Comments for Landscheidt Cycles Research

Comment on Dr Landscheidt’s Solar Cycle 24 Prediction by Vince

Vince — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:59:08 +0000

made it .All information on this site is represented for users. A site is

Comment on Dr Landscheidt’s Solar Cycle 24 Prediction by judy

judy — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:08:25 +0000

I thank the Lord for giving us the gift of brilliant preachers!=

Comment on Dr Landscheidt’s Solar Cycle 24 Prediction by Ulric Lyons

Ulric Lyons — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:38:44 +0000

Alex, if I may comment, Myself, Piers Corbyn, David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations, and Richard Holle, http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/73629-planetary-influences-weather.html and others, all employ an understanding of planetary periods/configurations to investigate past climatic periods, and weather events. I would assert that it is impossible to sufficiently explain the past, and hence be able to predict accurately, without this approach.

Comment on New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming? by Ulric Lyons

Ulric Lyons — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:28:14 +0000

2122 and 2201 AD on a 179yr look ahead, equates to the years 1943, and 2020. There was a short run of cold years in the early 1940`s, and 2015 to 2020 is looking cold, on the basis of a 179yr look back, and also confirmed by positional rules that I have identified. The return of these configurations will be mitigated to some degree by two very long cycles that are still on the rise over the next 2 hundred years.
One shorter cycle of just under 200yrs is reaching its coldest phase around 2065, leading to probably the longest run of cold years in the coming century, from 2058 to 2071. The 2030`s does have a negative Gleissberg phase, but it is offset by the position of Jupiter, resulting in only a few cold years for that decade, 2032, 2034 and 2039.
The next window for a LIA group of minimums is from around 2450AD, some major maximums are set to take place before that.

Comment on Dr Landscheidt’s Solar Cycle 24 Prediction by Alex

Alex — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:17:57 +0000

With observed periodicities of 176 +/- 11 and 352 years for warming and cooling cycles on earth (see Preisinger, Aslanian, Wernisch, and Gergov - 2006), and extrapolating their Black Sea research to a wider global phenomenon, would it not seem likely that the solar cycles of cycle 23 through cycle 28 would correspond more closely with those of the Maunder Minimum (~1645 to 1710) or even other deeper minimums (based on a 352 year phase)? Is this potential deep minimum what Landscheidt was seeing in his calculations and research? In using the power of two, do you see correlations at intervals between 176/178 and ~2300?
If you follow longer cycles (2300+ yrs.) and believe that Hallstadtzeit cycles might be at play, does it not appear that we may be approaching a downward trend of overall solar activity during which very deep minimums appear (looking at the C-14 records here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon-14-10kyr-Hallstadtzeit_Cycles.png)? If so, shouldn’t the periods of 1996 to 2040 and again around 2100 to 2145 (as predicted by Landscheidt and corresponding to the down trends in the C-14 Hallstadtzeit graphs) be characterized by cooling to cold periods with very low solar activity?
Taken a little further, if you follow on and extrapolate the research of Henrik Svensmark, would these periods of low solar activity, when combined with the declining geomagnetic field strength, lead to a potentially very cloudy, cool earth?
I am relatively unfamiliar with the planetary alignments, but do you see any support for these solar and climate variations in the planetary alignments?
Does it seem reasonable to combine these unproven theories to extrapolate possible solar and earth climate changes?
Do you feel that Dr. Landscheidt will receive credit for his research if/when the solar cycles 23 to 28 are extremely low?
Do you feel that Dr. Landscheidt was relatively more successful / well known compared with others who were forecasting solar cycles in the latter half of the 20th century?

Comment on THE SUNSPOT CYCLE AND C24 by Solsearcher

Solsearcher — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:45:16 +0000

This is only a theory, of course, just as is the prevailing but nonetheless theoretical solar nuclear furnace core supposition.

Overwhelming and diverse evidence strongly suggests there is no nuclear fusion taking place in the sun’s core.

Instead, the sun, like its dormant companion Jupiter has a large planetary core surrounded by an abyssal sea of liquid hydrogen, metallic at the point it impinges upon the terra firma core.

Above the liquid hydrogen sea is a layer of hydrogen gas all of which is encapsulated by the relatively thin, roiling plasmasized photospheric sheath. The predominant reaction taking place in the photosphere is molecular hydrogen being converted to atomic hydrogen and back to molecular again under the influence of immense electrical forces.

The only fusion taking place in the sun is in the photosphere where fresh molecular hydrogen gas breaches through the photosphere we call a sunspot. In the process of the freshly emerging hydrogen being converted from molecular to atomic and back again, it becomes entrained in powerful concentric magnetohydrodynamic flows that can be described as nothing less than natural solar cyclotrons!!

One need only examine the highest resolution images of a sunspot from the 1 meter Swedish Solar Telescope at Las Palmas in the Canary Islands for confirmation that below the clearly defined photosphere is nothing more than a dark gaseous interior! http://www.astro.su.se/groups/solar/solar.html

The Jupiter/Earth/Venus syzygies cause volcanic eruptions in the sun’s planetary core which volatilize the liquid hydrogen impinging upon its surface. The gas boils up through the ocean and over pressurizes the gaseous envelope between the liquid sea and the photosphere which results in a breach called a sunspot through which the excess gas escapes.

There is also evidence suggesting the presence of superconduction phenomena associated with solar emmissions.

Of course, all of the tortured logic, strained ad hoc hypotheses and special laws in support of the solar nuclear furnace theory will not survive the test of time and the truth will one day prevail!

Comment on “Landscheidt is an astrologer” by Rod

Rod — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:22:14 +0000

Dr Landscheidt’s analysis is very professional and done with outstanding scientific credentials. To label him as an Astrologer would be like labeling any person who has attend a circus as clown. Much of the information on global warming provided by the IPCC and the climate models they use have been proven wrong or unscientific. It is time that all reseach on climate change be done by using the scientific method and having all information peer reviewed by credible scientist. This has not been done by the IPCC.

Comment on THE SUNSPOT CYCLE AND C24 by Ulric Lyons

Ulric Lyons — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:48:23 +0000

Hi tallbloke,
I would expect C24 to have an elevated feature between 2010 and 2013 accompanied by higher temperatures, notably the years 2010 and 2013, much like C9, from 1847 to 1849.
http://www.spaceweather.com/java/sunspot.html
1947 to 1949 in C18 also has such a feature accompanied by higher temperatures.
I am finding the amplitude of `any part` of a cycle can be correlated to the outer planet positions, either augmenting or diminishing the effect of the Jupiter/Earth/Venus syzygies.
The frequency of the sunspot cycle is clearly in time with the tightest alignments of Jupiter, Earth and Venus. E/V conjunctions in line with Jupiter in one cycle, and E/V oppositions in line with Jupiter in the next cycle. This alternating pattern is highly likely the cause of the magnetic reversal of the Sun in each cycle.

Comment on THE SUNSPOT CYCLE AND C24 by tallbloke

tallbloke — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:44:44 +0000

Hi Ulric,
I read the Ching Cheh Hung paper some time ago, along with another I can’t find at the moment. That one made a statistical analysis of aspects between Jupiter Earth and Venus which showed a beating harmonic between periods of frequent syzygies and the sunspot cycles. It was of interest insofar as the the sunspot cycles with the highest amplitudes were those which were ‘in phase’ with the periods of frequent syzygy occurence, with the opposite the case for low amplitude cycles. When I track it down again, I’ll investigate that further to see how Uranus and Neptune fit the picture.

I came across a prediction of yours elsewhere on the net that cycle 24 would have an amplitude of R130-150. Do you still stand by that? Landscheidt held that adjacent 179 year cycles anticorrelated and every other should match better according to his analysis. If so, we could already be heading for Maunder minimum type values. Feel free to contact me via email for discussion. rog at tallbloke dot net

Comment on THE SUNSPOT CYCLE AND C24 by Ulric Lyons

Ulric Lyons — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:52:03 +0000

Cheers tallbloke, from my correlative studies, it is suprising how much influence Uranus has in its positional relationship with Jupiter and Saturn. Neptunes` effect is easily visible in syzygies and Squares to the other three, and should not be overlooked in finer evaluation of sunspot numbers or climatic variations. Mercury allignments also show up in sunspot levels. http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330
What I am finding is that the positions of particularly Earth and Venus relative to the outer planets, is responsible for a) the peaks and troughs within each sunspot cycle, b) the level of each cycle, c)and more importantly all monthly temperature variations. And yes, if two or more planets are on the plane of the eclptic when they are in alignment, it will be more intense, but the relative radial positions are clearly the dominant factor.