Ooooh, Anthony allowed barycenters on WUWT. Its been a while

[Andrew]

wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/new-paper-says-no-evidence-of-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/

New paper says ‘No evidence of planetary influence on solar activity’
Anthony Watts / September 7, 2013


Still no effect: Motion of Barycenter of the solar system relative to the Sun.

“Barycentric” influence of the planets on the sun is just statistically insignificant,

--------------------------------

From the comments. (please ask for relevant comments to be added here)

My bolds


RockyRoad September 7, 2013 at 1:24 pm
“Lots of evidence of solar influence on planetary climate”
There, fixed.
-----------
Leif Svalgaard September 7, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Yeah, turn off the Sun and see what you get.
How about staying on topic…
-----------
1957chev September 7, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Wow….that was a less than intelligent remark, Leif. Why is your mind so closed? Supporters of wind, are supported by wind, same for solar. The climate scare is your only sales gimmick, and you are fighting to hold on to that. Give it up. It’s over…..go home.
-----------
richardscourtney September 7, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Leif is “home”.
He rightly complained at an anonymous troll trying to deflect the thread from its topic.
Your offensive and untrue bluster does not hide those facts.
-----------
Richard Robert Wykoff September 7, 2013 at 1:45 pm
Ooooh, Anthony allowed barycenters on WUWT. Its been a while. The comment section will surely be fun.
kim September 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm
-----------
Oh, c’mon, Leif thinks it’s possible the Sun controls the Earth’s climate. He just doesn’t know how yet, nor whether either.
-----------
David Thomson September 7, 2013 at 3:12 pm
The barycenter signal is seen in the long term climate changes as evidenced by long term cooling and heating of the Earth. Each time the barycenter transits the surface of the Sun, as opposed to moving perpendicular to the surface, solar activity declines and a cooling phase on Earth soon follows.
------------
David Thomson September 7, 2013 at 3:36 pm
I think you guys are reading this story wrong. It is not about how the Sun affects the Earth, but how the gravitational effects of other planets (namely Jupiter) affects the solar activity.
------------
Carsten Arnholm September 7, 2013 at 3:30 pm
Regarding the planets’ possible influence on solar activity, I came to a similar conclusion in 2009:
http::/arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/
The current paper appears to be saying there is no statistical evidence. I say there is also no known physical mechanism involving the planets, other than tides, that could influence the Sun, and the tides are miniscule in the extreme.
------------
David Thomson September 7, 2013 at 3:36 pm
The tidal theory would only affect surface behavior of the Sun. The solar barycenter would be acting on the solid core of the Sun and causing it to move within the surrounding gases and liquids. It is this movement of the core that is supposed to drive the magnetohydrodynamics of solar behavior.
------------
Carsten Arnholm September 7, 2013 at 4:53 pm
The barycenter is not “solar”. The Barycenter is the center of mass of the solar system. It is not physical in any other way. It cannot “act” on the core of the Sun, being it solid or not. In fact the barycenter cannot act on anything
------------
David Thomson September 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm
If the center of the solar system is not at the center of the Sun, then why would you not think the Sun would be gravitationally moved? The Sun has no choice, except to be pulled toward the center of the solar system’s gravity. The Sun orbits the center of the solar system the same as the planets do.

Look at the Earth – Moon system. The center of gravity of these two bodies is neither in the Earth nor the Moon, yet both orbit the barycenter. The Sun does the same thing

The Sun’s orbit around the solar barycenter is wildly variable on the scale of hundreds of years. The variability is what shakes up the Sun’s core and modulates its magnetohydrodynamic systems.
------------
Leif Svalgaard September 7, 2013 at 9:08 pm

>>David Thomson says:
>>September 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm
>>Look at the Earth – Moon system. The center of gravity of these two bodies is neither in the Earth nor the Moon, yet both orbit >>the barycenter. The Sun does the same thing.
Great confusion here. The Earth+Moon orbits the center of the Sun as do all other planet+moon systems. You do not need to understand the theory [although it is simple enough]. We have very precise measurements of the Earth’s orbit and they show that the E+M orbit the center of the Sun. A simple consequence hereof is the measured value of TSI which varies with the square of the distance to the center.
------------
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2013 at 8:53 pm
The tidal forces do not care what material the Sun is made of.
------------
David Thomson September 8, 2013 at 8:37 am
If the mass of the Sun is primarily at its core, then yes, the tidal forces do care what material the Sun is made of. There would be more inertia with the core than their would be with the Sun’s upper layers. It would be a viscous wobble, which would explain the mechanism of the Sun’s magnetohydrodynamics.
------------
Bart September 10, 2013 at 2:36 pm

Those of you arguing about what bodies or barycenters are orbiting about need to define what you mean by “orbit”. The solar system barycenter is simply a reference point whose motion about the galactic core is independent of the local gravitational influences. Bodies “orbit” about it in the sense that they follow trajectories which place them in recurring positions relative to it, but these “orbits” are not Keplerian, i.e., not simple ellipses which obey Kepler’s Laws.

The fundamental misconception at large appears to be that bodies moving with respect to the barycenter will react to centrifugal forces which intuitively would increase as the body experienced its closest approach. But, intuition fails in this case. The bodies are in gravitational “free-fall”. Beyond tidal effects, they feel no gravitational or inertial forces whatsoever.

And, those tidal stresses are so very, very small. It does not appear likely, to me at least, that there is a significant gravitational connection between planetary motion and solar activity. However, this is an entirely different question than whether variations in solar activity are responsible for significant variations in the Earth’s climate.



My comment:

Thomson is told the tidal forces do not care what material the Sun is made of and the barycenter cannot act upon anything. Thomson seems to think the sun is being thrown around and therefore the denser materials in the core will wobble more than the surface materials, he knows however we are talking mainly about the gravitational influence of Jupiter.

Galileo showed a bag of feathers surrounding a lump of iron will all fall at the same rate in gravity and by definition in an orbit the gravitational forces balance the inertial forces so nothing is measurable apart from the gravity difference (tide) across the object.

[icefisher]

Jun 11, 2015 8:22:02 GMT Andrew said:

------------
David Thomson September 8, 2013 at 8:37 am
If the mass of the Sun is primarily at its core, then yes, the tidal forces do care what material the Sun is made of. There would be more inertia with the core than their would be with the Sun’s upper layers. It would be a viscous wobble, which would explain the mechanism of the Sun’s magnetohydrodynamics.
------------
Bart September 10, 2013 at 2:36 pm

Those of you arguing about what bodies or barycenters are orbiting about need to define what you mean by “orbit”. The solar system barycenter is simply a reference point whose motion about the galactic core is independent of the local gravitational influences. Bodies “orbit” about it in the sense that they follow trajectories which place them in recurring positions relative to it, but these “orbits” are not Keplerian, i.e., not simple ellipses which obey Kepler’s Laws.

The fundamental misconception at large appears to be that bodies moving with respect to the barycenter will react to centrifugal forces which intuitively would increase as the body experienced its closest approach. But, intuition fails in this case. The bodies are in gravitational “free-fall”. Beyond tidal effects, they feel no gravitational or inertial forces whatsoever.

And, those tidal stresses are so very, very small. It does not appear likely, to me at least, that there is a significant gravitational connection between planetary motion and solar activity. However, this is an entirely different question than whether variations in solar activity are responsible for significant variations in the Earth’s climate.


My comment:

Thomson is told the tidal forces do not care what material the Sun is made of and the barycenter cannot act upon anything. Thomson seems to think the sun is being thrown around and therefore the denser materials in the core will wobble more than the surface materials, he knows however we are talking mainly about the gravitational influence of Jupiter.

Galileo showed a bag of feathers surrounding a lump of iron will all fall at the same rate in gravity and by definition in an orbit the gravitational forces balance the inertial forces so nothing is measurable apart from the gravity difference (tide) across the object.

Well I dispensed with all the parts about whether planets are attracted to barycenters and obfuscation about orbits (though I left Bart's repetition of that meaningless point) because its intermingled with new stuff to discuss.

Here Thomson says something about tidal effects being variable by way of the kind of material found in the sun. Very true! Earth's ocean tides rise in relationship to the land because of at a minimum the fluidity of water, gases would be more susceptible than water and the sun is made of very fluid stuff/plasma or whatever. No question Thomson is right on this.

Bart who is a pretty smart guy I have gathered from many of his posts makes a few points about the capability of these forces on the sun and minimizes the tidal effects effectively acknowledging what Thomson said. But I think Bart made an error he says these objects are in freefall and said nothing else. What he said would be true of planets in Keplerian orbit (now that we have a term I assume that Leif was referring to)

If they were in freefall (with nothing else) they would "feel" no new force so he would be correct if he had actually comprehended all that was going on. There is a feel to this the barycentric attraction is always changing direction and intensity because the planets are changing their relative positions. This has minor effects on the Keplarian orbits and its not due to the forces that make up a Keplerian orbit. This means acceleration and deceleration is occuring. And thats a force you can feel and that is independent of the tidal effects of Jupiter but closely integrated into with 8 other planets and their effects.

Now I don't know how Thomson sees these forces operating and I have no idea if would be right as no mechanism of translating those accelerations and decelerations into solar variation is known. And maybe its not even the accelerations and decelerations maybe its some kind of galactic magnetic or solar system magnetic field modification that comes for the orientation of those fields in relationship to each other. Heck we know virtually nothing about that but are discovering new facts about it all the time. Svalgaard believes solar modification comes from some kind of solar dynamo that creates sunspots and the solar cycle and modifications to the suns magnetic fields. But it was just last year it was first discovered that magnetic interchanges were being made between the earth and sun. Its logical Svalgaard has been looking in the same box his all career if we had no knowledge of any other bigger box. Thats certainly not a criticism of Svalgaard as thats how science operates and the astrometeorologists have been operating outside the traditional science box (see note below). But now maybe they have something to work on in a scientific way with the new discoveries. Or maybe the new discoveries are yet to meager to gather anything using that approach.

Note: In this day and age with the practically unrestricted and unstandardized use of statistics science has also been operating outside the traditional science box arising from the artful choices one must make in doing sampling work. So my comment above is not an absolute distinction between science and astrometeorology

[Andrew]

Jun 11, 2015 17:33:51 GMT icefisher said:

Jun 11, 2015 8:22:02 GMT Andrew said:

------------
David Thomson September 8, 2013 at 8:37 am
If the mass of the Sun is primarily at its core, then yes, the tidal forces do care what material the Sun is made of. There would be more inertia with the core than their would be with the Sun’s upper layers. It would be a viscous wobble, which would explain the mechanism of the Sun’s magnetohydrodynamics.
------------
Bart September 10, 2013 at 2:36 pm

Those of you arguing about what bodies or barycenters are orbiting about need to define what you mean by “orbit”. The solar system barycenter is simply a reference point whose motion about the galactic core is independent of the local gravitational influences. Bodies “orbit” about it in the sense that they follow trajectories which place them in recurring positions relative to it, but these “orbits” are not Keplerian, i.e., not simple ellipses which obey Kepler’s Laws.

The fundamental misconception at large appears to be that bodies moving with respect to the barycenter will react to centrifugal forces which intuitively would increase as the body experienced its closest approach. But, intuition fails in this case. The bodies are in gravitational “free-fall”. Beyond tidal effects, they feel no gravitational or inertial forces whatsoever.

And, those tidal stresses are so very, very small. It does not appear likely, to me at least, that there is a significant gravitational connection between planetary motion and solar activity. However, this is an entirely different question than whether variations in solar activity are responsible for significant variations in the Earth’s climate.


My comment:

Thomson is told the tidal forces do not care what material the Sun is made of and the barycenter cannot act upon anything. Thomson seems to think the sun is being thrown around and therefore the denser materials in the core will wobble more than the surface materials, he knows however we are talking mainly about the gravitational influence of Jupiter.

Galileo showed a bag of feathers surrounding a lump of iron will all fall at the same rate in gravity and by definition in an orbit the gravitational forces balance the inertial forces so nothing is measurable apart from the gravity difference (tide) across the object.

Well I dispensed with all the parts about whether planets are attracted to barycenters and obfuscation about orbits (though I left Bart's repetition of that meaningless point) because its intermingled with new stuff to discuss.

Here Thomson says something about tidal effects being variable by way of the kind of material found in the sun. Very true! Earth's ocean tides rise in relationship to the land because of at a minimum the fluidity of water, gases would be more susceptible than water and the sun is made of very fluid stuff/plasma or whatever. No question Thomson is right on this.

Bart who is a pretty smart guy I have gathered from many of his posts makes a few points about the capability of these forces on the sun and minimizes the tidal effects effectively acknowledging what Thomson said. But I think Bart made an error he says these objects are in freefall and said nothing else. What he said would be true of planets in Keplerian orbit (now that we have a term I assume that Leif was referring to)

If they were in freefall (with nothing else) they would "feel" no new force so he would be correct if he had actually comprehended all that was going on. There is a feel to this the barycentric attraction is always changing direction and intensity because the planets are changing their relative positions. This has minor effects on the Keplarian orbits and its not due to the forces that make up a Keplerian orbit. This means acceleration and deceleration is occuring. And thats a force you can feel and that is independent of the tidal effects of Jupiter but closely integrated into with 8 other planets and their effects.

Now I don't know how Thomson sees these forces operating and I have no idea if would be right as no mechanism of translating those accelerations and decelerations into solar variation is known. And maybe its not even the accelerations and decelerations maybe its some kind of galactic magnetic or solar system magnetic field modification that comes for the orientation of those fields in relationship to each other. Heck we know virtually nothing about that but are discovering new facts about it all the time. Svalgaard believes solar modification comes from some kind of solar dynamo that creates sunspots and the solar cycle and modifications to the suns magnetic fields. But it was just last year it was first discovered that magnetic interchanges were being made between the earth and sun. Its logical Svalgaard has been looking in the same box his all career if we had no knowledge of any other bigger box. Thats certainly not a criticism of Svalgaard as thats how science operates and the astrometeorologists have been operating outside the traditional science box (see note below). But now maybe they have something to work on in a scientific way with the new discoveries. Or maybe the new discoveries are yet to meager to gather anything using that approach.

Note: In this day and age with the practically unrestricted and unstandardized use of statistics science has also been operating outside the traditional science box arising from the artful choices one must make in doing sampling work. So my comment above is not an absolute distinction between science and astrometeorology

Thomson is not thinking along the lines you are thinking of. As it happens Leif had a discussion with somebody on potential mechanisms for tidal reinforcing. I think they implied there was some body of discussion on this already. The gist of the conversation was that the moons 30cm tides are magnified because of structures on Earth, so structures would have to exist on the Sun, but you are still left with tides that will be totally tiny compared to the multi kilometer per second movements the Suns interior is supposed to possess according to Leif.

Incidently I searched around for David Thomson and although he has a website devoted to Aether physics he no longer seems active and I could find no activity on his barycenter comments since 2010/11.

[icefisher]

Well the whole jerking around theory seem suspect to me. Implying its a direct gravitational force that produces the changes on the sun seems pretty wild. And I know very little about the sun anyway. Everything I think I know has been gathered from Leif or the data on this site. A lot of stuff cycles around a number of known processes on the sun and using that vibration, the solar cycle and its longer term cycles (which are in the data but not replicated enough to have much confidence in them) can fairly easily be attributed to spinning curveballs in the sky or any other derived product (angular momentum) without a whole lot of merit to the idea. I know that's Leif's take on the theory as I have read a number of posts to those guys.

[gsharp]

The paper in question on WUWT did not include my work (Sharp, 2010) or McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber (2014). Both papers are still unchallenged and also banned from discussion on WUWT??

So the jury is still out on whether the planets affect the Sun?

www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513&#reference

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-014-0510-1

I have challenged Watts to find error with both papers.... but so far he has declined.

[Andrew]

Jun 12, 2015 1:47:29 GMT gsharp said:

The paper in question on WUWT did not include my work (Sharp, 2010) or McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber (2014). Both papers are still unchallenged and also banned from discussion on WUWT??

So the jury is still out on whether the planets affect the Sun?

www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513&#reference

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-014-0510-1

I have challenged Watts to find error with both papers.... but so far he has declined.

Hi Geoff

I saw your name come up many times while I was researching this topic. Is your work banned because it falls under the barycenter ban or there more to it than that?

Am I right in thinking your theory involves the changing velocity of the Sun caused by the hugely distant, very slowly moving outer planets?

Edit: I see that since your paper has been published there has been quite a bit of interaction between you and Leif:

wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/30/riding-a-pseudocycle/

Does this diagram show the actual predicted path of the Sun or does it only show the center of mass of the solar system? I am supposing at the moment that the actual path the Sun takes is different to the center of mass position?


Cheers

Andrew

[gsharp]

Hi Andrew, Watts bans any barycentric talk because he "feels" it's rubbish. I doubt anyone on the crew at WUWT have read and understood the new science...their loss I guess.

My theory doesn't have a mechanism so to speak, it could be velocity, or angular momentum or potential energy ala Wolff & Patrone. All I know are the correlations are supreme and as of yet have not been challenged in science. One aspect they cant get around is that no grand minima across the Holocene have occurred when Uranus and Neptune are opposed (Charvatova's ordered phase). This is compelling evidence I think, and has not been included in the paper ‘No evidence of planetary influence on solar activity’



I had many "discussions" with Svalgaard way before I was published. He has an agenda and refuses to look at the facts. There was a point when Svalgaard left WUWT because according to Watts I was giving him a hard time. Watts is very protective of Svalgaard.

The red crosshairs is the SSB and the plotted path is the centre of the Sun. The yellow circle is just for reference (size of Sun)

[Andrew]

Jun 12, 2015 7:02:01 GMT gsharp said:

Hi Andrew, Watts bans any barycentric talk because he "feels" it's rubbish. I doubt anyone on the crew at WUWT have read and understood the new science...their loss I guess.

My theory doesn't have a mechanism so to speak, it could be velocity, or angular momentum or potential energy ala Wolff & Patrone. All I know are the correlations are supreme and as of yet have not been challenged in science. One aspect they cant get around is that no grand minima across the Holocene have occurred when Uranus and Neptune are opposed (Charvatova's ordered phase). This is compelling evidence I think, and has not been included in the paper ‘No evidence of planetary influence on solar activity’



I had many "discussions" with Svalgaard way before I was published. He has an agenda and refuses to look at the facts. There was a point when Svalgaard left WUWT because according to Watts I was giving him a hard time. Watts is very protective of Svalgaard.

The red crosshairs is the SSB and the plotted path is the centre of the Sun. The yellow circle is just for reference (size of Sun)

I know Svalbaard is not hot on what he calls cyclomania but otherwise dont know much about what he thinks, but I can relate to the idea of overly looking at tiny things to think they are important. As far as I can see from reading WUWT he appears to have made quite an effort to look at what you are suggesting. How can it be true to say he refuses to look at the facts? I noticed too you are not popular over at Tallblokes and that interaction seems to have had a similar flavour where you are making accusations which at first sight seem to be incorrect? Why would you object to doing a guest post there? Tallbloke wanted you to retract what you have said and apologise. Was that ever resolved? Personally speaking I dont have much enthusiasm or even the intelligence to analyse science papers, it is though always interesting reading thru the subsequent battle in the comments! :-) So again I can relate to where Tallbloke may have been coming from.

[gsharp]

Svalgaard never gained an understanding of my theory and could not answer a basic question which still stands as a challenge for him to answer on my blog. So not enough effort obviously, he continues to say the correlations are bad without even understanding the theory...that is what I mean about ignoring the facts. www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/216

Tallbloke after reviewing almost all scientific planetary theories for some reason never reviewed my theory saying I was already out there all over the place and a review was not necessary. The horse had bolted at that point but I later agreed to present my theory on his blog. After that he made every excuse and to this day is not interested in reviewing my work. I have a competing theory to his and do not agree with his cyclomania concepts, so his attitude is understandable.

Instead of judging me as a person, it may be more beneficial to judge the science?

Read my paper and if you have any real questions (instead of gossip) I will be happy to answer. I will be surprised if you can find a problem with the data. If so, the concept of this thread will be proven wrong.

[acidohm]

I'd hate to say it Andrew however you are more likely to gain an objective view if you examine the papers. ..not just follow the posts/gossip/bickering ;-)

[Andrew]

Jun 12, 2015 9:45:09 GMT gsharp said:

Svalgaard never gained an understanding of my theory and could not answer a basic question which still stands as a challenge for him to answer on my blog. So not enough effort obviously, he continues to say the correlations are bad without even understanding the theory...that is what I mean about ignoring the facts. www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/216

Tallbloke after reviewing almost all scientific planetary theories for some reason never reviewed my theory saying I was already out there all over the place and a review was not necessary. The horse had bolted at that point but I later agreed to present my theory on his blog. After that he made every excuse and to this day is not interested in reviewing my work. I have a competing theory to his and do not agree with his cyclomania concepts, so his attitude is understandable.

Instead of judging me as a person, it may be more beneficial to judge the science?

Read my paper and if you have any real questions (instead of gossip) I will be happy to answer. I will be surprised if you can find a problem with the data. If so, the concept of this thread will be proven wrong.

Geoff what actually do you mean by a gravitational center? You appear to be implying there is something there.

[gsharp]

I never mentioned gravitational centre, if you mean the SSB it is just a mathematical point. Think of it as the centre of the solar system that is orbiting the galaxy centre, it is the balance point between the Sun and the planets. The important point to consider I think is the angular momentum (AM) of the Sun, the Sun may be in freefall but all solar cycles are governed by AM it seems. The higher the outer loop goes the stronger the cycle, the tighter and closer to the SSB with the inner loop the higher the cycle. BUT when the inner loop tries to be an outer loop because of one precise planetary combination grand minima can occur which overrides the normal AM function...this is the 2 levels that Svalgaard never understood.

[AstroMet]

Jun 12, 2015 9:45:09 GMT gsharp said:

Svalgaard never gained an understanding of my theory and could not answer a basic question which still stands as a challenge for him to answer on my blog. So not enough effort obviously, he continues to say the correlations are bad without even understanding the theory...that is what I mean about ignoring the facts. www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/216

Tallbloke after reviewing almost all scientific planetary theories for some reason never reviewed my theory saying I was already out there all over the place and a review was not necessary. The horse had bolted at that point but I later agreed to present my theory on his blog. After that he made every excuse and to this day is not interested in reviewing my work. I have a competing theory to his and do not agree with his cyclomania concepts, so his attitude is understandable.

Instead of judging me as a person, it may be more beneficial to judge the science?

Read my paper and if you have any real questions (instead of gossip) I will be happy to answer. I will be surprised if you can find a problem with the data. If so, the concept of this thread will be proven wrong.

Agreed Geoff. By the way, I think you've been doing just fine in your work.

[Andrew]

Jun 12, 2015 11:49:37 GMT gsharp said:

I never mentioned gravitational centre, if you mean the SSB it is just a mathematical point. Think of it as the centre of the solar system that is orbiting the galaxy centre, it is the balance point between the Sun and the planets. The important point to consider I think is the angular momentum (AM) of the Sun, the Sun may be in freefall but all solar cycles are governed by AM it seems. The higher the outer loop goes the stronger the cycle, the tighter and closer to the SSB with the inner loop the higher the cycle. BUT when the inner loop tries to be an outer loop because of one precise planetary combination grand minima can occur which overrides the normal AM function...this is the 2 levels that Svalgaard never understood.

www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/218

"AMT begins with the orbital path of the Sun. The Sun does not remain stationary in the centre of the solar system, but instead orbits a point or gravitational centre of the solar system (SSB). "

>>this is the 2 levels that Svalgaard never understood.

I very much doubt possibilities would escape Svalgaard if they were explained to him. The problem for your theory is the rate of change upon the Sun is so tiny compared to the assumed speeds of substances within the Sun. Since you agree the SSBC is not something that transits the sun in a meaningful manner, I am at a loss as to why you would think the SSBC being out of the Sun or in the Sun can be relevant.

>>it is the balance point between the Sun and the planets

Only in terms of their masses. By saying the SSBC is a balance point you are implying some meaning where none exists. Are you saying this mass balance point moving in and out of the Sun is relevant to your theory?

[gsharp]

You are losing the plot here Andrew, trying to argue your physics instead of looking at the correlations. If you really want a physical link I suggest you read up on Wolff & Patrone.In the meantime show me a grand minimum in the Holocene solar proxy record or sunspot record that does not align with the following planetary alignment. (hint...there is one)



I was referring to my comments posted here regarding "gravitational centre". Thanks for making it clear you meant somewhere on my blog etc.



If you can find fault with my data I will agree with your paper mentioned in this thread...if you cant find fault I would suggest your paper mentioned is bogus.