Wobbly Universe

As I struggle to find the truth in this area, I found this article (linked to by title) interesting because he mentions the politicising of the issue and shows the state of known solar causes knowledge:

"What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier."

Read the rest of the article ... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

See Also:
Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
Humans vs Sun as cause for climate change
Astronomer Sallie Baliunas on sunspots, global warming, ...
Global Warming - Humans and/or the Sun? ... and more!
Sun more active than for a millennium
Sally Baliunas inteviewed on Solar Fluctuations and Global Warming
Interview: James Lovelock on Climate Change
Humans, Cycles, Sun or Ice-ages - What affects our climate most?
Sun's fickle heart may leave us cold

I called my first cycles blog at blogspot.com "Wobbly Universe" and it is still there, but now I have started it up on my own domain which makes it easier and more permanent. If you want to see some of the older posts, click the title "Wobbly Universe" above.

I thought that it is rather a catchy title, and expressive of the fact that the universe is essentially wave structures rather than solid stuff. I really enjoyed discovering that a google search of Wobbly Universe puts my older sites in 1st, 2nd and 4th spots! Unfortunately this new blog is well down the list, so get clicking folks and move my new blog to no.1 please ;-)

Or tell a friend about Wobbly Universe which has information about cycles and periodicities found in nature and human activities.

The following is from Science Frontiers ONLINE No. 76: Jul-Aug 1991, which may be visited by clicking the title link. I am posting a number of abstracts from Science Frontiers and encourage people to visit the site and to purchase the very fine collection of books produced by William Corliss. In my opinion, anyone who wants to do original scientific research that makes substantial new discoveries will find Corliss work to be a gold mine. It has helped me immensely.

This particular piece interests me especially, because I have found this 26 minute period before, not in ants, but in the fundamental time interval after which earthquakes are likely to be followed by more earthquakes at the same location. Not only after 26 minutes, but also after multiples of 26 minutes for many hours. It seems highly likely that the ants are sensitive to the earth processes that relate to earthquakes. Other animals are known to be predictors of earthquakes, and earthquakes are also associated with low frequency electromagnetic waves - ELF and ULF and even lower.

"Abstract. Activity levels within ant colonies are monitored by using a solid-state automatically digitizing camera. The movement-activity levels of whole colonies and of isolated groups of workers are studied. Whole colonies of Leptothorax allardycei show rhythmic changes in movement-activity level. Fourier and autocorrelation analyses indicate that the activity levels of colonies are periodic, with an average period of 26 min. Single, isolated workers do not show the pattern of periodic changes in activity level. Single workers become active spontaneously, but at no particular interval. Pairs of workers, confined together, also do not show periodicity in activity level. One worker can stimulate another worker to become active, thus coupling their movement-activity patterns. As ants are placed in larger groups, the variation in the interval between activity peaks declines in a manner predicted by coupled oscillator theory. It is argued that the colony can be regarded as a population of 'excitable subunits."

Activity records from two ant colonies Activity records from two ant colonies. Time (horizontal axis) is measured in 30-second intervals.
(Cole, Blaine J.; "Short-Term Activity Cycles in Ants: Generation of Periodicity by Worker Interaction," American Naturalist, 137:244, 1991.)

Comment. The author also pointed out the "formal" or mathematical similarity of the ant movement-activity levels and the dynamics of epidemics! This makes us wonder whether wars, economic cycles, etc. might be explained by considering humans as "excitable subunits."

"Published data sets of major geologic events of the past 250 Myr (extinction events, sea-level lows, continental flood-basalt eruptions, mountain-building events, abrupt changes in sea-floor spreading, ocean-anoxic and blackshale events and the largest evaporite deposits) have been synthesized (with estimated errors). These events show evidence for a statistically significant periodic component with an underlying periodicity, formally equal to 26.6 Myr, and a recent maximum, close to the present time. The cycle may not be strictly periodic, but a periodicity of 30 Myr is robust to probable errors in dating of the geologic events."

There are many examples of similar graphs from paleontology, showing mass extinctions at intervals of 26 to 27 million years. This example of geologic events is another clear demonstration that most cataclysmic events happen at regular intervals.

Some one once said that time is the universe's way of not having everything happen at once. However it seems that this is only half true - an awful lot happens in short periods of time, now and then.

Searching on "cycles" at Science Frontiers site yields a bunch of interesting stuff. lick the Title to get more details.

1. Peace And Sunspots
2. The Taos Hum
3. The Missing Sunspot Peak
4. Do large meteors/comets come in cycles?
5. What Drummer Do Periodical Cicadas Hear?
6. Nose News
7. Rhythms In Rhythm
8. Sunspots And Planetary Alignments
9. Extraterrestrial Influences On Chemical And Biological Systems
10. Biology Anomalies by Subjects
11. Icy Comets, Oceans, Life
12. Does The Earth Breathe?
13. Blind Man Runs On Lunar Time
14. Anomalous Eeg Discharges
15. How can the sun influence chemical reaction rates?
16. The Mind's Rhythm
17. Wanted: disasters with a 26-million-year period
18. Are Parasites Really The Masters?
19. A Different Way Of Looking At The Universe
20. Periodical Invasions Of Aliens
21. Ants as \"excitable subunits&
22. Honest, this is the Last \"plant\" Item!
23. How A Fly Hears What A Cricket Hears
24. Self-organized Stone Stripes
25. The Moon And Avalanches
26. 90-DAY SEA-LEVEL OSCILLATION AT WAKE ISLAND
27. Stonehenge in the 1990s: a mainstream view
28. Cyclothems As Solar-system Pulse Recorders
29. A NAZCA ZODIAC?
30. Geophysics Anomalies by Subjects
31. Science Frontiers: The Book Index
32. Astronomy Anomalies by Subjects
33. The Sourcebook Project: Strange, bizarre & anomalous phenomena

The following is from "Science Frontiers", but I was a little surprised that the sleep cycle of 90 minutes is not mentioned in which deeper and REM sleep alternate. From actual graphs that I have seen, the average length of the cycle is more like 85 minutes, consistent with a whole range of astronomical cycles and the 83 light minute spacing of the outer planets.

"Observations of individuals undergoing hypnosis suggest that intervals of particular susceptibility come along about every 90 minutes. Expert hypnotherapists are cognizant of this psychophysical cycle and often wait for it to appear. By closely watching the subject's swallowing, eye-blinking, respiration, etc., the hynotizer can take advantage of these periods of heightened susceptibility.

(Rossi, Ernest L.; "Hypnosis and Ultradian Cycles: A New State(s) Theory of Hypnosis?" American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 25:21, 1982.)

Comment. The reason for this 90-minute rhythm and the control system behind it are obscure."

The following is from "Science Frontiers" online No. 34: Jul-Aug 1984 by William R. Corliss, the producer of a very interesting series of books on scientifically reported anomalies.

Six of the major influenza epidemics, at least as far back as 1917, were synchronized with the sunspot cycle. Furthermore, all but one of these epidemics involved an antigenic shift, wherein the flu virus developed a new coat of protein, which made it resistant to the immunities the population had built up over the years. There is no known mechanism by which solar activity can abet virus evolution, except penetrating radiation, which is inherently destructive.

Lowered human immunity may also be a consequence of solar activity, according to Solco W. Tromp, director of the Biometeorological Research Center in the Netherlands. Over 30 years of research, using blood data from 730,000 male donors, led Tromp to the conclusion that the blood sedimentation rate varies with the sunspot cycle. Since this rate parallels the amount of albumin and gamma globulin, resistance to infection may also follow the lead of the sun.

(Freitas, Robert A., Jr.; "Sunspots and Disease," Omni, 6:40, May 1984.)

Oil Giants' Money Fuels Climate of Suspicion

Last night, 16th August 2007, I was reading the 13th January 2007 issue of New Scientist, and I came across an article on page 14 that explained at least some of the things that have caused me problems in investigating the facts of climate change. The article states that between 1998 and 2005 ExxonMobil spent US$16,000,000 on funding research at 43 bodies that were critical of claims of climate change, such as Frontiers of Freedom in the apparent expectation that these groups will propagate disinformation about global warming even when what they are publicising has been shown to be wrong.

In 1998 ExxonMobil-sponsored promoted a report that said that carbon dioxide emissions posed no warming threat. The report was authored by, amoung others, Slly Baliunas, and astrophysicist affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil funded groups. In 2003 Baliunas published a review paper in Climate Research (vol 23, p 89) claiming that the climate had not changed significantly in the past millenium. Her conclusions were challenged by 13 scientists whose work she cited, but ExxonMobil-funded groups have continued to promote it.

The above was added on 17th August 2007. Based on this the following should be treated with great suspicion.

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

Some quotes from Sally Baliunas from the above article in Reason magazine ...

"We're trying to subtract the sun's influence [from climate fluctuations caused by other sources]. The sun is particularly good at explaining this early 20th-century warming, which can't have been caused by the greenhouse gases. If we had a good prediction for what the sun would do next, given the past calibrations that we've done, we then could make a prediction. But we're not at the point where we can predict what the sun will do 50 years from now."

Referring to the previous IPCC report she said "The IPCC report actually is very careful to say that the models have not been validated. That tells you that you can't make a prediction with them. The executive summary says that there's a discernible human influence, but the information in the chapter on which that conclusion was based has been overturned by the scientific process. The report is obsolete."

Of course the next IPCC report is now out.

See Also:
Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
Humans vs Sun as cause for climate change
Astronomer Sallie Baliunas on sunspots, global warming, ...
Global Warming - Humans and/or the Sun? ... and more!
Sun more active than for a millennium
Sally Baliunas inteviewed on Solar Fluctuations and Global Warming
Interview: James Lovelock on Climate Change
Humans, Cycles, Sun or Ice-ages - What affects our climate most?
Sun's fickle heart may leave us cold

Oil Giants' Money Fuels Climate of Suspicion

Last night, 16th August 2007, I was reading the 13th January 2007 issue of New Scientist, and I came across an article on page 14 that explained at least some of the things that have caused me problems in investigating the facts of climate change. The article states that between 1998 and 2005 ExxonMobil spent US$16,000,000 on funding research at 43 bodies that were critical of claims of climate change, such as Frontiers of Freedom in the apparent expectation that these groups will propagate disinformation about global warming even when what they are publicising has been shown to be wrong.

In 1998 ExxonMobil-sponsored promoted a report that said that carbon dioxide emissions posed no warming threat. The report was authored by, amoung others, Slly Baliunas, and astrophysicist affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil funded groups. In 2003 Baliunas published a review paper in Climate Research (vol 23, p 89) claiming that the climate had not changed significantly in the past millenium. Her conclusions were challenged by 13 scientists whose work she cited, but ExxonMobil-funded groups have continued to promote it.

The above was added on 17th August 2007. Based on this some remarks in the following should be treated with suspicion.

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

It is important to understand how much of global warming is due to humans and how much due to factors outside our control, especially the sun. It isn't a question where you can tick one box, but a question of apportioning the cause. I would guess that it is 50:50 but it certainly isn't all one or the other. A summary of some of the facts and some links to past articles follows.

a. There can be no reasonable doubt that the temperature lately is outside the normal range.

b. There is no doubt that the amount of CO2 is way above the normal range.

c. There is no doubt that humans have caused the amount of CO2 to rise rapidly.

d. There is no doubt that in the past, CO2 and temperature have moved together.

e. There might be some doubt about which causes which.

f. There is no doubt that the Sun is more active now than it has been for many centuries.

On 31-Jan-2007 I wrote "Humans, Cycles, Sun or Ice-ages - What affects our climate most?" and referred to an article from Cycles Research Institute" which looked at different time scales and what climate was doing and might be expected to do.

On 4-Feb-2007 I quoted James Lovelock on Climate Change said of the IPCC report "Quite simply, it’s very stark: it says that by around 2040 to 2050, the European summer of 2003 (where over 20,000 people died of overheating) will be the norm."

And today I have quoted Sally Baliunas as saying "After looking at this, I began to ask, How well do the climate simulations handle this relatively new knowledge about the sun? And the answer is, not very well. We don't know the mechanism for change in the sun very well. We don't know the response of the earth to such changes. So I thought, How do you make predictions 100 years in the future if you don't even know what all the sources of change are?"

And also today I quoted New Scientist as reporting in 2003 that "The Sun is more active now than it has been for a millennium."

It is hard to reconcile all of this. Let us consider all the possibilities.

1. Human activity and Solar activity are coincidentally both increasing lately.
2. The Sun affects human activity.
3. Human activity affects the Sun.
4. Something else affects both the Sun and Human activity.

My personal view is that 1 can be dismissed and that 3 should be considered very unlikely. There is quite a lot of reason to believe that 2 has some validity, since Chizhevsky has shown that number of battles in wars rise to a peak at fairly regular 11 year intervals just as the Sun does. Furthermore, there is evidence that links solar activity to terrestrial electromagnetic disturbances and those to human behavioural changes, especially accidents.

There are not many people who would have suggested 4 above, and most of the other ones that I know of are dead. It is difficult to distinguish between 2 and 4, so it is perhaps a moot point. Perhaps I will expand on this another time. The key point is that 1 is not true. Human activity and Solar activity are far from unrelated. Such an idea is unlikely to be popular with scientists, belonging more with new age ideas perhaps. But things are changing.

Then we have to consider whether the one, the other or both are affecting the climate. Or then again whether the hidden cause of both is doing it. To those that think that I am just rambling, I would highly recommend reading The Case for Cycles by Edward R. Dewey. In this, the most definitive report on knowledge in cycles, he states that we cannot understand any branches of science without the study of cycles. This is because there are relationships where humans just do not expect them. Dewey was not at all New Agey, and took very solid scientific advice before reaching his conclusions. A must read for anyone who would understand the world we live in.

See Also:
Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
Humans vs Sun as cause for climate change
Astronomer Sallie Baliunas on sunspots, global warming, ...
Global Warming - Humans and/or the Sun? ... and more!
Sun more active than for a millennium
Sally Baliunas inteviewed on Solar Fluctuations and Global Warming
Interview: James Lovelock on Climate Change
Humans, Cycles, Sun or Ice-ages - What affects our climate most?
Sun's fickle heart may leave us cold

Long term sunspot activity shows a rise in the last century - the sun is now very active

The Sun is more active now than it has been for a millennium. The realisation, which comes from a reconstruction of sunspots stretching back 1150 years, comes just as the Sun has thrown a tantrum. Over the last week, giant plumes of have material burst out from our star's surface and streamed into space, causing geomagnetic storms on Earth.

The dark patches on the surface of the Sun that we call sunspots are a symptom of fierce magnetic activity inside. Ilya Usoskin, a geophysicist who worked with colleagues from the University of Oulu in Finland and the Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, has found that there have been more sunspots since the 1940s than for the past 1150 years.

Sunspot observations stretch back to the early 17th century, when the telescope was invented. To extend the data farther back in time, Usoskin's team used a physical model to calculate past sunspot numbers from levels of a radioactive isotope preserved in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica.
Global warming

Ice cores provide a record of the concentration of beryllium-10 in the atmosphere. This is produced when high-energy particles from space bombard the atmosphere, but when the Sun is active its magnetic field protects the Earth from these particles and levels of beryllium-10 are lower.

There was already tantalising evidence that beryllium-10 is scarcer now than for a very long time, says Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford.

But he told New Scientist that when he saw the data converted to sunspot numbers he thought, "why the hell didn't I do this?" It makes the conclusion very stark, he says. "We are living with a very unusual sun at the moment."

The findings may stoke the controversy over the contribution of the Sun to global warming. Usoskin and his team are reluctant to be dragged into the debate, but their work will probably be seized upon by those who claim that temperature rises over the past century are the result of changes in the Sun's output (New Scientist, print edition, 12 April 2003). The link between the Sun's magnetic activity and the Earth's climate is, however, unclear.

Journal reference: Physical Review Letters (in press in Nov 2003)

See Also:
Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
Humans vs Sun as cause for climate change
Global Warming - Humans and/or the Sun? ... and more!
Sun more active than for a millennium
Interview: James Lovelock on Climate Change
Humans, Cycles, Sun or Ice-ages - What affects our climate most?
Sun's fickle heart may leave us cold

2 Feb 2007
By Christine Carter
Page 2 of 6 (go to article to read other 5 pages)

FS: Has global warming ever happened before?

JL: The climate change we’re seeing now is closely similar to a geological event that occurred 55 million years ago, at the beginning of the period geologists refer to as the Eocene. We’re not quite certain how, but about two million million tons of carbon dioxide came into the Earth’s atmosphere over a period of about 10,000 years. I think the most likely cause was a volcanic sill: lava underground from a volcano coming up beneath a petroleum deposit in what is now the Norwegian Sea. This vaporised practically the whole deposit and put a huge quantity of carbon into our atmosphere.

FS: What would the climate be like without humans?

JL: If we had never developed as an intelligent species, the climate right now would probably be moving slowly back towards the next glaciation. There’s some debate about that: some think the present interglacial era would go on a bit longer this time, perhaps as long as 50,000 years. But sooner or later we would be going back into an ice age again. Now we will not: by putting so much carbon in the atmosphere, we have irreversibly changed the Earth. We won’t have another ice age, not at least for another 200,000 years.

FS: What can we expect to see in 20 or 30 years from now?

JL: I can speak not just from my own view, but from the opinions expressed by senior climatologists who have represented their thoughts in a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The last one was in 2001, but the update is due in 2007 [February 2nd] and I’ve seen it. Quite simply, it’s very stark: it says that by around 2040 to 2050, the European summer of 2003 (where over 20,000 people died of overheating) will be the norm. People might be able to deal with the consequences: they may go away for the summer to cooler places or they can turn up the air conditioning. But for the plants and the ecosystems, there’s no such relief. European agriculture will probably cease to produce food by then, it will become a desert and scrub region. And the rest of the world will not be exempt: Asia and America will be suffering the same consequences, as will Africa and the nations of the southern hemisphere. We will be entering a world where food supply becomes more and more scarce and there will be mass migrations. Anyone with an imagination can see the awful human consequences of that, and we’re talking about something which is only about 30 years ahead.

See Also:
Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
Humans vs Sun as cause for climate change
Astronomer Sallie Baliunas on sunspots, global warming, ...
Global Warming - Humans and/or the Sun? ... and more!
Sun more active than for a millennium
Sally Baliunas inteviewed on Solar Fluctuations and Global Warming
Interview: James Lovelock on Climate Change
Humans, Cycles, Sun or Ice-ages - What affects our climate most?
Sun's fickle heart may leave us cold

Following is a list of cycles that have been named after people.
Are there any more that anyone knows of that have names
of people or other names?

Milankovitch 100,000 and 41,000 and 23,000 years
(also perhaps 400,000 years)

Halstatt 2,300 years*

de Vries 207 years

Gleissberg 80 to 90 years

Kondratieff 53 to 54 years

Brucker 36 years*

Hale 22 years

Kuznets 18 years

Schwabe 11 years

Juglar 9 years

Kitchin ~4 year
(maybe a cluster of cycle lengths 3.39, 3.95, 4.45 years)

* These two cycles are not commonly known by these names
but there are references on www to them.

There has been a steady campaign to delete articles and categories relating to cycles from wikipedia, sometimes preceded by an effort to make them factually incorrect so that they are more worthy of deletion. I will deal with a single instance here, the deletion of the category:cycles.

The person proposing deletion (AFAIK because the detail is gone) was "Delete. No argument. siafu 23:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)" who obviously gives no reason why there should not be a category called cycles.

The deletion article above finished with the comment "# Closing note. Discounted sock-puppet votes. 5 total, 4 del, 1 keep. ∞Who?¿? 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)" which is presumably supposed to show that justice was done. Well I have counted the votes in the article and there are 5 for keep and 3 for delete. That is a majority for keep. The accusation of sock puppets is one made repeatedly in trying to delete cycles articles and has been specifically directed at me in the past. For those that do not know what a sock puppet is, it is a made up login to wikipedia that is really the same person, created for the purpose of double voting. I have never done this and I am pretty sure that there are no sock puppets involved in this case because I know a number of the names from an interdisciplinary cycles discussion forum (which exists and has 400 members in spite of the fact that these people claim there is no such area of study).

If there are sock puppets involved, the procedure that talleys votes should say who they are so they have a chance to reply otherwise the vote is simply being tampered with. I challenge those that run these things in wikipedia to account for their actions. This is not an isolated case.

The only validity to the arguments given for deletion was that several of the articles perhaps should not have been in the category. However given that being corrected (the obvious correct decision rather than deleting the category) the category did satisfy the stated objective of the reason for inclusion in the category being obvious.

A subsequent category:cycle was created and suffered a similar fate, largely because the deleters move in droves together and get something deleted before those who know about the subject are even aware of it. They even have clubs for organising these deletions. The argument put forward for deletion of this category was "Aside from the fact that these things occur in cycles, they have nothing in common". Well you might say that apart from all being countries, what do category:country have in common or any other category. That is the whole point of a category isn't it?

The wikipedia article on Edward R. Dewey has, like many other cycles related pages, been a battle ground. You can read the talk page to see some of it. In this case, material was repeatedly inserted regarding a book by Philip Ball called "Critical Mass: how one thing leads to another" which purported to be a criticism of Dewey. In fact, Ball did not mention Dewey and simply criticised economists ideas on the business cycle. Dewey also criticised economic methods and was an economist himself to begin with.

I did go to the trouble of getting a copy of Ball's book and found it interesting. Ball, like myself, is a generalist in an age of specialists. His broad sweep is generally well presented, although his little bit on cycles I found was somewhat weak. At one time I posted this in the Dewey talk page:
And yet this is done on the basis that a graph of national per capita output "looks more like the random static of a detuned radio signal" than a cycle [quote from Ball]. He has done no analysis and is only guessing. Perhaps you would care to show a reference to where Dewey claims that national per capital production has a cycle in it? You can see a number of examples of Dewey's and Schumpeter's presentation of cycles analysis on the page http://ray.tomes.biz/dewey.htm including a clear 9 year cycle in wholesale prices from USA, Britain and Germany that shows the same phase and regular 9 year cycle for all three countries. Perhaps you would care to explain why this is wrong based on Ball's speculation on different data.

I was therefore interested in the notes in another blog:
Fisking Dave Altig (Philip Ball Responds) and Fisking Philip Ball. I thought Ball responded well, accepting some of the criticism and getting the favour returned. It is a pity that the wikipedia discussions did not fare quite so well, although I did find the one academic who got involved to have a better manner.

I have noticed that trees sway in the wind in fairly regular rhythms and other people have mentioned this to me also. Measurements of wind speed show that there are cyclical bursts of wind. Studies done on this show that wind speed commonly has periods present of 14, 28 and 39-40 seconds as well as 40-45 and 80-85 minutes. When there is rain a 6 minute period is also found.

All of these periods are known from other studies related to weather and earth processes.

Waves in the sea very often show periods around 13 seconds and sometimes also doublings and halvings of this - 6.5, 3.25 and 26, 51 and 102 seconds. Very large waves in the sea occur at 20 minute intervals which I learned from my surfie friend Mountain Man.

Periods of 80 and 160 minutes and 3 and 6 minutes are all pervading periods of the solar system and living things. Sometimes 40 and 20 minutes are also found. These periods are not just limited to the earth or solar system but the 160 minute oscillation is reported even in other galaxies by Russian astronomers.