Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

[GeorgeWX]

First coronal HSS of the new year is under way. Currently KP5 with IMF tilting south.

The noaa site has went very slow in the last 15 minutes returning server errors.

So this will need to do

Edited January 7, 2011 by GeorgeWX

[GeorgeWX]

Went out for a look and it was a quiet but nice display with a deep green band below a smoother and more faint red(ish) band peaking around 15-20 degrees above the horizon.

Edited January 7, 2011 by GeorgeWX

[Alan Robinson]

Hi Alan

The following site has a wealth of information on how and why the suns activity may affect our climate. You will need to look around the site but it is avery interesting place to start

http://www.landscheidt.info

Jon

Sorry Jon, but this stuff seems as controversial as Piers Corbyn. Wikipedia describes Landscheit as an author, astrologer, and amateur climatologist. I am okay with authors and amateur climatologists, but for me astrologers rank alongside Rudolf Steiner, and that means a charlatan or a comedian or someone given to superstition, divination and elaborate fantasies. Are we seriously to believe that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto exert gravitational forces on the sun that cause great fluctuations in solar irradiation? I see that Landscheit had a few papers reviewed, though I am not able to judge what that means. What does mainstream science have to say about this?

[jethro]

Sorry Jon, but this stuff seems as controversial as Piers Corbyn. Wikipedia describes Landscheit as an author, astrologer, and amateur climatologist. I am okay with authors and amateur climatologists, but for me astrologers rank alongside Rudolf Steiner, and that means a charlatan or a comedian or someone given to superstition, divination and elaborate fantasies. Are we seriously to believe that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto exert gravitational forces on the sun that cause great fluctuations in solar irradiation? I see that Landscheit had a few papers reviewed, though I am not able to judge what that means. What does mainstream science have to say about this?

Please, please don't confuse Landscheit with astrologers who make horoscope predictions, the two are completely incompatible.

Over the years his work has shown to be more accurate in predicting future Solar behaviour than many other Solar Physicists, including the official predictions from NASA. His work has been recognised by many of his peers as being competent and valid

"Elected member of the American Geophysical Union, the New York Academy of Sciences, the European Science and Environment Forum, the European Academy of Environmental Affairs, and the Wittheit zu Bremen. Director of the International Committee for Research in Environmental Factors of Brussels University. In 1992 recipient of the. Award of the Edward R. Dewey Institute of Cycle Research, California, in recognition of "outstanding accomplishments in the field of Solar Cycle Research", and for "many contributions to the study of solar-terrestrial cycles." According to an offer of the group of geophysicists-climatologs from different countries the period of minimum of solar activity forecasted by Dr. Landscheidt around 2030 will be identified as "Landscheidt Minimum".

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/

The work done by Landscheit back in the mid to late 1980's on the impact upon climate, ozone and weather pattern influences by the varying Solar cycles has since been shown to be correct; independent studies undertaken by The Met Office concur with his findings. The latest study into this phenomena by Lockwood, published in 2010 also concur.

Complete Landscheit studies here:

http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/papers-by-dr-theodor-landscheidt/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/HCTN/HCTN_62.pdf

http://www.350resources.org.uk/2010/05/06/europe-quiet-sun-means-colder-winters-in-europe-but-this-is-a-local-effect-not-a-globally-one/

[Stu_London]

It's quite interesting that the planetary theories (Landscheit) and the magnestism theories (Livingstone and Penn) both seem to be pointing to grand minima, although judging by what I have seen written from both sides, believers of either theory are quite likely to tell you that the other one is a load of rubbish.

[jonboy]

Sorry Jon, but this stuff seems as controversial as Piers Corbyn. Wikipedia describes Landscheit as an author, astrologer, and amateur climatologist. I am okay with authors and amateur climatologists, but for me astrologers rank alongside Rudolf Steiner, and that means a charlatan or a comedian or someone given to superstition, divination and elaborate fantasies. Are we seriously to believe that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto exert gravitational forces on the sun that cause great fluctuations in solar irradiation? I see that Landscheit had a few papers reviewed, though I am not able to judge what that means. What does mainstream science have to say about this?

I have to say Alan that i do believe the position of the planets does affect how our sun behaves. Something makes our sun more or less active in pratictable cycles and Landscheit goes ome way to explain this. The site then looks at how this may affect our climate cycles and in my view goes someway to explain why we have warmed and why we may well be entering a cooling. The site did call a severe Northern Hemisphere winter this year back in July which seems pretty accurate so far. To believe that only man influences our climate is in my opinion naive (Not meaning you Alan but many other commentators) we need to fully understand the external influences if we are to make the right decisions about our planet. After all if the biggest influences are not in our control we at the very least should be able to understand those external influences so that we can plan properly.

[Alan Robinson]

I have to say Alan that i do believe the position of the planets does affect how our sun behaves. Something makes our sun more or less active in pratictable cycles and Landscheit goes ome way to explain this. The site then looks at how this may affect our climate cycles and in my view goes someway to explain why we have warmed and why we may well be entering a cooling. The site did call a severe Northern Hemisphere winter this year back in July which seems pretty accurate so far. To believe that only man influences our climate is in my opinion naive (Not meaning you Alan but many other commentators) we need to fully understand the external influences if we are to make the right decisions about our planet. After all if the biggest influences are not in our control we at the very least should be able to understand those external influences so that we can plan properly.

Thanks for that. As mentioned, I am not expousing an opinion because I am quite uninformed on the topic, but my problem is that if this is scientific, as far as I can see the theory is not well formulated, let alone tested. The link you provided seemed to amount to observations of coincidences. I didn't find plausible explanations of what is supposed to be going on. Then, even if plausible explanations were available, I'd need not only to see means of confirming the theory, but also the failure of experiments that would disprove the theory. Until then, I'll remain sceptical. Philosophy used to be the father of all science, but thanks to metaphysical speculation, that is no longer the case.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Alan Robinson]

Please, please don't confuse Landscheit with astrologers who make horoscope predictions, the two are completely incompatible.

As mentioned, I am very uninformed about what goes on between the sun, the cosmos, our atmosphere, the climate and weather. My approach to becoming better informed is to take notice of interesting phenomena that might be influential in these affairs, consider them, and if there are reasonable propositions, then look for explanations. Experimentation in this particular subject is presumably far beyond my own private means.

You will notice that nowhere in my approach does belief or pre-conception come into it. I am an open-minded agnostic, and always prepared to consider a proposition, provided it concerns a topic that interests me. Now the same cannot be said about astrologers, at least as far as astrology is concerned. Indeed, my sister-in-law practices palmistry and prepares horoscopes using a computer program she purchased, and furthermore, to illustrate how I see her mindset, I suspect that had she been British she might well have become a Wiccan. Having observed the circles she moves in, I feel justified in saying that astrologers believe ideas they find appealing, and readily ignore that their notions are not facts. This preference for appealing (and reassuring) beliefs can become quite bigoted and passionate when, for example, she suddenly gets the faint whiff of tobacco smoke in the house and proclaims the presence of her deceased mother's spirit - who was a smoker by the way - when in fact it is her husband who has sneaked out into the shed for a quick fag. He is a secret smoker.

Would you be kind enough to explain what is completely incompatible between Landscheit's astrology and that required for the production of horoscopes? I am sorry but I cannot grasp your meaning, and I fear that on deeper investigation Landschiet's approach might be metaphysical.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[jonboy]

The sun is again spotless with the Flux value remaining low. All pointing to a grand minimum in the coming years. What long term impact will this have on our climate I wonder

[jethro]

As mentioned, I am very uninformed about what goes on between the sun, the cosmos, our atmosphere, the climate and weather. My approach to becoming better informed is to take notice of interesting phenomena that might be influential in these affairs, consider them, and if there are reasonable propositions, then look for explanations. Experimentation in this particular subject is presumably far beyond my own private means.

You will notice that nowhere in my approach does belief or pre-conception come into it. I am an open-minded agnostic, and always prepared to consider a proposition, provided it concerns a topic that interests me. Now the same cannot be said about astrologers, at least as far as astrology is concerned. Indeed, my sister-in-law practices palmistry and prepares horoscopes using a computer program she purchased, and furthermore, to illustrate how I see her mindset, I suspect that had she been British she might well have become a Wiccan. Having observed the circles she moves in, I feel justified in saying that astrologers believe ideas they find appealing, and readily ignore that their notions are not facts. This preference for appealing (and reassuring) beliefs can become quite bigoted and passionate when, for example, she suddenly gets the faint whiff of tobacco smoke in the house and proclaims the presence of her deceased mother's spirit - who was a smoker by the way - when in fact it is her husband who has sneaked out into the shed for a quick fag. He is a secret smoker.

Would you be kind enough to explain what is completely incompatible between Landscheit's astrology and that required for the production of horoscopes? I am sorry but I cannot grasp your meaning, and I fear that on deeper investigation Landschiet's approach might be metaphysical.

From my limited knowledge of horoscope astrology, it appears to depend upon cosmic forces or energies, generated by planet alignment to somehow exert an influence upon living creatures. If we were all identical creatures, I’d be prepared to entertain the idea that there may be some possibility of it being a valid idea. However, as we’re not and we’re all sentient beings with freedom of choice I’d say our decisions are our decisions, influenced by our personalities, wishes and life experience.

As far as your sister in-law is concerned, coupled with my experiences with similar minded people, I would hazard a guess that her proclamations of the presence of her smoking Mother lay entirely in wishing to still feel in contact with someone she loved dearly and still misses.

When it comes to Landscheit his work is based upon mathematically measuring a physical body. Did he approach his work from a metaphysical perspective? Who knows? The definition of the word is “the part of philosophy that is about understanding existence and knowledge†- replace the word philosophy with science and I’d say it’s an apt description of all scientists – how and why feature top of the list of all scientific endeavours.

His authorship of “Children of the Cosmic Light†portrays him as being a fully paid up member of the airy, fairy, crystal ball brigade, but we rely upon him not being a multi-faceted person for that to be true. I’ve yet to meet a person who has one dimension to their personality/interests/knowledge/beliefs/ideas.

You say “Astrologers believe ideas they find appealing, and readily ignore that their notions are not facts†I’d say that’s a human failing we’re all guilty of. Having said that, if Landscheit did approach his work with that ethic then the work wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny of more acceptable, mainstream scientists. His work mathematically calculates the cycles of solar activity and the impact this has upon Ozone and weather. Later studies undertaken by reputable scientific institutions such as The Met Office and a more recent study by Lockwood and endorsed by Judith Lean, a solar-terrestrial physicist at the US Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC, also reach the same conclusions.

If Landscheit’s work is to be considered worthy of nothing more than curiosity from a “what a crank†perspective, then where does that leave the mainstream findings which support his cranky ideas? If one is wrong, they’re all wrong.

[Alan Robinson]

From my limited knowledge of horoscope astrology, it appears to depend upon cosmic forces or energies, generated by planet alignment to somehow exert an influence upon living creatures. If we were all identical creatures, I’d be prepared to entertain the idea that there may be some possibility of it being a valid idea. However, as we’re not and we’re all sentient beings with freedom of choice I’d say our decisions are our decisions, influenced by our personalities, wishes and life experience.

As far as your sister in-law is concerned, coupled with my experiences with similar minded people, I would hazard a guess that her proclamations of the presence of her smoking Mother lay entirely in wishing to still feel in contact with someone she loved dearly and still misses.

When it comes to Landscheit his work is based upon mathematically measuring a physical body. Did he approach his work from a metaphysical perspective? Who knows? The definition of the word is “the part of philosophy that is about understanding existence and knowledge†- replace the word philosophy with science and I’d say it’s an apt description of all scientists – how and why feature top of the list of all scientific endeavours.

His authorship of “Children of the Cosmic Light†portrays him as being a fully paid up member of the airy, fairy, crystal ball brigade, but we rely upon him not being a multi-faceted person for that to be true. I’ve yet to meet a person who has one dimension to their personality/interests/knowledge/beliefs/ideas.

You say “Astrologers believe ideas they find appealing, and readily ignore that their notions are not facts†I’d say that’s a human failing we’re all guilty of. Having said that, if Landscheit did approach his work with that ethic then the work wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny of more acceptable, mainstream scientists. His work mathematically calculates the cycles of solar activity and the impact this has upon Ozone and weather. Later studies undertaken by reputable scientific institutions such as The Met Office and a more recent study by Lockwood and endorsed by Judith Lean, a solar-terrestrial physicist at the US Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC, also reach the same conclusions.

If Landscheit’s work is to be considered worthy of nothing more than curiosity from a “what a crank†perspective, then where does that leave the mainstream findings which support his cranky ideas? If one is wrong, they’re all wrong.

Jethro, I have never previously come across astrology type A and astrology type B. I concede there are various aspects of astrology, but my information is that they are all a divination technique that uses assumptions about the effect various heavenly bodies have on Earthly affairs, astral omens if you will, for the presence of deities in the skies is disputed even by astrologers I think. As you are clearly very intelligent, I don't need to point out that astrology goes all the way back into antiquity, further back than the Hellenes. Having pointed it out all the same, the basic ideas were postulated when the known universe was thought geo-centric, and prior to the discovery of all the planets in our solar system. In modern times, attempts have been made to show astrological predictions have merit, and yet time and again, it has been shown they do not. Now, I find it a little problematic when Landscheit is described as an astrologer - type A or type B doesn't matter - because he was apparently swayed by supersticious ideas. I haven't had time to follow up on all you so kindly have pointed out - I shall in due course - but as I mentioned in another post, I mistrust metaphysics, which brings me to replacing "the word philosophy with science".

We have unfortunately seen in recent times how people purporting to be scientists are apt to present a coloured view of things. That is either because they are not scientists in the true meaning of the word, or they are shameless enough to supress what they know in order to benefit somehow. Neither are they philosophers in the true sense of the name. Anyway, philosophy and science can no longer be exchanged as equals. I cannot say just when the ultimate split occurred - I can find out what philosophy thinks of it - but certainly by the time Logical Positivism was causing an uproar among adherents of metaphysics, science had been a mature discipline in its own right for quite some time.

You might do me the favour of saving me pointless searching, by putting me in the direction of Landscheit's reasoning of how planets are thought to affect what goes on within the sun. I do not at all dismiss the possibility of such mechanisms, but for the moment, not that I am in any way an expert, something suggests it is most unlikely. Concerning my sister-in-law and her comforting imaginations, I am sure you are right, and most people do the same thing. My cynicism in that respect has frequently gotten me into hot water, but then, I'd still rather face facts than live my life entertaining fantasies, that way I'll die satisfied I did all I could to understand where I had been for so long.

[jethro]

Jethro, I have never previously come across astrology type A and astrology type B. I concede there are various aspects of astrology, but my information is that they are all a divination technique that uses assumptions about the effect various heavenly bodies have on Earthly affairs, astral omens if you will, for the presence of deities in the skies is disputed even by astrologers I think. As you are clearly very intelligent, I don't need to point out that astrology goes all the way back into antiquity, further back than the Hellenes. Having pointed it out all the same, the basic ideas were postulated when the known universe was thought geo-centric, and prior to the discovery of all the planets in our solar system. In modern times, attempts have been made to show astrological predictions have merit, and yet time and again, it has been shown they do not. Now, I find it a little problematic when Landscheit is described as an astrologer - type A or type B doesn't matter - because he was apparently swayed by supersticious ideas. I haven't had time to follow up on all you so kindly have pointed out - I shall in due course - but as I mentioned in another post, I mistrust metaphysics, which brings me to replacing "the word philosophy with science".

We have unfortunately seen in recent times how people purporting to be scientists are apt to present a coloured view of things. That is either because they are not scientists in the true meaning of the word, or they are shameless enough to supress what they know in order to benefit somehow. Neither are they philosophers in the true sense of the name. Anyway, philosophy and science can no longer be exchanged as equals. I cannot say just when the ultimate split occurred - I can find out what philosophy thinks of it - but certainly by the time Logical Positivism was causing an uproar among adherents of metaphysics, science had been a mature discipline in its own right for quite some time.

You might do me the favour of saving me pointless searching, by putting me in the direction of Landscheit's reasoning of how planets are thought to affect what goes on within the sun. I do not at all dismiss the possibility of such mechanisms, but for the moment, not that I am in any way an expert, something suggests it is most unlikely. Concerning my sister-in-law and her comforting imaginations, I am sure you are right, and most people do the same thing. My cynicism in that respect has frequently gotten me into hot water, but then, I'd still rather face facts than live my life entertaining fantasies, that way I'll die satisfied I did all I could to understand where I had been for so long.

Perhaps Landscheit should be considered as an Astrologer by name but Astronomer by nature and work.

You describe yourself as open minded and perhaps you are, but I don't think you're being particularly open minded here - superstition doesn't play a part in the work of Landscheit.

There is a world of difference between "a divination technique that uses assumptions about the effect various heavenly bodies have on Earthly affairs, astral omens if you will" and making mathematical calculations which are found to be accurate by reputable bodies such as the METO. If someone sat around saying "ooo look at that glowing blob up there, I reckon it makes the sea go in and out twice a day" they may be considered to be fringe/crackpot/superstitious - and they probably were considered to be loonies. But did that make them wrong or misunderstood?

We accept the gravitational impact upon Earth from the Moon, so why is it so hard to accept that the planets in our Solar system interact?

The links I provided earlier show both Landscheits' work and independent studies from reputable sources, which reach similar conclusions about the Solar impact upon climate.

[Alan Robinson]

Perhaps Landscheit should be considered as an Astrologer by name but Astronomer by nature and work.

You describe yourself as open minded and perhaps you are, but I don't think you're being particularly open minded here - superstition doesn't play a part in the work of Landscheit.

There is a world of difference between "a divination technique that uses assumptions about the effect various heavenly bodies have on Earthly affairs, astral omens if you will" and making mathematical calculations which are found to be accurate by reputable bodies such as the METO. If someone sat around saying "ooo look at that glowing blob up there, I reckon it makes the sea go in and out twice a day" they may be considered to be fringe/crackpot/superstitious - and they probably were considered to be loonies. But did that make them wrong or misunderstood?

We accept the gravitational impact upon Earth from the Moon, so why is it so hard to accept that the planets in our Solar system interact?

The links I provided earlier show both Landscheits' work and independent studies from reputable sources, which reach similar conclusions about the Solar impact upon climate.

It seems Landscheit's work in this connection was all done following his retirement, that is, when he finally had time to persue his personal interests. For this reason I think it justified to at least suspect his astrological leanings could have motivated him, and therefore your comment that susperstition isn't involved is itself open to debate, for astrology is superstitious.

Regarding the moon's influence on water here on Earth, the tides are well understood, though not all realise that the sun's gravitational force here on Earth is significantly greater than the moon's, and in any case, dynamics, not gravity, causes the different heights of two successive high waters. Water divining is however highly controversial, and I have myself exposed a charlatan who claimed for all the world that while digging the foundations for my house, could find the location of existing water mains and drains using divining rods; I took from his pocket the diagram supplied to him by the council, which as it happens was inaccurate, which proves his claims of divination were a sham. I'd say that while there is no reason to dismiss any unorthodox idea that is genuinely put forward in the interest of increasing our knowledge, there have been thousands of attention-seeking charlatans in this world. My approach is to judge those things that affect me on their merit, not on my preferences.

As far as I can gather, Landscheit didn't make sufficient predictions to illustrate a repeatable pattern, and open-mindedness allows that while his successful predictions are noteworthy, his work on the whole does not amount to science. His first paper concerning the sun's motion about the solar system's centre of mass is nothing more than the sort of calculation I myself have made for decades concerning ship motions in a regular sea, so there is absolutely nothing new in that. We need not be in awe of integrals of impulses and torques, no matter how weak they must be.

I shall continue reading Landscheit's work, but for the moment I have the impression from his first paper that he is simply putting his own interpretation on other people's investigations. Most disappointingly however, the one paper I read in no way attempted to explain the processes in the sun that should cause the undisputed observed phenomena.

By the way. The solar system is part of the Milky Way galaxy, the mass of which I suppose can be estimated using gravitational theories. I shall be interested to read if Landscheit has accounted for the galaxy's mass, or perhaps discounted it as insignificant. Then of course, I suppose I'll end up back with the old conflict between general relativity , quantum field theory, and gravity. Oh dear

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

The sun is again spotless with the Flux value remaining low. All pointing to a grand minimum in the coming years. What long term impact will this have on our climate I wonder

Looks like a fairly active area will be coming over the North East edge within a couple of days, there was a CME yesterday.

But yes, at this stage we should be seeing spots every day and a much higher flux, flux back down in the high 70's, amazingly low

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

It seems Landscheit's work in this connection was all done following his retirement, that is, when he finally had time to persue his personal interests. For this reason I think it justified to at least suspect his astrological leanings could have motivated him, and therefore your comment that susperstition isn't involved is itself open to debate, for astrology is superstitious.

Regarding the moon's influence on water here on Earth, the tides are well understood, though not all realise that the sun's gravitational force here on Earth is significantly greater than the moon's, and in any case, dynamics, not gravity, causes the different heights of two successive high waters. Water divining is however highly controversial, and I have myself exposed a charlatan who claimed for all the world that while digging the foundations for my house, could find the location of existing water mains and drains using divining rods; I took from his pocket the diagram supplied to him by the council, which as it happens was inaccurate, which proves his claims of divination were a sham. I'd say that while there is no reason to dismiss any unorthodox idea that is genuinely put forward in the interest of increasing our knowledge, there have been thousands of attention-seeking charlatans in this world. My approach is to judge those things that affect me on their merit, not on my preferences.

As far as I can gather, Landscheit didn't make sufficient predictions to illustrate a repeatable pattern, and open-mindedness allows that while his successful predictions are noteworthy, his work on the whole does not amount to science. His first paper concerning the sun's motion about the solar system's centre of mass is nothing more than the sort of calculation I myself have made for decades concerning ship motions in a regular sea, so there is absolutely nothing new in that. We need not be in awe of integrals of impulses and torques, no matter how weak they must be.

I shall continue reading Landscheit's work, but for the moment I have the impression from his first paper that he is simply putting his own interpretation on other people's investigations. Most disappointingly however, the one paper I read in no way attempted to explain the processes in the sun that should cause the undisputed observed phenomena.

By the way. The solar system is part of the Milky Way galaxy, the mass of which I suppose can be estimated using gravitational theories. I shall be interested to read if Landscheit has accounted for the galaxy's mass, or perhaps discounted it as insignificant. Then of course, I suppose I'll end up back with the old conflict between general relativity , quantum field theory, and gravity. Oh dear

Excuse what may appear as sarcasm, but I've just read the posts between you and Jethro regarding Landscheit. I think you could be rather more accommodating in your views, Calling Landscheit a charlatan is akin to saying the same about the psychologist Carl Jung, he, Jung, became deeply involved in metaphysics, what you would call superstition and myth, but it didn't stop him contributing hugely to our understanding of the human intellect.

And, if you are worried whether he took the gravitational effects of the galaxy into account, perhaps you could look at it and give us your take rather than just rubbishing a theory because you didn't like his Wikipedia entry.

The views that Landscheit espoused are potentially a barometer of solar activity, time will tell whether it's a good theory or not, but it's better than NASA suggested in 2007, by several orders of magnitude

Edited January 14, 2011 by NorthNorfolkWeather

[Alan Robinson]

Well, having read Landscheit’s paper on the Swinging Sun, I am dismayed.

I may well be mistaken, but it seems to me from the number of references in such a short paper that Landscheit took chosen passages from other people’s work, assembled them to suit his own purposes, and presented the whole to a sympathetic, chosen audience. Perhaps he didn’t suggest it, but the idea that all the mass in the solar system moves about a fixed centre is of course rubbish, because even looking at the solar system in isolation, the position of the centre of mass moves according to the momentary position of the various bodies in their orbits, just as a ferry’s centre of gravity would move continuously if all the cars and lorries were driving about aboard ship. But Landscheit didn’t touch upon that as far as I can see. Moreover, he doesn’t even enter upon a coordinate system with which to define the location of the solar system’s centre of mass. Nonetheless it is a serious oversight, as the variation in the centre of mass position would in fact result in other absolute solar motions – wobbles - that Landscheit does not include in his considerations. As Einstein said, everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. I am no genius, but if even I can spot such omissions, no wonder mainstream science hasn’t taken Landscheit seriously.

Just where his calculations of torque come from is unclear, because he didn’t develop his one or two equations in a clear, logical step-by-step manner that allows readers to follow his reasoning, and even the symbols used were not clearly defined. That does not surprise me, as mysticism relies precisely on being vague and innuendo, and the practice might very well be related to the causes of the Reformation, as conservative scholars in those days maintained the Bible and church ceremony should remain solely in a defunct language incomprehensible to common people, presumably so they couldn’t face contradiction.

Although his abstract is conveniently indistinct, using expressions indicating possibility rather than stating facts, he implies gravity is behind the formation of sunspots, yet offers no explanation why. Wisely so, I would say, for the matter is one of great speculation. In this connection, mainstream science today cannot explain with any certainty how sunspots are formed, and many maintain that there is little or no connection to be made between sunspots and climate on Earth. Surely, if the aim of science is to understand natural phenomena, and Landscheit had made a discovery, it would have been hailed as a major moment in history, at least by a minority of accomplished people. Celebrations have not ensued however, and Landscheit’s ideas must remain be tenuous at best for the time being. At the very least, the matter remains controversial, and not a starting point for a beginner like me.

Reconstruction of the past is fraught with difficulty. Landscheit refers to sunspot activity observations dating back to antiquity, itself a time of considerable superstition such as the flat earth, belief in deities, and consulting the oracle of Apollo through the incomprehensible and intoxicated outbursts of Pythia at Delphi, which, conveniently for some, had to be interpreted by priests. While I am a great admirer of Pythagoras, science and reliable observations of sunspots only date back to Galileo, and as far as I know, only tiny scraps of Plato’s original writings have survived, which casts doubt on the authenticity of anything we read purporting to be from those early times. Even during the Maunder Minimum, hardly any observations of sunspots were made, and it was only realised that changes were in progress when the very few observers at the time registered increasing sunspot activity, thus exciting greater attention. The coincidence of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age has not been supplemented with explanations of how one might have caused the other. Regarding dendrochronology, the latest climate debate has raised new doubts about the whole theory of carbon-14 dating, which already uses a calibration curve that itself is not straightforward. Now it seems that in light of more accurate data collection in recent times that the suitable tree species are not making rings entirely as the conventional theory describes, and that other factors have been overlooked, such as atmospheric carbon amounts and tree stress due to varying climate. Dates, therefore, also need to be taken with caution.

In my perplexed state it occurred to me that Landscheit makes out that the weakest natural force known to man, and which as far as we know has no influence on the internal properties of everyday matter, is at least partly, if not wholly responsible for the formation of sunspots. Yet the sun is an immense body with core temperatures supposed to be 15*10⁶ K, while those at the photosphere are a comparatively meagre 5,800 K. Vast swirls are visible in the sun’s disc from Earth, and it is reasonable to assume there must be inside the sun enormous ionised gas convection currents of almost incomprehensible energy. In the face of this, Landscheit implies that puny gravity plays some sort of deciding role in the formation of sunspots that he conveniently does not enlarge upon. If Landscheit was reserving his explanations until later – having read this paper I had enough and didn’t read the others – he was engaging in sensationalism, but I doubt it, and as far as I have read him, he was no scientist and didn’t use the scientific method of observe, consider, explain, and test. Incidentally, I am with Sir Alfred Jules Ayer on this one, and cannot conceive why a matter be held true when there is no agreed manner of verifying it.

On the other hand, we could possibly devise a null experiment. Does the thermal efficiency of the boilers at Long Drax power station vary according to the position of the planets in the heavens? No, and if it did, everyone would demand a rebate on their electricity bills every time the celestial conditions justify Landscheit’s arguments.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[jethro]

It strikes me Alan that you are looking for a level of certainty which simply isn't available. Regardless of which Solar theory, or what research is studied, whether it be Hathaway, Svalgaard, Livingston&Penn or indeed Landscheit - they all raise more questions than answers.

Looking at available knowledge from the various different theories which exist, taking a short list of those considered to be the most informed, it is clear even those regarded to be the greatest minds in Solar Physics are scrabbling around in the dark.

Here is a list of all the official predictions made for cycle 24, as you can see, the theories and methods used are many. There is no such thing as one absolute theory. All of the people in this list are respected by mainstream science, all have many peer reviewed papers under their belt - does this make them more right or their predictions more valid? Considering how many of those predictions are now bust and given how many times the official Hathaway prediction has been revised in recent years to take into account the Sun refusing to behave as predicted, I'd say not.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/May_24_2007_table.pdf

You have every right to dismiss Landscheit as a mystic but IMO opinion that is an unfair assessment. His work should be measured alongside the work of others and judged according to accuracy, using that measure, which is the only real measure in science - they're all crackpots.

I guess the difference is you perceive there to be some kind of belief system or faith in Landscheit's work, if we discount the work of scientists based upon their adherence to a belief system then we'd have to discount those with a belief in the biggest faith of all time - God. That list would include Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Kelvin and indeed Einstein.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n22_v91/ai_19332942/

[Alan Robinson]

http://www.swpc.noaa..._2007_table.pdf

Nice link Jethro. I notice Landscheit, Carl Smith and Geoff Sharp were not thought worthy of mention.

I'd like to debate Descartes and Einstein at some point, and though this is obviously not the place, can I just say that time is not the same thing as the position of a clock's hands.

My son gets infuriated with me when we discuss what constitutes knowledge - he's an admirer of Kant while I never progressed beyond (Xenophon's version of) Socrates - and for what its worth, he agrees with you that I am looking for certainties that do no exist. No harm in continuing the search though is there?

[jethro]

Nice link Jethro. I notice Landscheit, Carl Smith and Geoff Sharp were not thought worthy of mention.

I'd like to debate Descartes and Einstein at some point, and though this is obviously not the place, can I just say that time is not the same thing as the position of a clock's hands.

My son gets infuriated with me when we discuss what constitutes knowledge - he's an admirer of Kant while I never progressed beyond (Xenophon's version of) Socrates - and for what its worth, he agrees with you that I am looking for certainties that do no exist. No harm in continuing the search though is there?

I think I'm right in saying predictions are submitted for inclusion in the forecast by those doing the work - I don't think it is an invitation only event, but I could be wrong on that.

Descartes & Einstein - perhaps one for the serious discussion area....

Searching for knowledge.....always a worthwhile exercise IMO, why let your brain die before the rest of you is ready to go.

[SteveB]

Interesting chart showing the first 2 years of the solar flux of each of the cycles that have official measuring of 10.7 solar radio flux.

http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/

Edited January 18, 2011 by SteveB

[picog]

Interesting chart showing the first 2 years of the solar flux of each of the cycles that have official measuring of 10.7 solar radio flux.

http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/

Cycle 24 is strikingly lower — is there any explanation for this difference? Or perhaps, the other cycles were high and C24 just happens to be a bit on the low side?

[SteveB]

Cycle 24 is strikingly lower — is there any explanation for this difference? Or perhaps, the other cycles were high and C24 just happens to be a bit on the low side?

As you can see, cycle24 did start to take off at the same point as the other cycles (cycle24 point being Feb2010) but then stumbled and stuttered.

I believe Hathaway states you can't really get a handle on a cycle until 3yrs in. That means we should know more later this year, but he has revised his prediction for cycle24 down again.

Edited January 18, 2011 by SteveB

[picog]

As you can see, cycle24 did start to take off at the same point as the other cycles (cycle24 point being Feb2010) but then stumbled and stuttered.

I believe Hathaway states you can't really get a handle on a cycle until 3yrs in. That means we should know more later this year, but he has revised his prediction for cycle24 down again.

Did Hathaway have the cycle closer to C23 originally? I know he's had to modify his prediction before (start dates?), but can't remember if he ever predicted C24 to be as "lively" as C23.

Edited January 18, 2011 by picog

[jethro]

Did Hathaway have the cycle closer to C23 originally? I know he's had to modify his prediction before (start dates?), but can't remember if he ever predicted C24 to be as "lively" as C23.

I think his original prediction was for cycle 24 to be the biggest, most active cycle for decades.

Found the original prediction....

Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.

Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/

[SteveB]

Cheers Jethro, was trying to find that. He has well and truely busted hasn't he.