallible?
If you’re satisfied and certain…then I remind you that Newton’s calculations have been proven to be off, that Einstein was proven wrong on several counts, and that the majority of humans in the West once thought that the world was flat. Popular does not equal accurate. Nor does the best science that we can come up with necessarily describe the world accurately.
The map is not the territory. – Alfred Korzybski
The menu is not the meal. – Alan Watts
Our model of the way climate works is a MODEL, and should not be confused with the Earth’s climate itself.
If you’re satisfied and certain…like the “Flat Earth” people were…or like the “Bleeding Cures Illness” people were…if you’re certain that your current model is completely accurate, and will never need to be changed, then I ask you:
Who is the “retarded” one?
Wake up! Take the absolute belief out of your head, and stick a “maybe” in it.
And one last thing: If this data above is all correct, isn’t that a good thing? I mean, shouldn’t you be hoping this data is correct, rather than running about calling people retarded for having the gall (or is it balls) to consider an alternative theory that ends up meaning that global warming is not going to be some runaway end of humanity scenario after all? Hmmm? Or do you like the idea of the world being destroyed by the hubris of humans?