I have not posted anything for a long time (8+ years) and will be writing a post in the reintroduction thread explaining my absence and travel back from my “Road to Hell”, but this post is far more important as it has global effects. I've still been reading SOTT and the forum daily during those 8 years, so I've kept up with everything, per se. I have started this thread as a separate one from the Sol(Sun) thread as the implications of it are huge and far reaching.
To begin, here is the text of the article on Spaceweather.com (also on SOTT)-
THE EXTENDED SOLAR CYCLE: So you thought you knew the solar cycle? Think again.
A new paper published in
Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences confirms that there is more to solar activity than the well-known 11-year sunspot cycle. Data from Stanford University's Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) reveal
two solar cycles happening at the same time, and neither is 11 years long.
"We call it 'the Extended Solar Cycle,'" says lead author Scott McIntosh of NCAR. "There are two overlapping patterns of activity on the sun, each lasting about 17 years."
Solar physicists have long suspected this might be true. References to "overlapping solar cycles" can be found in research literature as far back as 1903. A figure from the new
Frontiers paper seems to clinch the case:
The top panel shows sunspot counts since 1976. The curve goes up and down every 11 years, which explains why everyone thinks the solar cycle is 11 years long. The bottom panel shows what's
really going on.
"The red and blue colors represent magnetic fields on the surface of the sun," explains Phil Scherrer of Stanford University, a co-author of the paper who works closely with data from the Wilcox Solar Observatory. "We have been monitoring these fields since 1976, gathering a unique long-term record of the sun's magnetism."
Wilcox data show not one but two co-existing patterns of activity. They overlap in a way any music major will recognize: The sun is "singing rounds." A
round is a musical piece in which multiple voices sing the same melody, but start the song at different times. Imagine a group of children singing "
Row, row, row your boat." Half of the kids start first; the other half start 5 syllables later. The sun is doing the same thing with its magnetic fields, except instead of 5 syllables ("
row, row, row your boat") the gap is a little more than 5 years.
In the zoomed-in image, above, two representative cycles are labeled "1" and "2".
Most of the time both cycles are active, but not always. When one stops (....life is but a dream...), the other takes complete control of the sun and sunspot counts surge. This is when Solar Maximum happens. McIntosh calls the transition "the Terminator."
11 years vs. 17 years. 1 cycle vs. 2 cycles. What difference does it make?
"The Extended Solar Cycle may be telling us something crucial about what's happening deep inside the sun where sunspot magnetic fields are generated," says McIntosh. "It poses significant challenges to prevalent dynamo theories of the solar cycle."
Want to learn more? Milestone references in the development of the Extended Solar Cycle paradigm include
Martin & Harvey (1979),
Wilson et al (1988),
Srivastava et al (2018).
END ARTICLE
After I read this, I began to wonder- if the cycles are slightly offset, would there be points in “time” when both cycles would be simultaneously at their peak and other points both at their minimum. So, my thought was if it is a cyclical oscillation between the 2 cycles, there should be points in history where we should be able to see the peaks and minimums, along with the transition points.
If the cycles oscillate, then a full oscillation cycle of the two would be 17 years*17 years, or 289 years. To test this theory, I pulled up a mainstream temperature history chart. There is a specific reason why I chose a mainstream chart which I'll get into later. Here is the chart I used-
We know for a fact that the data from 1900 to present is incorrect due to current politics pushing the AGW theory (plenty of that in the forum and SOTT), but we can address that at the end. Now if we use the full oscillation cycle of 289 years, here are the (approximate) years of the full oscillation cycles to compare to the above chart, beginning with this year just as a starting point for a transition since were are at the very beginning of what we call Solar Cycle 25-
2023
1734
1445
1156
867
578
289
0
289 BC
578 BC
867 BC
1156 BC
1445 BC
1734 BC
2023 BC
2312 BC
To make this easier to compare, here is the chart with the dates inserted on the right-
If we start moving back in time on the chart with the dates corresponding to a 289 oscillation cycle, the first one, 1734, is off by about 100 years. This could possibly be explained by the other data on the chart- the volcanic eruptions. This would have created additional dust loading in the atmosphere, thereby extending the normal cycle. Next is 1445, where the cycle appears to have begun early. Again, just before that marker there were 24 eruptions between 1335-1360 which, depending on the total mass ejected, could have begun the cycle early.
The next one, 1156, is where a large deviation occurs from the 289 year cycle. This is one of the few cycles that plots at a peak instead of a transition point like the rest. It is also the only cycle per the chart (not the 289 year dates) where it is not a natural curve. The ascension to the peak flattened for about 100-150 years. It's possible something occurred then that we are now aware of, but I'll go into more detail about that once we get through a couple more dates.
Next is 867 which seems close enough to be correct given the other planetary and galactic effects which can affect global temperatures. Next, 578, is almost dead on using the chart.
289 is next- and this is where things start to get really weird. It's not at a transition point like the others, but again, like 1156, is at a peak. BUT, if we use Pierre's data from the “Were 460 years added to the official chronology?” thread and the C's responses highlighted in the following post, it begins to unfold-
12th July 2014
(Perceval) Is the time scale that we have for the kind of Dark Ages, fall of Rome, is that more or less correct...?
(L) What do you mean? You mean is our time line...
(Perceval) In terms of our timeline, from the fall of Rome back to Caesar's death... from the cosmic disaster, those 500 years or whatever it is...
A: There were years added so often that it will take some hard work to sort it out!
[...]
(Pierre) Maybe you can ask this question. Caesar was born roughly 2,114 years ago according to our official calendars. In reality, how many years ago was Caesar born?
A: 1635. {Difference of 479 years}
Q: [General oo-ing and ah-ing] (Perceval) The whole thing went so horribly wrong, we were thinking how did it last another 400 or 500 years?
(L) It didn't.
(Perceval) Yeah, it didn't. It lasted maybe 100.
(Pierre) Or, there was a collapse in 400 or 500 AD, and most of the added chunks are between 400-500 AD, and 1000 AD, as Fomenko suggests.
A: Check the artifacts. In some cases there were multiple "emperors" at the same time rather than sequential.
Q: (L) And there are even some alleged emperors who have no artifacts. They're just written down in the Historia Augusta, but nobody has ever found a single coin to attest to their existence!
18th Sept 2021
Q: (Pierre) In a previous session you mentioned about 470 years added between us and Julius Caesar. If it matches, it means these 470 years were added before 536 AD?
A: Yes
Q: (Pierre) It means Caesar died about 70 years before this 536 event?
A: Yes
Q: (Pierre) Wow. It means there's no late or middle Roman Empire!
A: Yes
30th Oct 2021
(Mexican House) Who was the last Roman Emperor before the fall of the empire?
(Pierre) Justinian?
(L) Probably. Was it Justinian?
A: Yes
27th Aug 2022
(Joe) Can I ask a question? Ya know the 480 years that we assume were added to the timeline? Were they all added after Caesar's death?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) Were they all added after Caesar's death up until the 540 AD cataclysm, or were some added afterwards in the Dark Ages?
A: 2 major chunks. They can be identified by duplicate histories.
So if this is correct, 480 years were added- which the C's said was in 2 separate periods. This would make sense if some were added in between the 867 cycle and the 1156 cycle for one of the periods, and also a larger amount between the 0 and 289 cycle during the Roman Empire, with year 0 being, yet again, a transition point. This would shift the graph significantly and close the gap to where both 289 and 1156 would no longer fall as peaks on the graph, but transition points like the others. There were 35 eruptions (per the chart) in the years leading up to year 0 which would have added dust to the atmosphere again, either lengthening a cold period or shortening a warm one depending on the timing.
Everything before year 0 is very different from the last 2000 years, but being so far back in history and knowing the historical timeline has been severely altered in the last 2000 years, it is safe to assume that not only was the timeline altered before year 0, but that it would have been a lot easier to do with less physical evidence and artifacts available the farther back we go. In any case, let's continue on.
289BC is at a minimum- a first on this chart, but 578BC is almost dead on again with a transition point. The 289BC date could have been affected by the Vesuvius and Etna eruptions. It's possible that the sheer magnitude of particulate matter ejected in those events either lengthened the cold cycle or masked the warm cycle completely.
The rest of the cycles before are hard to plot correctly without first adjusting the entire graph to shift backwards for the 480 years that were added. This is something I still want to do, but for all intents and purposes, it already makes a compelling argument that the 17 year solar cycles events are very close to correct and also oscillate to define the larger cycles of warm and cold periods throughout 2500 years of history.
The graph also shows something else. It seems to show a shift from more intense warm periods with relatively weak cooling periods to weaker warm periods and deeply intense cold periods. The only part of the graph that doesn't correlate with this is approximately the last 120 years, but we know that data has been doctored to fit the AGW agenda. According to the real data, we entered a cooling period beginning in 2000, which is 23 years before our transition start point of 2023. But, just as in the 1734 and 1445 periods, this could be explained by particulate matter in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions. Here's a current chart of modern eruptions-
That rise in the number of eruptions is extraordinary. If you look at the chart, they stopped plotting eruptions or putting in counts of eruptions after 1991. Up until that point on the chart, the number of eruptions was greater then any point in the last 2500 years- and it's still increasing dramatically. This could definitely account for the early arrival of the next cooling period.
Now, looking at all of this together, it's clear the warming trends are not nearly as intense as the past and the cooling trends for each cycle are getting deeper, but there is another item of interest to consider. It's our Sun's probable twin and its 3600 year orbit, which currently is very close to perigee. It could be a little before, at that point, or a little past it,but in any case it's close enough for this analysis. It would seem that the best warming periods are when it is at apogee (the point in orbit farthest from our Sun), and the strongest cooling periods are at perigee (closest point in orbit).
I was wondering after processing all of this if there was perhaps a 4th density cause that can be attributed to any of this. From the 460 year chronology thread (bold emphasis added)-
I think something the C's mentioned on the 06/24/22 session might add some light onto this thread.
Regarding both time machine use and a fascinating concept they coined - Negative Impact Cascades.
From the session:
A: Not many. STS uses tech to control and manipulate, but each use causes negative impact cascades.
(Ark) Is there just one main history that you can view, or there are many alternative histories?
A: Latter.
Perhaps everything in our solar system or even our galaxy, from solar effects to volcanic eruptions here on Earth, is affected by these “Negative Impact Cascades”. In any case, the data above shows a much clearer picture of the cycles we experience here on the BBM and the direction and magnitude of what we are headed for if the 17 year dual solar cycle data is correct. I'm going to attempt to make an updated graph and overlay the 289 year oscillation cycle onto the existing one but with the timeline corrected for the 480 years of added history that we are aware of, but I'm not a graphic artist so doing it may take awhile.
Thanks for reading!
