Monday, August 8th 2011, 3:57 PM EDT

A puzzling issue in the whole climate change affair is why did climate change scientists on both sides of the fence deliberately ignore the role of variations in received solar energy on the Earth's climate? The oscillating consequences have been observed and studied for more than 100 years, yet the IPCC reports continue to maintain that the Earth's climate is a steady-state phenomenon and that the consequences of variations in solar activity are far less than the influence of greenhouse gas emissions for which there is no believable evidence at all.My recent memos were written in easy to read layman's language. Now the time has come to dig a little deeper.The attached report was produced by my colleague David Bredenkamp. He is an experienced hydro-geologist. You may have difficulty in understanding his contribution if you are not technically minded. In this case I suggest that you read the abstract and then glance through the 15 figures in his report. Each and every one of them demonstrates a very clear oscillating behaviour. How on earth is it possible that scientists in the field of climate change can maintain that the Earth's climate is a steady-state phenomenon when all the evidence is to the contrary?Until now, the difficulty was in establishing the causal linkage between climatic variations and variations in received solar energy. In the attached report David Bredenkamp solves the problem. All that I ask is that you read the abstract of his report and then compare it with the extracts from Chapter 2 of the IPCC’s assessment report that I quoted in an earlier memo then draw your own conclusions.I realise that at this stage the views of five of us acting independently and without any research funding, may have little impact but here's another analogy. The world has come to the edge of a precipice on this climate change issue. One step further and it will tumble down the cliff. It will be forced to revise its position or suffer the consequences. Hopefully our memos will assist it to retreat with dignity.I find it extremely difficult (impossible) to believe that experienced scientists and their institutions can maintain that human activities can have a greater influence on global climate than variations in received solar energy and its storage and redistribution via the atmospheric and oceanic processes.Compare David's report with the following ‘understanding’ in the IPCC reports. In simple terms their understanding is as follows.1.Like the ancient Egyptians they have great difficulty in presenting a three-dimensional view on a two-dimensional surface.2.This forces them to maintain that the earth is flat like a huge pancake. Unlike our globe, their pancake has no equator nor polar regions. Most of its surface is not covered by water.3.Their fundamental error is the assumption that the earth's climate is driven by global temperature. But the sun does not radiate heat. It only becomes heat energy when it strikes your body when you are sunbathing on the beach, or strikes exposed water surfaces. This heat energy is converted to other forms as the evaporated water rises into the atmosphere.4.All those power lines that criss-cross the country do not convey heat energy. Their temperature is the same as that of the surrounding air.5.The temperature of water in a dam used to generate hydropower does not change as it moves through the power generators. The generators convert potential energy related to the dam's elevation to electrical energy. Temperature plays no part in the process.6.The energy that you use when performing a physical task is not related to the temperature of your body.There are many more examples.7.It is energy in its various forms that drives global climatic processes not temperature. Human influences are no more relevant than those of ants in an ant hill.8.9.They then go even further. There is a fourth dimension -- time. The Earth's climate changes continually with time. All that is needed to appreciate this is the daily weather forecasts on TV. No successive forecasts are exactly the same. The climate change believers are lost when considering this key dimension.10.These scientists are completely ignorant of the fact that energy is like water -- it can only flow downhill. There has to be an energy gradient. The fundamentally important energy gradient is from the equator towards the poles. Solar energy received on Earth does not stay where it is but moves towards the poles via the global atmospheric and oceanic processes, radiating energy back into space along the way. There is not much left by the time that it reaches the polar regions. So how will enough surplus energy reach Antarctica to melt all those cubic kilometres of solid ice when there is not enough surplus energy to melt the snow from the top of Mt Kilimanjaro on the equator?11.This means that the further the region is from the equator, the greater the proportion of the available energy will come from the lower latitudes. This means that Europe for example receives more second-hand energy from lower latitudes to the south than directly from the Sun.12.One very important observation that Dave makes in his report is that energy, like water, can be stored and released from storage just like water in a dam. He shows this in turn accounts for much of the climate’s oscillatory behaviour.13.Energy takes several forms during the climatic processes. Heat energy is only one of them. Another fundamental and vitally important error made by climate change scientists as shown in the IPCC documents, is the use of temperature which is a measure of heat energy, instead of energy in all its forms.14.Compare the frequent reference to ‘temperature’ in the IPCC documents with the correct use of ‘energy’ in David’s presentation.The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt, storage and redistribution of solar energy and its eventual radiation back into space. If the interest is in climatic changes from whatever cause, the essential first step is to establish the baseline condition. Even the most cursory examination of hydro-climatic records demonstrates the presence of an oscillating behaviour. This has been known since biblical times.Further examination shows that these observations are mainly but not entirely closely synchronous with sunspot activity which in turn is caused by processes within the Sun itself. In the attached report David examines the causes of the oscillatory behaviour in detail.With all this in mind we must ask a fundamental question. Why were these basic scientific requirements and observations not addressed by all those scientists referenced in the IPCC's assessment reports? Was it through ignorance or for research funding? Or were there other influences at play?Recent events provide some clues. The first is the softening of the previous highly aggressive views of the Royal Society and the BBC in favour of global warming. Probable causes for their change of attitude are that the global climate is not behaving as predicted in the alarmist reports. The other is the growing volume of critical views on the Internet. These are the scientific grounds for their softened approach.The other more worrying event was the failed attempt by the developed nations to involve the UN Security Council. What prompted them to do this despite the certainty that it would upset the developing nations and their scientific advisers? Their action was obviously for political and economic reasons.Everybody should appreciate that this is a vitally important matter. The lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of people are at stake particularly those in the developing nations of Africa.For example, the world is now witnessing the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Horn of Africa. Our published studies showed that this event was predictable. However, the delayed response by the UN agencies shows that my UN commissioned study Risk and Society – an African Perspective published in 1999, and our predictions published in 2008 were ignored. The IPCC prediction methodology is fundamentally incapable of producing this information.Is it not obvious that poverty reduction should be the world’s priority and not the unproven and politically motivated pressures exerted by the affluent nations? Are we not witnessing the resurrection of another form of human slavery? Otherwise how would you explain the UN approved military intervention in Libya in the name of democracy and complete absence of intervention in Somalia where tens of thousands have already died of starvation and disease while no stable form of government exists? Have the affluent western nations no shame?NATO’s intervention in Libya has already resulted in appreciable damage to Libya’s economy. Many hundreds of foreign workers have fled the country. Surely the grounds for intervention in Somalia are far greater than those used to justify military intervention in Libya. Why has this not happened?If you have a deep interest in the climate change issue then I strongly recommend that you compare David's report with Chapter 2 of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report with its many contributors, lead authors and review editors. Then read David’s concluding remarks with which I am in full agreement.The predicted impacts of global warming and other consequences will remain speculative and will be subject to serious criticism unless the global climate models incorporate the cyclical responses and the correlations of any energy imbalances shown to be linked to the planetary interacting forces.Hopefully the Durban conference will see some solutions to this very difficult situation. I am sure that all those closely involved with the conference appreciate that if it fails the UNFCCC and the IPCC will sink with it. Climate change believers and their institutions should seriously consider their probable positions when this happens. The media will not have far to go to find scapegoats.This ends my contribution to this difficult issue that has occupied much of my time during the past 40 years.As always please feel free to distribute this very important email as widely as possible.Regards,Willby D B BredenkampIt is confirmed in this paper that variations in solar activity are a dominant cause of cyclical variations in global climate. Although there are many papers and publications on this subject in the literature, a viable explanation of the physical mechanism and interaction responsible for the sudden change from multiyear drought sequences to multiyear sequences of high rainfall and floods is presented.It is demonstrated using examples of long South African rainfall, river flow and groundwater records that during dry periods surplus incoming solar energy is stored in the oceans. Triggering mechanisms associated with variations in solar activity initiate the sudden release of this energy into the atmosphere via enhanced evaporation processes. These then initiate sub-continental scale atmospheric energy redistribution which affect above average/flooding and severe droughts. This continues until the excess energy stored in the oceans is depleted and conditions return to a state of below average rainfall. This cyclical variability is repeated with a slight delayed hydrological response in synchrony with the sunspot cycles.These processes are predictable and should assist in future water resource development and management. Furthermore, global climate models that do not accommodate these oscillating cyclical impacts could be subject to serious criticism.As a follow-up to the publication on the link between the solar interactions of the planets orbiting the sun (Bailey, 2006) and evidence of a 21 year periodicity of rainfall, river flow and floods, corresponding to the double sunspot cycle (Alexander et al 2007), new results and perspectives are presented. Monthly data of the river flow in the Vaal and Gariep Rivers, the response of the groundwater levels of the Wondergat sinkhole, and rainfall data from the Pretoria and Wondergat areas (see localities - Fig. 1) were analyzed as further verification of the link to the solar impact. All of these data sets are representative of rainfall conditions in the central and north-western part of the RSA.The combined interactions of the planets were calculated according to a simplified model and the hydrological responses were compared with the time-varying sunspot numbers in order to;• Provide further evidence of the linkage to the earth’s climate and to provide a conceptual model to link the sun’s activity with the clouds as reflectors and the ocean as absorber and store of the un-reflected energy, which mediates the redistribution of energy through variable precipitation and ocean currents.• Promote the use of the solar relationship for improved longer-term predictions of cyclical rainfall variations, better planning and management of the water resources of South Africa, and to• Encourage further validation and use of the relationship in other regions of Africa and the world. Around the Pacific Ocean, it seems that changes in the ocean currents and sunspot activity are understood in our present state of ignorance.Fig. 1 - Locality map of sites referenced in the present study.The new model accords with the views and studies of Bailey (2006), Alexander(2005) and Alexander et al (2007) that the solar impact is linked to the variable motion of the planets and the sun. Gravity governs the acceleration and deceleration of the planets in their nearly elliptical orbits. Newton’s law of gravity states that the gravitational forces of the planets vary according to the ratio of their masses divided by the square of the distances to the sun during their orbiting around the SSCM (Solar System Centre of Mass). According to Newton’s third law of motion the gravitational forces of the planets are counteracted by the sun’s gravity. The consequent orbiting motions of the sun and planets are interlinked in a regime of apparent chaotic equilibrium that has been dynamically stable for millions of years. The impact-forces of the planets are counteracted by the sun’s attraction that exerts an opposing gravitational force to balance the motion of the planets according to an interlinked equilibrium that was established over millions of years. In view of the different orbiting times of the planets around the SSCM their relative alignment determined whether the forces they exert are in tandem or opposed to that of Jupiter, which as the most massive planet accounts for 74% of the planetary gravitational forces. (See Table 1).The rationale (Alexander, Bredenkamp) is that the variable sunspot numbers are for the interim reliable indicators of the effects of the gravitational forces on the sun, and thus reflects the cyclical variability of the energy accepted or absorbed by the earth from the sun. Most of the energy is temporarily stored in the ocean. The solar factor (Bailey) is the strength of the solar wind and its magnetic field that effects the impingement of cosmic rays into the atmosphere, and thereby governs the cloud formation and reflection of simple solar thermal electromagnetic radiation from clouds. Therefore the sunspots are probably a reliable proxy for the amount of solar wind. It has been widely accepted since the investigation of Lord Kelvin that direct simple thermal electromagnetic irradiation from the sun varies too little to account for the weather effects on earth resulting from the interacting forces, and provide a measure of the variable energy output of the sun, of which a portion is primarily absorbed by the oceans which plays an integral part in its redistribution by rainfall, the ocean and currents. Depending on the energy status of the oceans a varying redistribution of this energy by rainfall is effected according to the controlling atmospheric processes at any time. Based on the cyclical variation of the sunspots as an indicator of the reactivity of the sun, Alexander (2005) has established that the best correlation with high floods is manifested at intervals corresponding to the double 11 year sunspot cycle. No explanation for non-coincident flooding with the in-between 11-year solar cycle was presented, although a statistical significant correlation between the double sunspot cycle and the recurrence of floods in the Vaal River was established (Alexander 2005). The effect was linked to the transition from low to high sunspot numbers associated with the double sunspot cycle, but no explanation of the cause was given. A major drive to implement the relationship for more effective planning and management of the water resources, was however promoted, even though the complex interrelationship was not yet fully understood.Although the interrelationship appear to be complex, the application with regard to cyclical occurrence of floods and droughts for more effective planning and management of the water resources were strongly advocated by Alexander and associated colleagues. Opposing views that the solar link lacks a supportive scientific basis, prompted the presentation of this conceptual model of the interactions that would hopefully change the views of sceptics. Therefore the premise of the present investigation was that• The variable gravity interaction is the factor governing the number of sunspots, which can be linked to the cyclical variations of the rainfall, runoff and groundwater level fluctuations, which are the natural processes to equalize energy imbalances.• The hydrological responses present the outcome of the redistribution of energy stored in the oceans by rainfall as a major mechanism to restore cyclical energy variations caused by solar interactions, which impact the energy status of the ocean.• It provides a conceptual basis interlinking the energy status of the oceans, as the main receptor and storage tank of energy, with observed climatic responses. Admittedly the processes controlling the climate are complex and involve different components e.g. radiation, reflection, pressure systems, the formation of cyclones and precipitation; all being part of the redistribution of the energy imbalances that are interlinked with that of the oceans.• Verification by means of an analysis of hydrological series of rainfall, runoff and groundwater in South Africa the existence of and reasoning behind, a link with the sunspot cycle.• Providing reasonable explanations to account for discrepancies in the hydrological responses that appear to be contradictory to the expected solar impact. It provides a logical explanation of the combined impact of all the circulating planets around the sun and why the double sunspot cycle affects a higher hydrological response.The new simplified model determines the planetary interactions, which have been simulated according to their orbital positions as configured on August 1977 and August 1989, when the gravity force of Jupiter was opposing that of the other planets. The first date represents the positions of the planets in relation to the sun at the launch of the Satellite Voyager 2 and the second date served as a check that the orbital movement of the planets in the model has remained synchronized in time (Bailey 2006).According to the annual orbiting time of the earth (365.25 days equalling 360 degrees) the varying impact of the planets was derived from their orbital positions for each earthly month over a period of about 100 years. The variation of the relative gravity impacts was calculated according to a cosine function which yielded values between 1, 0 and -1 for 0 to 360 degrees, for a coordinate system with the X axis taken along the line linking Jupiter and the sun in August 1977. These cosine values were multiplied by the ratio of the planets’ masses divided by the square of their distances from the SSCM to obtain the combined gravitational effect of the planets on the sun (see Table 1). The sum total of the planetary impacts for every month represents the varying solar influence, which was compared with data of the runoff, rainfall and groundwater level responses.The impact of the combined planetary interaction for the period 1901 to 2015 is shown in Fig. 2. This indicates an average cyclical variation of about 10.1 years due to the predominance of the large mass of Jupiter, which has an average orbital time of 11.8 years. The relative impacts of Venus, Saturn and Earth having a combined influence of about 20% in comparison to Jupiter’s impact of 74% are also shown in Table 1.Table 1. Comparison of the distances and masses of the planets and their impacts on the sun.Fig. 2 shows an overall good comparison between the simulated planetary solar impacts and the sunspot cycles for the period 1903 to 1918 but thereafter it goes out of phase but by 1967 the cycles are again synchronized. The discrepancy could be attributed to the simplistic planetary model that was used, having applied a fixed coordinate system and not incorporating the elliptical orbits of the planets.Although the oscillating gravitation response is not completely synchronous with the sunspot cycles, it provides sufficient evidence showing gravity to be the likely governing force affecting the variable energy output of the sun. The rationale is similar to that of the ocean tides which is predominantly governed by the gravity of the moon. In the same way the gaseous plasma surrounding the sun is surmised to be distorted, thereby causing cyclical variations of the reactivity and emissions of the sun’s nuclear furnace. For this reason the hydrological responses were examined only in comparison with the cycles of the sunspot numbers assuming them to represent the reactivity and the energy output of the sun. Although the sun’s energy fluctuations are small their cyclical recurrence should imprint a corresponding variation of the energy status of the ocean, which controls the hydrological responses.Fig. 2 - Simulated response of the gravity impact of the planets on the sun in comparison to the sunspot cycles.Fig. 3 shows the reasonable comparison between the flows into the Vaal Dam in relation to the planetary gravitational interaction on the sun and Fig. 4 the relationship of the Pretoria rainfall to the planetary forces.Fig. 3. Comparison of the 12 month moving solar impact plotted against the 12 month moving average runoff into Vaal DamFig. 5 - Comparison of the 12 month moving solar impact plotted against the 24 month moving rainfall over 24 months.A simple spreadsheet model was compiled to improve the general understanding of the interaction between the solar input of energy and the retention of part of it in the oceans from where the variable redistribution of energy by rainfall is being controlled via the atmospheric processes. The model shows the response of the seasonal fluctuations (pertaining to the southern hemisphere) superimposed on an 11 year cyclical (sinusoidal) energy input from the sun. Starting from a depleted energy status that usually follows a main period of energy redistribution, the time-varying response of the energy accumulation in the oceans could thus be simulated.Fig. 6 shows the seasonal fluctuations of the variable energy levels in the ocean at five-year intervals over a period of 22 years, assuming that on average one thirtieth of the monthly energy is retained in the ocean because of the lagged seasonal response (January and not December being the hottest month). After the first 11 year cycle the energy level would have recovered to a relative value of about 1.25 which is less than the level of about 1.65 that would be attained by year 22. This indicates that the potential energy for dissipation by year 11 would be smaller than that at the end of the double sunspot cycle.Fig. 6 - A presentation of the annual variation of the energy absorption over a period of two periods of 11 years according to the seasonal radiation input for South Africa.The triggering of the energy-release mechanism from the ocean could be compared to a siphon that is activated according to the energy status of the reservoir. It will only dissipate energy according to the controlling mechanism and energy status of the reservoir. Once operational, the energy spillage (high rainfall) will continue until the energy reservoir is depleted sufficiently to interrupt the redistribution of the energy. The next build-up of the energy will then resume when conditions satisfy the release of energy. Fig. 6 indicates that the sun-ocean energy balance will on average be in phase with the cyclical periodicity of the influx of solar radiation, which will affect the highest rainfalls and runoff after the second 11 year period on account of the exponential relationship, in relation to the higher energy status of the ocean reservoir at that time, in comparison to the 11 year cycle. ( The response is not direct but incurs a delay which is less in the case of rainfall but larger if compared to the runoff and groundwater level responses).The higher rainfall would be sustained until the energy levels of the ocean are depleted to the level where the energy dissipation is interrupted until a new cycle is completed. If subnormal rainfall continues beyond the normal cyclical 11 year release time, the accumulated energy levels have either not yet reached the required levels to trigger higher rainfall, or interference of the normal releasing mechanism (atmospheric conditions) have occurred e.g. by releases of large volcanic ash emissions, which reduces the energy transfer by rainfall and could cause severe drought to occur. Similarly high sea temperatures could trigger the occurrences of cyclones, which act as localized abnormal energy siphons to affect catastrophic high or low rainfall impacts in different regions.The sunspot numbers representing oscillations of the planetary impact were compared with flow data from the Vaal and Gariep rivers, as well as with the groundwater level response of the Wondergat, a sinkhole in the NW region. The runoff and Wondergat data series present the integrated hydrological response from rainfall over large catchment areas. These correspond to the average rainfall variations over 24 to 36 months, which provide a better comparison with the solar impacts than the monthly rainfall measurements of a single stationFig. 7 shows that the overall oscillations of the12 month moving runoff of the Vaal River (plotted on a log-scale) correspond reasonably well with the trend of the fluctuating sunspot numbers. As expected from its exponential relationship to rainfall, the 12 month runoff responses (Fig. 7) fluctuates much more than the average runoff over 24 months (Fig. 8) which accords with the sunspot cycles. However some outliers, which are more extreme than the predicted responses do occur, e.g. the extremely low runoff that occurred in 1982/3 and 1992/3 in comparison with the sunspot fluctuations. These extremely low runoff events are attributed to the impacts of the Mt St Helens and Mt Pinatubo volcanic eruptions, which respectively occurred in 1980 and 1991. These eruptions released masses of debris and dust particles into the stratosphere, which reduced the energy input received from the sun to cause a large deficiency in rainfall over South Africa.Fig. 7 - A comparison between the variable sunspot cycles and the monthly runoff as derived from the water balance of the Vaal Dam.Fig 7 also indicates that the statistical validation between the runoff and the 22 year (double) sunspot cycle can be attributed to the exponential rainfall-runoff- response relationship. It is evident from Fig. 6 and 7 that higher than normal runoff would still occur during the in-between 11 year sunspot cycles but are not as prominent as that at the 22 year cycle, because of the lower energy status at the end of the 11 year period. This is in accordance with the illustration presented by Fig. 6 which could explain the pattern of a lower response after 11 years followed by higher rainfall by the next 11 year cycle.This synchronized response following the sunspot cycles could be disrupted for example, by the impact of volcanic eruptions. The normal cyclical pattern would however be restored when the energy deficit is replenished. The amplitudes of the sunspots cycles show reasonable agreement with the trend of the runoff values plotted on a log scale (Fig. 7), however Fig. 8 indicates that the runoffs averaged over 24 months show better synchronized agreement with the sunspot cycles overall.Fig. 8 - The relationship beween the sunspot cycles and the 24 month moving average inflow into the Vaal Dam, showing a clear cyclical response.Thus any period of subnormal regional rainfall corresponds to the effect resulting from a depletion of energy by the ocean. The underlying premise therefore is that the 11 year hydrological responses are governed by the energy levels of the oceans, which although lagging, on average are in balance with the fluctuating energy input from the sun. The already low runoff that occurred during the period 1980 to 1985 have declined more than expected because of the eruption of Mt St Helens and the similarly in 1992/3 by the eruption of Mt Pinatubo. The affect of the volcanic eruptions is a complicating factor that overrides the solar cyclical pattern but apparently also occur at closely the same time. If the sea temperatures during the energy accumulation phase exceed a critical level it could trigger the occurrence of tropical cyclones in the Mozambique Channel. These cyclones usually develop after a continued period of sub-normal rainfall in the inland, because of the stationary high pressure which then prevails over the interior of the country. The cyclones then constitute the most effective way to equalize the energy imbalances that have accrued at the timeFig. 9 depicts that the 24 month average runoff totals of the Gariep Dam do not correspond as well as the Vaal River runoff with the solar impact in accordance with the sunspot cycles. The agreement would have been good up to 1967 had it not been for the mismatch of 1944, which features as an outlier in all the other cases. A similar anomaly is evident in 1977, but could have occurred due to the energy imbalance following the subnormal runoff that was experienced in the preceding 11 year period.Fig. 9. The relationship between the sunspot cycles and the 24 month moving average of the inflow into the Gariep Dam.The runoff and sunspot cycles show clear cyclical comparisons from 1958 until 2007. This indicates that lower or close to average runoff could have been expected in 2008, but thereafter higher runoffs and even floods would have occurred following the rise in the sunspot numbers by 2009 to 2010. This stresses the need for further verification of the link with the solar impact to be used for improved management of the water resources.The groundwater level fluctuations, especially in large karst aquifers represent the integrated recharge resulting from rainfall that has occurred over a large area. The Wondergat, a sinkhole in the karst system has a long record of the groundwater level fluctuations dating back to1922. The water level fluctuations correspond to the moving average rainfall over two and three years (Bredenkamp 2000), which smooth the spatial and short-term temporal variability of rainfall (see Fig. 10).Fig. 10 - Fluctuations of the groundwater levels of the Wondergat in relation to the sunspot cycles.The groundwater levels clearly correspond best to a log-normal plot in comparison to the 11 year sunspot variations (Fig. 10). As was indicated for the Vaal River flow data, the levels of the Wondergat in 1944 also featured as an out-of-phase response in comparison with the sunspot cycles. Likewise the detrimental impact of volcanic ashes (released by the eruption of the Pinatubo volcano in 1982) was delayed by sustained inflow from the preceding high inflow into the Wondergat compartment from higher-lying aquifers. This prolonged the manifestation of the decline of the water level past the upturn of the sunspot cycle in 1989. The fact that the water levels of the Wondergat always decline to the same minimum before recovering, provides confirmation that it represents the point of maximum energy accumulation in the controlling ocean reservoir. This also corresponds with the triggering point for higher releases of energy in the form of higher rainfall. The reason why the response of groundwater levels after 22 years is not as prominent as the runoff in relation to the 11 year cycles of the Vaal River is because its smaller exponential factor.As further verification of the link between the sunspot cycles and the hydrological responses, the average rainfall of 5 stations in the Pretoria area and 3 stations in the vicinity of the Wondergat were compared to the sunspot fluctuations.Fig. 11. The average monthly rainfall of five stations in the Pretoria area plotted in relation to the sunspot cycle.Fig. 11 shows large fluctuation in the 12 month rainfall totals in relation to the variability of the sunspot activity. Fig. 12 presents a more smoothed rainfall series that showed better comparison with the sunspot cycles, as obtained by plotting the 24 month rainfall totals prior to a specific month. The impact of the Mount St Helens and Mt Pinuthoba volcanic eruptions on the rainfall however has also affected the normal solar relationship. The extreme low rainfall that occurred in the 1992/1993 season (Fig. 11) is ascribed to the impact of the eruption of Mt Pinatubo. Alternatively, it could also have resulted as an intensified negative response that followed the good rains that peaked in 1988/9, having drained the energy reservoir. The question arises whether the claims of the linkages of rainfall anomalies to the El Nino and La Nina phenomena are in fact the cause or the response-effect associated with the solar cycle. If this could be proven (such temperature variations in the ocean presumably could be measured) it would help to unravel the interactions and their impact on rainfall in the affected regions of South AfricaIt remains to be proven but the occurrences of volcanic eruptions ( and earth quakes) could possibly also linked to the varying gravitational impact of the sun and planets.Fig. 12 - Comparison between the 24-month average rainfall of Pretoria rainfall in relation to the sunspot cycles.As the groundwater levels was shown to respond similar to the average rainfall over 36 months, the water levels are representative of the response of this average rainfall over the recharge area. These showed good correspondence with the sunspot cycles. The averaged rainfall of the 12 month-running total of three stations in the region of the Wondergat (spread over an area of about 400 km2) in relation to the solar impact oscillations is highly variable but shows better correspondence to the average rainfall over 24 months (see Fig. 13). This however confirms the general trend that was manifested for the Pretoria region, which indicates that the extreme high outliers of rainfall are followed by lower than average rainfall and vice versa.Fig. 13. The averaged rainfall over 24 months of the Wondergat area in comparison to the sunspot cycles.The postulation that the hydrological response is related to the highest accumulation of energy in the controlling oceanic reservoir, is evidenced in Fig. 14 showing the best correspondence for the runoff in Vaal Dam lagged in relation to the inverse plot of the sunspot values.Fig. 14 - Improved correspondence between the reversed plotted sunspot cycle and the average Vaal River runoff. Both data sets are averaged over 24 months incorporating a further lag of 18 months in the runoff response.As the sunspot minimum precedes the next upturn of the sunspot values, it provides the key to the postulated triggering that sets off the redistribution of the accumulated energy and its sustained response for the sustained response for the period. Thus the lag between the normal and reversed plotted sunspot values as is illustrated in Fig. 15, is postulated to work in tandem. The maximum build-up of energy in the ocean coincides with the reversed plotted minimum of the original sunspot cycle, which energy release is triggered by the ionizing radiation that concurs with the upturn of the normal sunspot cycle (see Fig.15) with a steep response interaction The sustained impact of the triggering mechanism affects a high rainfall/runoff response, but it gradually decreases as the energy of ocean storage depleted in accordance with the sunspot cycle approaching its minimum. This accounts for the lag between the accumulated energy and triggering produced in accordance with the normal plotted sunspot cycle. This lag is partially included in the lagged hydrological response to the preceding rainfall over a period of between 24 and 36 months.Fig. 15 - An illustration of the triggering produced, according to an unknown mechanism which must be related to the normal sunspot cycle e.g. emission of ionizing solar particles, which activates the release of energy in the form of higher rainfall and varying in accordance reversed plotted sunspot values,. The latter corresponds to the energy status of the ocean.As in the case of the all series, the agreement between the cyclical rainfall variations and the solar impact has to be interpreted in conjunction with the energy response of the ocean and the atmospheric processes that are the main controlling factor for the redistribution of the energy. The high rainfalls that usually occur just after the minimum in the sunspot cycles, is in agreement with a maximum accrual of energy in the ocean reservoir i.e. somewhere in the Indian Ocean. Because of the high energy depletion in the source region resulting after these high rainfall events, the rainfall during the subsequent period will be lower and high rainfall will only recur when the energy of the source area is sufficiently restored.The occurrences of high rainfall events are of vital importance for the replenishment of the surface and groundwater resources of all regions in South Africa. The rainfall patterns in relation to the sunspot cycles therefore provide a semi-quantitative method to anticipate the occurrences of significant longer-term cyclical rainfall responses and floods. Diminishing rainfall could follow the high rainfall periods coinciding with the decline of the sunspot numbers. If higher than normal rainfall is not experienced during the upturn of the sunspot cycle, it is likely that the energy storage of the ocean reservoir has not reached the point that triggers the redistribution of the energy by rainfall. In such cases the expected response should be anticipated soon after, in accordance with the sunspot cycle.Graphs of the rainfall and groundwater level responses in comparison with the sunspot cycles will be of great value to provide a quantitative estimate of the expected rainfalls in the immediate short term and for the duration of the next 11 year period.The successful simulation of the three main hydrological components presented i.e. the responses of runoff, rainfall and the groundwater levels confirms the link with the sunspot cycle, to obtain a qualified prediction of the variability of the hydrological responses. Such interpretations of the rainfall and runoff series would enable water managers to anticipate rainfall changes and to incorporate them in revised management strategies, as was advocated by Alexander (1978, 2005) for many years.The predicted impacts of global warming and other consequences will remain speculative and will be subject to serious criticism unless the global climate models incorporate the cyclical responses and the corrections of any energy imbalances shown to be linked to the planetary interacting forces.The following recommendations are of importance1. Further investigation into the linkage between the solar input and hydrological responses, and the application of the solar responses in groundwater management is essential.2. Examination of district rainfall and runoff data sets should be carried out to verify the trends of rainfall in relation to the sunspot cycle for all of South Africa.3. Likewise the impact of the variable energy input model should be tested for further validation in other areas of Africa and the world. This is essential to improve the management and proactive action that is required to counteract or alleviate catastrophic impacts of anomalous rainfall occurrences.4. Examining the remaining uncertain aspects and the full cause-effect relationship between energy absorption and its dissipation and rainfall response, to gain a clear scientific validation of the planetary interaction on the energy output of the sun. Even without a complete understanding of the interaction, the present results provide sufficient verification for it to be used to improve the management of South African water resources.ReferencesALEXANDER, WJR (1978). Long range prediction of river flow - a preliminary assessment. Technical report TR80, Pretoria, Department of Water Affairs.ALEXANDER, WJR ( 2005). Linkages between solar activity and climatic responses. Energy & Environment, 62(2).ALEXANDER, WJR, BAILEY F, BREDENKAMP DB, VD MERWE A and WILLEMSE J (2007). Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development. Technical paper. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineers Vol 49, No2,.p32-44.