Subject: RE: de Jager, Nieuwenhuizen, Nieuwenhuijzen, Duhau - northern|
From: "Bill Howell. Hussar. Alberta. Canada" <>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:14:23 -0600
To: "Cornelis de Jager. Astrophysicist. Netherlands" <>,
Cc: "Albert Jacobs. Retd Geologist. Calgary" <>,
Cornelius, Silvia - Thank-you for forwarding your recent paper to me. It continues to be fun to see your work and its evolution, and the special concepts that you have developed (eg solar-poloidal emphasis, chaotic attractor and phase changes), as well as thorough coverage of the observed behaviours of the sun. I took a couple of days to go through some of the papers that you have sent in the past.
Your work is important because it does not simply follow the herd, and you have the courage to be different and speak out.
My comments below can safely be ignored, unless you want to know how your work has affected the thinking of at least one crazy person out there.
Mr. Bill Howell
P.O. Box 299, Hussar, Alberta, T0J1S0
member - International Neural Network Society (INNS), IEEE Computational Intelligence Society (IEEE-CIS)
IJCNN2019 Budapest, Publications and Sponsors & Exhibits Chair
WCCI2018 Rio de Janeiro : Publicity committee, http://www.ecomp.poli.br/~wcci2018/committees/
Retired: Science Research Manager (SE-REM-01) at Natural Resources Canada, CanmetMINING, Ottawa
Random, scattered comments
You may safely ignore these comments, as they are more a case of me mumbling to myself....
Chaotic attractors - One thing that I liked about earlier papers was the chaotic attractor approach, and the rather rare coverage of [state,phase] changes! Section 2 of your 2013 paper still refers to that, but it is more-or-less absent in the 2018 paper which seems a shame. I would like to point out your obvious success (in my eyes) that you had even with the initial papers forecasting cycle #24. Perhaps the high sensitivity of the chaotic attractor and [Rmax,aa_min] estimates, along with the relatively short period for which [Mt Wilson,Wilcox] data is available, have led you to drop this for now?
As a side comment, the best earthquake forecasting techniques that I am aware of are by lawyer Ben Davidson and collaborators (https://quakewatch.net/), with NASA and ?NOAA? racing to catch up. If I remember correctly, one problem that they have is that key data for the magnetism of the solar polar fields (SPF), as measured by the Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO), are only available after about a month's delay (http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Paper-1.pdf). This has been problematic as their intention isn't to forecast earthquakes after they happen, but perhaps now the data is more rapidly available?
What I really would have loved to see (but perhaps a distraction to the line of your research), would be an analysis based on the actual time series of [poloidal, toroidal] activity using fractals (extending your past work), rather than the normal focus on the [relatively very minor,filtered, smoothed] curves, which to me don't give a full picture, and are usually problematic. Wavelet transforms, which you do use, are an immense improvement, but as David Thompson who was at Queen's University in Kingston Canada once said "too many new knobs to control well at my age, and we're still learning how to properly do Fourier analysis" (or something like that). However, this "detailed" approach can't be extended back well, given the quality of even sunspot data pre-mi-1800's and a much shorter period (1976 or something?) for solar polar fields, so you were stuck with once-a-Schwartz-quasi-cycle [Rmax,aa_min].
As a final question on chaotic dynamics, while I have done many journal peer reviews of papers that apply fractional order calculus, I still haven't a clear concept of the [commonality, differences] of [Mandelbrot multi-fractals, fractional order calculus]. While my work has been related to neural networks, there are constant allusions to areas of physics such as hydrodynamics as benefiting from fractional-order calculus. I was embarrassed to hear of it so late in my life, to not have heeded Mandelbrot's clear warnings, and most of all, to not to have inferred its existence myself. Liebnitz would just shake his head and role his eyes...
Statistics - It's nice to see the detail and clarity of the degrees of [freedom, statistics], most particularly [λ,f] associated with Lowess smoothing. In the area of neural networks, I often see trends away from RMS (and away from the distortions of Gaussian distributions!!), such as information-theoretic (including Jose Principe's "correntropy" concept which I haven't worked with) and other approaches.
[Temperature, CO2] series (Mob-Broh NH ground temperatures) - I suppose that you must use "standard" datasets to be published, but I stay away from temperature series that resemble too closely the hockey stick graphs of [temperature,CO2] and anything associated with the UN IPCC. It's been several years since I looked closely at these series, and it very hard to sift through mountains of results, looking for a needle that might possibly come close to something like a truth. We seem to have lost one source of great entertainment - monthly views of [original, corrected] global temperatures and the opposite stories they tell. Institutional police must have noticed, and purged the renegades?
[poloidal, toroidal] versus [polar, equatorial] - The switch in terminology with the 2013 paper is probably helpful to many people. It is kind of funny to me given my own initial tripping over the terms (including meridonial, sidereal) with early papers, but by now I'm quite comfortable with the old terms.
Magnetism [and,versus] electricity - I always find it very interesting that while solar dynamics are analysed with magnetohydrodynamics (if I remember correctly, the tools are actually more [general,deep] than MHD), electrical flows "seem to almost disappear at the sun's surface" in most analysis, are marginally referred to for the solar system, and are mainstream-absent to galactic and universe scales. It was fun to see in one of your papers, comments on electrical currents in the magnetic flux tubes rising to the surface, and giving rise to sunspots. Coronal holes (fast solar wind), current sheets, and polar currents seem to be areas rich with potential research,, and I can't remember if a recent or planned satellite will cover the solar poles more effectively (as has been the case for Earth).
Lost [days,years] and the [Hallstadt, ancient calendars,etc] series -
Your opinions for cycle 24 and beyond switched from either [Grand, Dalton] Solar minimum, to Grand Solar minimum, and more recently to Dalton-style (Regular period) solar minimum. The latter seems based on thinking that the Hallstadt quasi-cycle now dominates, and it is taken as a "law" that Grand Solar events do not occur during negative phases. But perhaps there is justification in retaining the Grand Solar minimum possibility. (I don't care which it is, it's just that the Sun always seems to outsmart us no matter how clever we get).
While some of my own [incomplete,simple] analysis from the mid-1990s used a close analogue to the Hallstadt cycle (Charvatovan long cycle of 2,402.2 years), to really "get a great fit", it helped to drop 128 years of data from the first of three Hallstadt's. Furthermore, my current project on fundamental theoretical physics (step-by-step derivations of Bill Lucas's "Universal Force" theory) arose from looking for explanations for anomalous planetary motion data. One such example was the 5 "missing days" of the Mayan calendar, but similar calendar changes seems to have occur will most if not all ancient calendars. You will have a very hard time convincing me that ancient astronomers couldn't tell the difference between 28.? days and 30 days, or 365 days and 360 days for some periods. Of course, other explanations (misinterpretations, "politics of calendars" coordinated across civilisations that, to our knowledge never came in contact) could prevail.
So while the "negative-to-positive" Hallstadt transition seems to have occurred, in Mark Twain's words, "new of my death is greatly exaggerated", especially so soon after the transition, which is only clear when applying idealistic-sinusoidal-like curves to systems of quasi-cycles and much deeper behaviour??
[Planetary, solar system barycenter] effects on solar activity - Starting with a review article by Paul Charbonneau, I became aware of the ongoing "discovery" and "disproof" quasi-cycles concerning planetary effects on solar activity, and this includes one of your own articles (and occasional comments in other articles). In my self-enforced "multiple conflicting hypothesis" practice (to avoid becoming a [believer,promoter,defender] of tools), I always retain the "overwhelming, mainstream, scientific consensus (religion), including the overwhelming truths of the past.
But, as I have previously commented, I also retain anything else that can counter-balance the great religions of science, to keep my mind open. In the case of planetary effects on solar activity, the data is strong, and I don't have to jump to conclusions about mechanisms, or zero in on several causative-type explanations that have been offered. Furthermore,I am not comfortable having too much faith to physics that seems to me to omit much physics. A similar example is Svensmarks modern work on the older concept of the role of [cosmic,galactic] rays on climate, which seems to be one of the better climate theories if one considers the data (correlations), and which gains richness by considering other quite different analysis (eg do cosmic rays have to come from outside the "greater solar system", and why don't some space isotopes obey what we know to be true?).
References that I did read through again :
(apologies to Silvia Duhau etc - as I put de Jager's name first in my list to make it easier to find these in a huge list of papers).
-------- Forwarded Message --------
It is my pleasure to inform you of our recent publication in which we investigated the dependence of the (smoothed) Northern Hemisphere average ground temperature on the (also smoothed) sun’s polar and equatorial magnetic field fluxes.
The reference to the paper is: Jager C de, Nieuwenhuizen ACT, Nieuwenhuijzen H, Duhau S: The relation between the average northern hemisphere ground temperature and the solar polar and equatorial magnetic activity. Phys. Astron. Int. J. 2018, 2(3) 175 – 185, DOI: 10,15406/paij. 2018.02.00083
The full paper can be read at http://medcraveonline.com/PAIJ/PAIJ-02-00083.pdf
We summarize the main results:
--- While it is conventionally assumed that the equatorial magnetic fields (the sunspot environment) is a strong contributor to terrestrial climate, we find that the polar field also contributes significantly. The relative fractions are even comparable: 43% and 32%
--- There is also a still unexplained but also significant non-solar component of 25%
--- The modern temperature increase , usually assumed to have started together with the industrial revolution (hence in the 19th century or even earlier) appears to be only significant after 1915 – 1920 (cf. Figs 6 and 7). Since that time the temperature excess over the expected solar contribution has increased by 0.9 degrees
--- The flattening of the increase of the modern temperature during the decade after about the year 2000 is ascribed to the low solar activity at that time (figs. 11 and 12)
--- We forward our expectation that the actual period of relatively low solar activity will continue during the present millennium (Fig. 11 and relevant text)
--- We present evidences that both the solar activity and the average terrestrial northern hemisphere ground temperature have a weak 2300 years (most probably Hallstatt) component (Figs 8 – 10)
Cornelis (Kees) de Jager
1791 DL Den Burg NL
Royal Inst. Sea Research, Texel