Meet the new Kepler – P.A. Semi

Posted: December 30, 2009 by tallbloke in climate, solar system dynamics
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Well, this guy has beaten the rest of us to the scoop. A small number of researchers including Geoff Sharp, Gerry Pease, Ian Wilson, Ray Tomes, Ulric Lyons, Gray Stevens, Milivoje Vukevic, Paul Vaughan and myself have been working away on the motion of the planets with respect to the solar system barycentre and various  interesting orbital periodicities and resonances. We’ve all found remarkable correlations between various phenomena which hint at a planetary effect on the suns behaviour.

Now Petr Semi Semerad has pulled a lot of things together and discovered the key to the holy grail: the resonances matching the sunspot cycle. But more than that, he has filled the cup to overflowing with a rare vintage of observations which will be keeping us all busy for a long time to come.

Earth - Venus - Jupiter cycle

Earth - Venus - Jupiter cycle

Figure 88 -Earth-Venus-Jupiter cycle compared to Signed Sunspot counts
Series in the chart on fig. 88 are:
- Orange – Real data – Signed sunspot counts (every other cycle is negative or positive)
All other series are computed (from ephemerides), at times of Earth-Venus opposition only:
- Bold green (which matches the Sunspot frequency) – Half of angle between Jupiter and Earth (or to EVB, with center in Sun) during Earth-Venus oppositions, multiplied (scaled vertically) by sinus of Uranus-Neptune angle at these times (to match cycle damping arround 1820 and 1910 of the Gleissberg cycle…The Uranus-Neptune cycle of 178.5 years seems to match the length of twice the Gleissberg cycle, observed in the Sunspot data.)
The damping arround 1650 (little ice age) and unexpectedly large values arround 1990 are due to another influences (matches cycle of overall angular momentum change, see relevant chapter)
- Purple series :  Uranus/Neptune cycle. To avoid a sinus-like symmetric appearance, the angle between those
planets is multiplied by their relative velocity…
- Pink background serie – Tidal angle between Mercury and Jupiter at times of Earth-Venus oppositions.
- Outer blue serie – with connected maximums to show its envelope (see also fig. 89) – Tidal angle between Earth-Venus barycenter and Jupiter, with added or subtracted (with less importance) the Tidal angle between Jupiter and Mercury.
- Bold blue dots at X axis – historical record of “severe winters” in central Europe.

Earth-Moon system angular momentum relative to sunspot cycle

Earth-Moon system angular momentum relative to sunspot cycle

http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf
Download, read and enjoy!

h/t to French-Canadian blogger Simon Filiatrault

Comments
  1. tallbloke" says:

    When Simon posted the link at wattsup, Leif Svalgaard responded with:

    “computing the scalar sum is meaningless.”
    :)

  2. Dear Tallbloke, any ideas why Leif would say that?

    Any links between how the planets, gravity and the sun can affect us, seems to me a very interesting thing to study.

    Have you check this conference and the reference?

    http://simonfiliatrault.blogspot.com/2009/12/world-is-cooling-not-warming-says.html

    Simon

  3. tallbloke says:

    Hi Simon, and thanks for calling by. Yes, I agree with you that it is an interesting thing to study, and I think it will help us understand climate on Earth too.

    Leif Svalgaard does not believe the planets can affect the sun in any measurable way, and that there can not be a physical mechanism to link the motion of the bodies in the solar system to changes in the sun’s behaviour.

    I have exchanged emails with Peter Taylor on two occasions. I think he is very knowledgeable about climate processes and oceanology. he posts occasionally on WUWT too.

  4. tallbloke says:

    If you look across to the right hand side, there is a link to the new site which is replacing that one; Geoff Sharp’s Blog.

    Geoff and I keep in touch and discuss ideas. He has been busy working on the angular momentum issues too. I sent him an email about this post a few hours ago, so maybe he will call by.

  5. Geoff Sharp says:

    Thanks for the email tallbloke, I havent had time to get into it properly yet but the scalar issue may not be important.

    I will come back later once I have had a chance to take it all in.

  6. tallbloke says:

    Hi Geoff, yep, there is a lot packed into that .pdf for sure. Look forward to hearing your comments.

  7. Geoff Sharp says:

    This paper has been evolving over some time, the planet AM values agree with the exercise I performed with Gerry. There is a lot of different aspects to the paper to cover.

    Semi looks to back up the work of Desmoulins and Hung re JEV most aligned days in relation to the 11 yr cycle.

    I disagree with Semi’s findings on the orbit access point of the Jovians. My research suggests its more likely all the planets orbit the Sun. The planet AM graphs using the SSB as axis do not show planetary perturbations which is a show stopper for me.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/67

    Semi notices the Neptune/Uranus retrograde bumps (ptc) but perhaps misses the importance, they are the key to all grand minima.

    Summing the planet AM calc from SSB does not show the true AM in my opinion, but he is showing a modulation of total AM that varies over the centuries as the planets move through their cycle. But without taking into account the strength of the grand minima which can rob high AM the graph is less significant. I have plotted the AM strength in relation to grand minima here:

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/52

    And here showing the wave pattern which is down at a lower level than Semi’s graph.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/6

    Semi’s graph is on the next level showing the background AM strength.

    I believe the mechanical link for solar rotation change has been found and is detailed in this project done recently in conjunction with Gerry. The missing AM has been found and leaves the door open for spin orbit coupling.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/79

  8. Geoff Sharp says:

    I did respond with a rather large comment but it looks to be lost in the ether.

    I have seen this paper before and it is a work in progress…the latest inclusions are interesting.

    While Semi’s work is very similar to my own, as well as Desmoulins and Hung, there are some major differences.

    Semi mentions the Neptune/Uranus retrograde bump (ptc) but perhaps does not see the importance. His AM graph showing the wave created by the differing planet positions each 172 years does not take in the strength of the grand minima of the era. Grand minima can rob the highest AM.

    I prefer to plot the PTC strength as an indicator of solar activity…the overall AM varies little over the centuries.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/52

  9. Geoff Sharp says:

    ok…My comment was found :) wordpress hiccup

  10. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, just rescued your post from the spam bucket – lots of links.

    I’ll go through this again after I’ve slept on it, it’s very late here and my head is spinning.

    Anyone else posting; if it doesn’t appear immediately, use less links or wait until I wake up again!

    Cheers

    Rog

  11. Geoff, what’s going on with “Watts up with that”. I did not follow all the discussion, but from what I see you where kicked out by making comments?

  12. Geoff Sharp says:

    Hi Simon, right from the start of my research Anthony has been against me…so this is just the inevitable outcome. I have been “pushing it” lately because there has been a clamp down on open science that I cannot agree with. Anthony argues its his blog and he decides what is discussed, which with the amount of readers involved smacks of oppression and is not how science should work. The site is bigger than the man.

    I saw it as my duty to correct some of the propaganda that emanates from the Babcock camp, I hope others might step in and fill the void.

    btw Anthony on the whole is doing great work when it comes to AGW.

  13. Geoff and all,

    I will have to spend more time reading, I just “discovered” that research on planetary relations just a few weeks back.

    I have stumble upon some interesting comments here that maybe related to your research.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/climategate-30-years-in-the-making/

    Look for comments: 87, 159, 164, 191
    There are some interesting research mentioned related to the sun – climate connection.

    Also, you may find this interesting: http://wlym.com/drupal/ they have done some work on Kepler, Fermat, Gauss.

    And finally this one from Jaworowski

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Sun_Climate_sp09_01.pdf

    Like I said in my LAW post here: http://simonfiliatrault.blogspot.com/2009/12/laws.html

    The law of scientific equilibrium
    - If it is settled, it is not science.
    - If it is science, it is not settled.

  14. tallbloke says:

    There is some pre-history to the argument about Barycentric-Nonsense(tm) between Leif, myself, a couple of others from the days when Leif was resident solar expert on Climate Audit.
    I have put a followup reply on WUWT, stating the position as I see it. Anthony has threatened me on occasion, though in the main he does uphold the right to reply. There was one instance when…. but no, I don’t want this to turn into a WUWT-bitch, let’s rise above it and continue with our investigation into planetary-solar feedback. I’m going to study Geoff’s earlier reply today and then come back with my own observations.

    Edited to add: My comment hasn’t yet been approved, although later comments have. Just in case it disappears, I’ll reproduce it here for the record:

    tallbloke (03:37:12) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

    anna v (23:01:11) :

    I also am intrigued by out of the box thinking theories, and agree they are fun. They should be though, in a scientific discussion, adhering to the very basic tenets of known physics: energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation. Once they have been demonstrated to violate these basic requirements, and barycentrinc theories of climate and sun control do that, we are talking of science fiction

    There is an ongoing effort to scour the available data for confirmation of the underlying mechanisms for which there are viable hypotheses, as yet untested. Without trying to imply I’m in his league, I understand how Henrik Svensmark feels waiting for CERN to conduct the cloud experiment.

    there is the observation that gravitational systems are giant clocks, i.e. have very specific and predictable functions of time for any kinetic variable …the planets are clocks, but also the collective theoretical point’s motion, the barycenter, is a clock because they follow deterministic solutions of differential equations.

    No they don’t. The solar systems orbiting bodies (including the sun) follow quasi cyclic but ultimately indeterminate courses. This is known physics. The current best guess is that the solar system has settled down to a beat wherein the planetary motions are chaotic, but mostly within bounds which greatly reduce (but do not eliminate) the chance of a collision between major bodies. If you are going to extrapolate in order to attempt a disproof of something (as if that were possible!), you should at least make sure you have your premises correct.

    Leif Svalgaard (21:03:50) :

    tallbloke (15:46:44) :
    Well if you accidentally post ad homs like that one on my blog, I’ll accidentally delete it for you. :-)

    You should pay attention to smileys [and not remove them when you quote something in your zeal to something look bad].

    I bear you no ill will and have no need or desire to make anyone look bad.
    The other comments you have made about Oliver Manuel on this blog would have made your comment look bad even if the smiley had gold teeth in and wore a party hat. The hands you are in are your very own.

    Now, let’s talk sunspots and future solar activity.
    The prediction I made using readily available data seems to be panning out quite well so far. This is one of the tests of real science, can a theory make successful predictions?

    Too early to tell for my models, but at least they are not already falsified. If they stay on course, maybe then people will get more interested in our ideas about what modulates solar surface activity.

    Thanks Anthony for your forbearance, and adherence to the right of free speech and the right to reply. I will continue do my best to keep replies on this topic to a minimum.

  15. tallbloke says:

    OK, I got sidetracked and followed Simon’s link to http://wlym.com/drupal/ where I clicked on http://wlym.com/~animations/ceres/index.html and then the menu item ‘The Kepler Problem’

    What an excellent read, and the conclusion would give Geoff a wry smile about the Anna V’s and Leif Svalgaard’s of this world.

    I like the bit where Liona Fan-Chiang points out that Gauss worked out the orbit of Ceres without any need for Anna V’s picklist of Newtonian ‘fundamental physics’ which had failed to do the job!

    Maybe one avenue for us is to follow Gauss and Kepler’s example and look at the harmonies, proportions and resonances as well as the ‘physical’ quantities such as angular momentum. With his beautiful graphical representations it seems to me that Semi has been thinking along the same lines too.

    Merci Simon! Vive l’imagination!

  16. tallbloke says:

    Semi says at fig44:
    It is counter-intuitive, that Jupiter angular momentum relative to Sun shows less swing than Jupiter angular
    momentum relative to SSB. Jupiter planet is the main counter-weight to the Sun, and so their distance is
    more constant than distance of Jupiter to Solar System Barycenter (SSB), that varies due to other planets.

    Geoff says:
    I disagree with Semi’s findings on the orbit access point of the Jovians. My research suggests its more likely all the planets orbit the Sun. The planet AM graphs using the SSB as axis do not show planetary perturbations which is a show stopper for me.

    I think the difference between your positions may be more semantic than theoretical. ‘Orbit’ can be understood in different ways. Semi is agreeing that the ‘orbit’ of Jupiter around the sun is ‘smoother’ in AM terms, but that it’s orbit around the barycentre is the way to consider the relative motion.

    Myself, I think all the planets orbit their respective solar barycentres, notwithstanding the perturbations caused by other proximate planets. So for example Earth/moon orbits the Earth/moon – Sun barycentre, but since that barycentre is so close to the centre of the sun, we just say, as Semi does, that the smaller inner planets orbit the sun.

    Rather than disagree about this, we need instead to discuss why we conceptualise the situation differently.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Geoff says:
    Semi notices the Neptune/Uranus retrograde bumps (ptc) but perhaps misses the importance, they are the key to all grand minima.

    Semi Says at fig 72b:
    Note the 854-year cycle in sum of angular momentum of Sun and Jupiter relative to SSB (fig. 72b). Maxima
    of this cycle arround years 1200 and 2050 correspond to Medieval optimum and Global warming periods,
    minima arround 700, 1650 correspond to Little ice age events (Maunder minimum and Wolf (???) minimum).

    Note the 178.8 year cycle of Uranus/Neptune, little similar to Gleissberg cycle (twice the Gleissberg cycle,
    which is actually an absolute value of otherwise sinusoidal function)…

    And under the headline graph:

    Bold green (which matches the Sunspot frequency) – Half of angle between Jupiter and Earth (or to EVB,
    with center in Sun) during Earth-Venus oppositions, multiplied (scaled vertically) by sinus of Uranus-Neptune
    angle at these times (to match cycle damping arround 1820 and 1910 of the Gleissberg cycle…The Uranus-
    Neptune cycle of 178.5 years seems to match the length of twice the Gleissberg cycle, observed in the
    Sunspot data.)
    The damping arround 1650 (little ice age) and unexpectedly large values arround 1990 are due to another
    influences (matches cycle of overall angular momentum change, see relevant chapter)

    So I think he is aware of the importance of the Neptune-Uranus cycle WRT to climatic and solar minima, but sees them as part of the larger picture within the 854 year cycle. That said, there’s no doubt that Geoff’s analysis of disturbance types and their correspondence with the 10be record goes to the next level. Top work sir!

  18. Geoff Sharp says:

    I think we need to get a better understanding of the AM scalar graph, from what I can figure its is a simple method of calculating AM without using the Z component etc and also whether the SSB is a valid axis point. I might email Gerry and see if he is around.

    But the important test for any background solar influence is how it measures up with the Holocene solar proxy records. These records I believe are confirmed and they do not follow the smooth curve in Semi’s AM graph. But if we look at the grand minima strength over long time periods it follows the proxy records very closely. Importantly there are many times when grand minima strength can change rapidly in a few hundred yrs….this doesnt follow the wave.

    Semi knows the power of N/U over longer time scales and shows how AM is affected. J/S are the major source of AM with N/U reducing that strength at N/U opposition and boosting it at N/U conjunction. The wave that Semi shows has 2 components, the smaller peaks and troughs at the 172 yr level via the process I just described and a larger higher level wave which is a result of the quality of the alignments of the big 4.

    The Sun is greatly controlled by grand minima, it is useful to know the fluctuations in overall AM over long time scales but in my opinion understanding what modulates each individual solar downturn is where the real knowledge will be gained….the quality of the 3 alignments (on avg) that come along every 172 yrs being the key.

  19. Geoff Sharp says:

    Correction….on further investigation the 1st component of the scalar graph at the low level does not match the 172 yr period, there is around 14 mini peaks per 854 yr cycle.

    More work required to understand this graph I think.

  20. Geoff Sharp says:

    tallbloke,

    Myself, I think all the planets orbit their respective solar barycentres, notwithstanding the perturbations caused by other proximate planets. So for example Earth/moon orbits the Earth/moon – Sun barycentre, but since that barycentre is so close to the centre of the sun, we just say, as Semi does, that the smaller inner planets orbit the sun.

    I agree, and the AM charts for Jupiter using the Sun as axis point shows a very choppy record brought about by the fact that the Jupiter/Sun barycenter axis point is the correct point. Unfortunately this detail is not available through JPL as far as I can see.

    Interesting that Semi agrees with my research that Jupiter tends to have less variance distance when using the Sun as axis point.

    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/04/03/which-point-do-the-jovian-planets-orbit/

    The planet perturbations explaining the different radius vector measurements of Jupiter each perihelion etc.

  21. tallbloke says:

    Geoff:
    the quality of the 3 alignments (on avg) that come along every 172 yrs being the key.

    Isn’t that what is being shown in graphs 85-87?

    Geoff:
    Unfortunately this detail is not available through JPL as far as I can see.

    If you consider Jupiter’s orbit about the Jupiter-Sun barycentre, then when (say) Saturn is conjunct, the Sun has to ‘lean back’ further (hammer thrower analogy) to counteract the extra mass, increasing the Jupiter sun distance and decreasing the Jupiter-JS barycentre distance. Is that right as you see it?

  22. tallbloke says:

    Geoff:
    The missing AM has been found and leaves the door open for spin orbit coupling.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/79

    Very interesting. Some hard work been going on here, well done to you and Gerry. So have you worked out what 0.048% in solar AM might translate to in terms of spin energy? Have you considered that it might be concentrated in ‘surface slip’ rather than soaked up in changing the spin rate of the entire solar mass?

  23. Greetings!

    Thank you for having the courage to challenge the consensus nonsense that the anonymous review system has produced.

    I know very little of orbital motion about the center-of-mass of the solar system, but I am certain that facts do not depend on the approval NAS, NASA, Anthony, Leif, or anyone else.

    Our research indicates that the core of the Sun is a very dense, energetic and strongly magnetic neutron star:

    Density (core) ~ 1,000,000,000,000,000 Density (atomic matter)

    Energy (core) ~ 12 MeV/nucleon greater that Energy (free neutron)

    Magnetic field ~ 1,000,000,000,000 Gauss

    We suspect that shifts in the depth of the solar core may be the reason why changes in solar angular momentum are linked with solar cycles of magnetic fields protruding through the photosphere and with changes in Earth’s climate.

    With kind regards
    Oliver K. Manuel

    http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

  24. Geoff Sharp says:

    Tallbloke<

    Geoff:
    the quality of the 3 alignments (on avg) that come along every 172 yrs being the key.
    ————–
    Isn’t that what is being shown in graphs 85-87?

    Those graphs are looking at the solar orbital plane vs invariant plane. Fig 83 shows the detail of the quality of the 3 alignments but it is near impossible to make it out at that scale…this is where Carl’s graph comes in with the extra detail.

    If you consider Jupiter’s orbit about the Jupiter-Sun barycentre, then when (say) Saturn is conjunct, the Sun has to ‘lean back’ further (hammer thrower analogy) to counteract the extra mass, increasing the Jupiter sun distance and decreasing the Jupiter-JS barycentre distance. Is that right as you see it?

    Great question and I think this is the proof of the matter. Your statement is correct except for one part…when the Sun is pushed further from the SSB by J&S, both planets are dragged along towards the Sun with that move instantaneously (as quick as the speed of light it is thought)

    This is shown clearly in the AM graphs of the Jovians. The graphs using the SSB as the axis point show this movement away and towards the SSB. The graphs using the Sun as axis point only show the variations in orbit caused by planet perturbations.

  25. Geoff Sharp says:

    Tallbloke,

    Very interesting. Some hard work been going on here, well done to you and Gerry. So have you worked out what 0.048% in solar AM might translate to in terms of spin energy? Have you considered that it might be concentrated in ’surface slip’ rather than soaked up in changing the spin rate of the entire solar mass?

    That figure is probably not correct, and at this stage its more about the missing AM being accepted. So far there has been no challenges, but they will come.

  26. Geoff Sharp says:

    Welcome Oliver…

  27. tallbloke says:

    Seconded, thanks for visiting Oliver.

    Geoff:
    when the Sun is pushed further from the SSB by J&S, both planets are dragged along towards the Sun with that move instantaneously (as quick as the speed of light it is thought)

    No-one seems to have spotted the speed of Gravitons yet. ;-)

    But yes, We could choose the solar system barycentre as he agreed reference point, and in that frame of reference, all planets on the opposite side of the SSB get dragged by the sun’s gravity as it moves away. And conversely, all planets on the same side of the SSB as the sun will also move away from the SSB as the sun ‘leans back’. Planets at right angles as J&S line up will shift prograde or retrograde WRT to the sun depending which side they are on. Which is kind of interesting to consider if there are magnetic and/or tidal effects taking place too…

    One of the surprising things to come out of Semi’s paper was that when Earth and Venus are considered together, their combined tidal effect on the sun is considerably stronger than Jupiter’s. Now Leif calculated that Jupiter would only raise a tide of 2mm on the sun, so this might not be much of a hill of beans, but considering that Semi has shown that the Angular Momentum changes in E-V Barycentre cycles match the periodicity and sign of the sunspot cycle, it does seem to be a factor worth further investigation.

  28. Geoff Sharp says:

    yes…my view is that if the solar system is traveling at something like 500,000 mph at a 45 deg angle to the galaxy and we dont keep pace with the Sun we are bound to get lost. If the Sun moves we need to be tethered. This is a controversial area and the orbit axis point of the jovians is still an enigma.

    Re the JEV alignment..The Desmoulins graph will be something to watch after this current cycle…there is a lot of catching up to do like it previously did during the Dalton.

  29. tallbloke says:

    I seem to recall the 45 degree orientation of the orbital plane is deduced from the need for conservation of angular momentum and was put forward in the south African civil engineers paper on water resources referenced by Oliver on WUWT yesterday.
    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf
    I think it’s also confirmed by the angle of the milky way in the night sky isn’t it?

    Regarding J-E-V cycle and Dalton. The Sun did an interesting shimmy in 1804 as the SSB passed close to the solar core. I plan to do a separate post on that. That’s where Semi get’s one of the big spikes in his graph of solar orbital angle we touched on earlier. It’s a function of the Z axis SSB motion and the XY SSB distance.

  30. Ulric Lyons says:

    Around 1150yrs is nearer to observed climatic cycles, 854yrs is too short. 4 x 1157 is the Heinrich event peroid, I predicted this one on the basis of periods of inner and outer planet harmonies.

  31. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ulric, and Happy New Year to you.
    I see the weatheraction prediction was spot on for Copenhagen and this current cold snap. :-)

    Whenever you’d like to do a guest post laying out your findings in more detail, you’re very welcome.

  32. Gerry says:

    Hi tallbloke, Geoff, Oliver, Simon, Ulric, et al.

    Re Leif’s cryptic remark that the scalar sum of planetary angular momenta is “meaningless,” I am guessing that his reason for saying that has to do with the fact that the planets orbit the Sun (and the solar system barycenter) in orbit planes of slightly different relative inclination. However, since the major players are close to the “invariant” plane, his comment would perhaps have been more cogent if the words “an approximation of somewhat limited usefulness” had been substituted for the word “meaningless.”

    Likewise, the discussion about whether to use the SSB or the Sun as the orbit point for the planets might be best clarified by comparing planetary orbital angular momentum calculations done with each as the orbit point. The Special Theory of Relativity indicates that the SSB and Sun center are equally valid inertial orbit points, provided that the reference inertial frame for angular momentum calculations is consistent with the orbit point used. I interpret Semi’s comment about using the SSB as the orbit point for the outer planets and using heliocentric coordinates for the inner planets as merely a reference to the relative effects of mutual perturbations in each case. The outer planet orbits look a little smoother if the SSB is used because the mutual perturbations of the outer planets are somewhat absorbed in the inertial path of the SSB. In the case of the less massive inner planets, the orbits look smoother using heliocentric coordinates because of the close proximity to the great mass of the Sun and, conversely, the relatively smaller effect of the distant giant planet perturbations. In other words, I think Semi was just pointing out the obvious effects of the inverse square law of gravitational attraction, and nothing more.

    In either case, we are talking about the n-body problem, for which the best analytical methods are inaccurate over large spans of time. JPL, however, uses n-body numerical integration of all solar system bodies. This yields very exact results over centuries, since the masses and distances from the SSB are known very precisely from radio tracking of all the unmanned interplanetary spacecraft since 1964. Because the center of mass of the Sun is also numerically integrated wrt the SSB, it is also known very accurately. I hope the above explanation serves to make this subject less confusing.

  33. tallbloke says:

    Gerry, welcome, and thanks for your contribution. One point I’d appreciate clarification of. you said:
    “The outer planet orbits look a little smoother if the SSB is used because the mutual perturbations of the outer planets are somewhat absorbed in the inertial path of the SSB.”

    Whereas Geoff said:
    “the AM charts for Jupiter using the Sun as axis point shows a very choppy record brought about by the fact that the Jupiter/Sun barycenter axis point is the correct point. Unfortunately this detail is not available through JPL as far as I can see. Interesting that Semi agrees with my research that Jupiter tends to have less variance distance when using the Sun as axis point.”

    Semi says at fig44:
    “It is counter-intuitive, that Jupiter angular momentum relative to Sun shows less swing than Jupiter angular
    momentum relative to SSB. Jupiter planet is the main counter-weight to the Sun, and so their distance is
    more constant than distance of Jupiter to Solar System Barycenter (SSB), that varies due to other planets.”

    I don’t want to conflate the difference between ‘orbits’ smoothness and the ‘choppiness’ of AM, but I think it would be helpful for readers if you’d expand on that a bit.

    You said:
    “Re Leif’s cryptic remark that the scalar sum of planetary angular momenta is “meaningless,” I am guessing that his reason for saying that has to do with the fact that the planets orbit the Sun (and the solar system barycenter) in orbit planes of slightly different relative inclination. However, since the major players are close to the “invariant” plane, his comment would perhaps have been more cogent if the words “an approximation of somewhat limited usefulness” had been substituted for the word “meaningless.””

    Without getting into Leif’s overly categorical statements, I’d like to pick up on your “slightly different” relative inclinations of the gas giants to the invariant plane comment. Are you saying that if the ‘z-axis’ component was included in the calculations, the scalar sum of angular momenta of all solar system bodies would be a flat line?

    Semi says:
    “Anyhow, in real world, angular momentum of individual planets is not constant, due to tugs (perturbations) by
    all other planets and compensations by different inclinations to the invariant plane…”
    and
    “Now, lets call the vector sum of all angular moments the Normal to invariant plane. It should be (almost)
    constant, which it really is…
    The angles between invariant plane normal and orbital plane normals of individual planets have these
    tendencies (see table 2), with range values for 5 millennia (1800BC-3000AD) :”
    and
    “Actually, there are longer-scale cycles with sinus-like course, so
    that if the Earth is currently aligning with the invariant plane, it will be diverting later, but this time span is not
    included in DE4xx ephemerides…”

    So if long term changes in a planet’s orbital plane angle with respect to the invariant plane are the resultant of ‘out of balance’ forces arising out of gravitational interactions between planets, it seems likely to me that there will also be an effect on spin rates and obliquities and possibly precessionary periods too.

    I wonder if anyone (Milankovitch?) considered those before.

  34. Gerry says:

    I believe the numerically integrated orbits of the Jovian planets using the SSB as the orbit point may be available as a Fortran-accessible resource in JPL’s DE406 complete package, but I don’t personally have that large package. Geoff Sharp has been using the heliocentric DE405 planetary ephemerides.

    The ecliptic Z-axis component magnituce for each planet was included in Geoff’s heliocentric AM calculations. The issue is that adding the vector magnitudes (i.e. the scalar AMs) of all the planet AMs in their slightly different orbit planes does not yield the exact solar spin contribution in the solar rotation plane. This would be a very interesting result, and certainly seems mathematically doeable to me. I would not expect it to be flat by any means. The out-of-plane solar “spin” would also fall out in the process, and would also be of interest, though it certainly wouldn’t be so easy to get any kind of handle on the resulting turbulence near the solar photosphere!

  35. tallbloke says:

    If I understand this correctly, the ‘out of plane’ solar spin refers to the ~7.1 degree tilt of the solar axis with respect to the invariant plane the planets occupy with their orbits within a few degrees, excepting Pluto.

    It’s the barycentric motion in the z-axis WRT the solar equatorial plane which I have a particular interest in, as you can see from my plot in the solar activity prediction thread.

  36. Geoff Sharp says:

    Semi states:

    Vector Sum
    The vector sum of angular momentum of 9 planets and the Sun is much more constant than the scalar sum.
    The magnitude of vector-sum value is by 0.00005951 smaller than value of a scalar sum (difference is
    1/16803.8 of the scalar sum), and does not vary much. Here (on fig. 82), the vector-sum value is offset by
    12.46/209415 vertically to fit in the same chart with the scalar sum.

    I think this sums it up, the vector sums are showing a very small variation in AM over the longer term and in my opinion do not have any great impact on the output of the Sun, with grand minima strength being the key. I suspect there is nothing new here (so far) but appreciate Semi’s work and encourage him to continue.

  37. Geoff Sharp says:

    I have been following Oliver’s crusade on WUWT and marvel at Svalgaards replies. Oliver might be hitting a raw nerve as Svalgaard can only offer ridicule.

    Oliver is suggesting that “ClimateGate” goes a lot further than the climate data….this will be interesting to watch.

    In Oliver’s defense I remember reading in Dr. Halls recent paper that differential rotation or torsional oscillation did not occur beneath the Tachocline, suggesting the core and radiative zone rotated as a homogeneous unit.

    Does this imply the inner zones are solid?

  38. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, on reflection I think that’s probably a fair summary. I was probably a bit carried away with the sheer volume of graphs presented when I hailed Semi as the new Kepler. Nonetheless, it’s great to see other independent researchers getting seriously into this stuff and like you, I hope Semi continues his work and makes contact with us too.

    Has Ian’s LOD paper been published yet? I’d like to do a feature, but don’t want to steal anyone’s thunder.

  39. tallbloke says:

    “Does this imply the inner zones are solid?”

    Not if Leif’s interpretation of helioseismology is to be believed….

  40. Gerry says:

    Interesting. Are the units of the scale, 6000 to
    -6000 (SSB z-axis) in the second plot, kilometers distance of the solar equatorial plane from the invariant plane at the SSB? I haven’t made any quick checks yet, but the plotted distances seem too small.

  41. tallbloke says:

    Gerry, apologies, the graph was done in haste. The heavy type numbers are sunspot numbers. The Z-axis motion runs from +-40,000km.

    Can I ask a favour and ask you to post further discussion on the relevant page.

  42. Semi says:

    Hello.
    I’m sorry to join that late, was not online on holidays…
    I’m certainly not worth your compliments, mr. Tallbloke, in the original post, you already know that (20100104T1245)

    I highly appreciate posts of Geoff Sharp, but I’m going to argue a little bit…

    I agree with Leif Svalgaard, that the scalar sum of angular momentum is (almost) meaningless. It is a vector quantity and as that it is preserved in the system. On the other hand, the chart of scalar sum is very similar to angular momentum of Jupiter alone, which could be partially transfered to Sun via magnetic forces or otherwise(?), so the 854-year Jupiter-Saturn cycle compared with the climatic chart is not a complete nonsense. The high spikes on that (scalar) chart are times of “Retrograde Sun” – the times, when the Sun moves very close to the SSB and crosses arround it in the opposite direction, so it’s angular momentum is opposite to planets and it subtracts from the total for a short while in vector sum. (These times are very interesting from human-historical point of view, but that borders on astrology, not to be discussed here… The same applies to PTCs, which are also interesting historically, but probably much less than Retrograde-Sun events…)

    Regarding various cycle lengths: The 854 year cycle is the Jupiter/Saturn resonance cycle, no other planets involved. The cca 2400 year cycle is the PTC cycle, being placed on different parts of the SSB-chart. The 179(!) year cycle is seen in the Sun/SSB movement – counted by zero-crossing of “similar” parts of the cycle, counted over more cycles and averaged, it is not 172 years… (While the PTCs are not placed on same places of the cycle, so one probably may say, that PTCs are 172 years apart on average? I did not verify that…)

    Regarding the AM – it is ultimatelly not correct to sum the AM of more bodies with respect to different centers (like planets relative to Sun and Sun relative to SSB). In the JPL ephemerides, the AM is perfectly constant, when summing the Sun, 9 planets, 3 big asteroids and 300 small asteroids, all with respect to SSB (I didn’t verify the small asteroids, but the rest from constancy in my calculation is on the order of 300 small asteroids, used in ephemerides calculation). It (AM) also SHOULD be constant, as it is a conserved property of the system, we all agree with that Law… There is absolutelly no rest for exchange with Solar spin and with outer dwarf planets in the JPL ephemerides, and if you find any rest, it just means you made a computational or logical error. It just does not mean, that there can be no such exchange (there ultimatelly must be some AM-exchange with the outer dwarf planets), it just means, that it was not used in the original ephemerides calculation, so if there is some such exchange, the ephemerides depart a little from reality, which they certainly do, but you cannot decide this only from ephemerides themselves, you would have to compare them with Reality for some longer period to see, how much it actually differs…

    Regarding various versions of JPL ephemerides, all versions DE4** are barycentric (namelly 405,406 and unreleased 414 and 415). Also the angular momentum probably cannot be conserved with respect to just any center – consider for ex. a galaxy center or Jupiter planet or any other (why not?)… (It is not constant with respect to for ex. Earth center, I just now verified that…)

    But it may be logical to compute the angular momentum with respect to some body, specially if the central body is assumed to be influenced by the orbiting body…(?)

    I still do believe, what I wrote about the orbiting centers – and calculating “smoothness” of AM is just a good proxy for that, as it is easier to verify for constancy, than the distance, which varies in sinus-like curve due to elliptic orbits. The large planets and the Sun orbit the SSB, and the Sun is in free-fall against them. It is different with the small planets, which orbit Sun and not SSB, and as the Sun may not be in free-fall against all bodies at once, so the small planets (namely the Earth and Venus) should influence the surface layers of the Sun more than the large planets.

    The most important chart from my work, which you mentioned, is actually the figure 92, which compares angular momentum of EMB with respect to Sun with the signed magnetic cycle on the Sun (22-year) – showing, that the Sunspot cycle is probably most influenced just by Earth and Venus planets(!)

    How could such influence work? If it was just gravitational or magnetical, it would prefer Jupiter over Earth. If it was tidal, it would also prefer Jupiter and Mercury and Venus – it is just not true, that Mercury is not tidally as important as Earth – in its (Mercury’s) perihelium it is tidally more important even than the Jupiter at its aphelium! Regarding the Tidal forces – it is irrelevant, that the vertical component of tides can result in 2mm change in height (as calculated by mr. Svalgaard) – the horizontal component is actually more important, and it can theoretically sum over the cycle length to 20m/s difference in meridional circulation speed, which really is observed (but possibly may be unrelated?). More on it works the K.Georgieva, who shows, that coincidence of smoothed tidal strength (mostly due to 11.86y Jupiter orbital cycle) with the part of Sunspot cycle, which transports magnetic flux to poles, may be related to the next-cycle strength… (I don’t have got URL for this work and cannot find it online, as I received it by email… It was presented on Pulkovo conference last year, named “PLANETARY TIDAL EFFECTS ON SOLAR ACTIVITY”). But after all, the tidal force cycle is either 12-year or 6-year and does not match the Sunspot cycle itself – while it may modulate it, it is not causing it.

    The main influence of Earth&Venus planets onto the Sunspot cycle can actually work either by the fact, that dynamic of inner planet’s orbits is different and the Sun is not in free-fall against them, or possibly by a magnetic force: the Jupiter’s magnetic moment at Jup-Sun distance is probably 100 times larger than Earth’s magnetic moment at Earth-Sun distance, but you may read in wikipedia (page Interplanetary_Magnetic_Field), that Sun’s magnetic moment at Earth is approx. 100 times larger than it should be, due to conductivity of IMF – and so is the Earth’s influence onto the Sun approx. 100 times larger, than it would be in vacuum! (and the IMF is more sparse at Jupiter’s distance, so the effect could be smaller for Jupiter, finally preferring Earth magnetically over Jupiter)

    Also, comparing the Sun’s orbital AM with Sunspot cycle shows some resonance (probably 9:8), but seems also not causing it, as it is non synchronous and even the quality of synchronization does not match the cycle strengths…(?)

    So this (Earth planet causing the Sunspot cycle) is the main heresy of my work…

    I’m sorry for a rather long post here…

  43. Semi says:

    Regarding the charts in my work and their graphical resolution – I invite you to use my program EphView, used to interpret the JPL ephemerides. The data-files of my charts are available upon request by email. The program does not include manual (it is a free hobby-work), but I may explain its usage to generate charts and do some regression on them by email to anyone interested…

    I’m working on another text, which you may see in an early draft here

  44. tallbloke says:

    Semi says:
    I’m sorry for a rather long post here…

    Don’t apologise Semi! Thank you for your contribution, and for joining in the discussion on my blog. There are several really exciting points in your post which I’m sure will be picked up and discussed over the coming days by Geoff, myself and all our bary-eccentric friends. :-)

    Thanks also for your offer of the use of your code, and the offer of help explaining it. I will start a new thread for that, so you don’t have to repeat yourself too many times if that is ok with you.

    Right now I have to cook dinner, but I’ll be back with some comment later.

  45. tallbloke says:

    I just downloaded Semi’s EphView code and ran it. I have played around with the unix command line version of Astrolog in the past so I think I might be able to drive this. It looks very useful.

    Also took a quick look at Semi’s new paper. I like the electro-magnetic discussion and I wonder if there is maybe a combination of forces acting on the sun, as the drop in solar activity coincident with the conjunction of Uranus Neptune is difficult to explain with inner planet resonances.

    Maybe Semi would comment on the correlation I have found between the smoothed ‘z’-axis distance of the SSB relative to the solar equatorial plane and the average sunspot number. (Second graph in this post
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/predicting-changes-in-solar-activity/ The SSN data is smoothed over the cycle length and the SSB-z data is smoothed over 2x Jupiter orbital period. The lag is 22 years, the Hale cycle length)

  46. Semi says:

    [[I’ve just replaced the original version of the recent paper draft of Periodicities in the Solar System compared with Sunspot cycle with a more recent one (did not expect your reaction so soon at this day-time, but the day-time is different arround the world…), It was not very wise to use a version-number in the previous link…]].

    Reply: I’ve updated the link in your earlier post

    ————————–
    As my opinion about planetary dynamics phenomena and the Sunspot cycle: the Earth’s influence on the Sunspot cycle seems to be most synchronized, but does not explain various minima and maxima – showing there are certainly more influences modulating the cycle strength. Your SSB-Z-axis topic and PTC-minima topic and Jupiter-to-Sunspot-cycle synchronization topic could explain possibly more of the modulation…

    More on this later, I’ll need to evaluate some new thoughts, learned from this site, and its rather late here today…

  47. Geoff Sharp says:

    Hi Semi, I appreciate your work in this area and thank you for the EphView program that I have used in the past.

    I think we are working in the same field but perhaps concentrating on different aspects, I do not share your opinion on the Jovian orbit axis point but remain open to be convinced otherwise.

    For me the most important aspect is what Landscheidt missed with his PTC (perturbed torque curve) and Carl demonstrated in his AM graph and perhaps also missed the importance.

    I have studied the PTC type events in some detail and they look to correlate with all solar slowdowns during the Holocene. They also correlate with a very different solar path around the SSB and they are found to be a product of N/U together along with J/S oppositions and conjunctions. J/S oppositions being type A which are the strongest and J/S conjunctions being type B. These PTC’s usually come along in groups of 3 that are spaced roughly 40 years apart, the central PTC’s being on average 172 years apart (If you use the Jose 178.8 gap you will find it goes out of sync very quickly)

    We have been in solid type A territory since about 1250 to now. The MWP is a time when we revert back to type B PTC’s and we are currently heading for type B territory again. This change of PTC type does line up with your scalar AM curve after the MWP but perhaps not so good before that.

    I have found a method to quantify the strength of the PTC occurrence which matches with the solar proxy records.

    The PTC events in my opinion explain solar downturns and the position of N/U throughout the 172 yr cycle explain solar modulation which lines up with AM modulation, but none of this explains the 11 year solar cycle. This is still up for grabs and read with interest re your horizontal tidal effect on the meridional flow.

  48. Gray says:

    Thanks for the invite. Looks a very interesting paper – I need to study it carefully.

    Regards

    Gray
    By Jupiter

  49. tallbloke says:

    I recommend clicking on Gray’s name and checking out his page on the gas giant synodic relationships. It’s a nice complement to our barycentric studies which adds numerical detail and an appreciation of harmonic and resonant correspondences in the motion of the outer planets.

  50. Semi says:

    Hello.

    I’m terribly sorry, confused and ashamed…

    Discovered a major error in my work, that the Jupiter/Saturn cycle is not 854 years (as mentioned on many places in my work), but rather arround 934 years! (Discovered this while wanting to argue with Mr. Gray’s JupiterDance page, that states 795 years, so I went to double-check my value). This happens, when summing cycle lengths on charts, where there are more smaller peaks atop the longer cycle and one selects not the correct top-most peaks. An interesting expirience of using a “trusted” older value without further verifying…

    I’m sorry to be that chaotic and erroneous…
    Will try to update my work on Orbital resonance, probably tomorrow…

  51. tallbloke says:

    Hi Semi,
    to make an error is human, to admit it in public is the mark of a mature thinker.

    I don’t think the difference in the values makes much difference if we are considering the time between the medieval warm period and now. These historical events we compare with resonance periods are not too closely defined anyway!

    Something of interest in your new figure is it’s relationship with resonance periods between other planet pairs. I’m sure you will be reconsidering those too.

    These things take time, and it’s good to share the development process with others who are considering some of the same things, and some others too. I am hoping we will be able to maintain a good steadily paced discussion here with those who have an interest in these matters.

  52. Gray says:

    Semi

    I echo what Tallbloke has said and I understand the amount of work and concentration this requires. Any of us can be wrong and I know I can be fallible however careful I have tried to be. The ultimate goal though is to advance the knowledge.

    regards

    Gray

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    Geoff Sharp – Dec. 31, 2009 “Semi looks to back up the work of Desmoulins and Hung re JEV most aligned days in relation to the 11 yr cycle.”

    tallbloke, I think you should acknowledge that Desmoulins traveled this path in the 90s. (Note: I do not assume no one traveled it before him.)

    I had already planned to check Desmoulins’s work, but it was Semi’s paper that propelled me to drop other work (a few months ago) to make the required time. Here is what I found:

    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VaughanPL2009_11.1aCycleSSD.htm

    As anyone can see, everyone gets the same result (even though different investigators are using different methods). I have been very careful to not speculate about physics; I’ve stuck to studying co-phasing, leaving physics to physicists.

    I was ready to expand my investigation to include Mercury, but I hit a glitch in the NASA Horizons online software. I sent [multiple] requests to the system that tripped it up, causing staff to discover a bug in the program around the time where they have to switch from one calendar system to another (1584 if I remember correctly). I now have the Horizons output I need on file, but due to the delay of over a week before I could access it, my focus drifted elsewhere (…and I don’t regret that because there was other neat stuff to learn on other important fronts …and who knows if I would have gotten there yet?…)

    -
    Semi – Jan. 7, 2010 “Discovered a major error in my work, that the Jupiter/Saturn cycle is not 854 years [...]”

    I noticed that error. I am pleased to discover that you have not hesitated to alert us – thank you. Also, thank you very much for joining the discussion. I look forward to exchanges going forward, if this will be possible. Best Regards, Paul Vaughan.

  54. tallbloke says:

    “tallbloke, I think you should acknowledge that Desmoulins traveled this path in the 90s. (Note: I do not assume no one traveled it before him.)”

    Absolutely, and Jose, Fairbridge, Charvatova and Landscheidt also get mentions as pioneers of this field of investigation. My (incomplete no doubt) list at the top of the post was a call to meeting for those currently working on the analysis of solar system dynamics. I thank you all for bringing some fascinating and important results forward. I hope this cross fertilization of ideas will be of mutual benefit, and ultimately of benefit to the wider scientific community.

  55. Semi says:

    Hello.

    Yes, I’ve started from mr. Desmoulin’s work, which I’ve read back in 2006, and probably should have credited him at least in the References section. But, in that work back in 2006 there was a logical flaw of using a “condition” – oppositions in odd cycles and conjunctions in even cycles (it’s still there). I felt there was no real reason to use such a condition. Later, after publishing my work in 2009 (which does not use this “condition”, but on the chart mentioned here above it still selects only certain times (E-V oppositions), but at least consistently), I’ve turned to learn some Oceanographic tidal equations and more carefully evaluate the tides, now making a propper vector sum at each surface point and summing it arround longitude circles (this is backed by the fact, that Sun rotates below the planets and the effects are spread over the surface). I found, that it is not correct to ignore Mercury in tidal equations, because it is highly eccentrical, and only in average it is just little weaker than Earth’s influence, but at it’s perihelion it is more important than Venus or than Jupiter at it’s aphelion. If you evaluate all tidal influences without “conditions”, the 11-year cycle (J-V-E) disappears. In my eyes, this rules out the tidal influence. It is also not correct to say, that Mercury moves too fast and thereby it should be ignored (as said by mr. Hung) – from the point of view from Solar surface, all the planets move in retrograde direction, with the Mercury moving most slowly!

    Further from the E-V-J cycles I’ve reached to the Angular momentum of Earth/Venus matching the cycle, and there is no logical “condition” (either of using only oppositions or conjunctions or quadratures, or using some special discrete times like syzigies), this makes me a little more certain of its validity…

    My second main source was mr. Landscheidt’s work. There are significant divergences between his earlier and later works, the later being quite better and more precise (this evolution probably shows the birth of computer era and more precise ephemerides?). But after extensive search I didn’t find any correlation between the 11-year cycle and the Solar motion – for me this is a Great discovery of mr. Geoff Sharp to show that the PTCs are linked with Solar-cycle minima – this finally closes the picture together, because otherwise it is difficult to explain various rather irregular minima from quite regular planetary motions – and this was the main argument of Solar-chaos proponents, who used this (failure to explain minima) to reppres the theories of planetary influences onto Solar cycles.

    I’ve previously noted, that PTCs are related to various crisis and revolutions in human history (including current 2009 economic crisis, 1970′s, 1920′s not exactly, 1860′s, 1789 etc) – and now it seems to get more into a “real” world from “astrology domain” – with the Sun’s output being weaker, damping agriculture and bringing a crisis? (at least the 1789 revolution was directly caused by an agricultural failure and a severe winter, but almost certainly it was not the case with 1970′s crisis)

    Regarding the J-N-U cycle, discovered by mr. Vaughan, that also matches the 11-year cycle of Sunspots, it is interesting and challenging both the “tidal” or “small-planet” theories, but I still see no physical meaning for getting an 11-year cycle out of 12-year and 172 year cycles? Why is Saturn excluded? Must think on it more…

    Regarding the LOD and SSB-motion relation and relation to the AP index, mentioned by mr. Tallbloke, I was little suspicious of detrending and time-shifting the LOD, but today I found it is probably a common practice (seeing it in another mr. Vaughans work) – it is probably possible, that the effects lag the cause, even by more years? (The AP index is a measure of Earth magnetism, Solar activity, or both??) It is not completelly impossible, that the Earth rotation does cause the Sun’s activity changes (as it precedes it’s changes?) – if the Earth’s influence onto Sun was magnetical, the change in Earth’s rotation could cause change in Earth’s magnetism (?) and thereby change the Earth’s influence onto the Sun? I failed to reproduce your SSB-z-axis chart – did you really mean to rotate SSB to a reference frame of Solar equatorial plane and taking the Z component?

    Regarding the correlation of Sunspots and Earthquakes, mentioned on mr. Gray’s JupitersDance page – if the effects of far large planets (mostly of Jupiter) were mediated onto the Sun by the Earth planet via changes in its angular momentum, these same changes in orbital angular momentum could cause changes in Earthquake patterns… Or it can be just related by the coincidence of low sunspot times with lower variance in Earth’s orbital angular momentum? The relation of changing orbital Angular momentum of Earth to Earthquakes does not seem unprobable. Will need to think on this more…

    I’m little sorry to mix more comments into a single post…

  56. tallbloke says:

    Semi, I’ve replied to your comment concerning z-axis motion and sunspots on the solar activity prediction thread. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/predicting-changes-in-solar-activity/

    If I understand correctly, the AP index measures the effects of variation in solar magnetic flux on the Earth’s magnetic field. I have problems remembering all the different acronyms and their variables!

  57. Paul Vaughan says:

    Semi – 2:12 Jan.9 “[...] Landscheidt’s work. There are significant divergences between his earlier and later works, the later being quite better and more precise [...]”

    Glad to see people are alert to the evolution of Landscheidt’s work. I’ve NO DOUBT we’d have seen MAJOR changes since 2004 were he still alive. He was learning from his forecasting errors at an impressive rate – (then he died).

    -
    Semi – 2:12 Jan.9 “[...] getting an 11-year cycle out of 12-year and 172 year cycles? Why is Saturn excluded? Must think on it more…”

    What is the lowest frequency jovian? Neptune. The other jovians do not exert their tempo in isolation — it is always on the background set by Neptune.

    The lowest frequency jovian synodic beat is UN. The highest: JN. It’s that simple. And the inner solar system shows plenty of related, easily-recognized resonance. Saturn is not “left out” – it just isn’t part of the boundary conditions — it falls in the middle (between U & J) and so defines neither the envelope nor the individual spikes (set on the N background by U & J respectively), but rather an intermediate pattern that is not part of these scale-extremes that define the beat pattern at the finest & coarsest scales. Solar system dynamics time series can be decomposed, relative to the low-frequency N background, into UN, SN, & JN components (that can be recombined to regenerate the whole).

    Important: We always need to keep phase-confounding *vigilantly* in mind – i.e. consider the possibility of a 3rd (or 4th …or 5th…) related factor that might be driving 2 (or more) co-phased factors. Indices of solar system dynamics are FULL of phase-confounding. (Also, maybe we’re not looking for solo drivers…)

    Some here may find it noteworthy that I have found the SN beat in terrestrial polar motion. Both UN & SN modulate the JN beats that relate to terrestrial polar motion – which shows decadal phase-relations with aa index variations, terrestrial atmospheric circulation regimes, & LOD once nutation & LNC are taken into account.

    As Semi points out, the inner planets are being dragged around by the sun. This is why I study the index r” (radial acceleration). Reading Barkin sure helped. Earth is not uniform. The particles that comprise Earth have momentum at a variety of scales of spatiotemporal organization. There is a big difference between overcoming initial friction and deflecting something that is is already moving. What is the compounded effect of many small changes in angle? See my notes in another thread about the regularity of the QBO and it’s connection with polar motion for related thoughts. We don’t have to postulate that planets & the sun cause temperature — only that they alter pressure patterns, which impact circulation regimes (thus adjusting the results of averaging spatiotemporally).

    Thanks for your interesting notes Semi. tallbloke: Thanks for hosting the mixing-bowl. [btw I checked here before WUWT today.]

  58. Paul Vaughan says:

    I should have noted that pressure patterns affect not only circulation regimes & spatiotemporal integrations, but also CLOUDS.

    -
    Semi – 2:12 Jan.9 “[...] I was little suspicious of detrending and time-shifting the LOD, but today I found it is probably a common practice (seeing it in another mr. Vaughans work) [...]”

    Detrending is appropriate to isolate shorter-term variations if there is a factor driving longer-term dynamics. Linear detrending isn’t always a sensible choice, but it might be a way to begin exploration until an investigator has more clues about longer-term patterns.

    However – regarding lags:
    If you have lags, your work may not be finished.

    Depending on the nature of the time-integrated cross-correlation pattern, as a function of lag & timescale, it could be a clue that you are missing one or more important (lurking) factors [that are possibly operating on different timescales] – or that you should be looking at higher derivatives & integrals.

    There is no substitute for experience in performing related diagnostics.

    I’ve seen a lot of nonsensical interpretations of best-lags. My conclusion: There is a deficiency in the mainstream education system in this area.

  59. tallbloke says:

    Paul, thanks for your considered contributions and your kind words. There are times when I get very frustrated with my own impairment since my accident. It’s a good feeling when I can facilitate others coming together to share and develop knowledge, even if my own contribution is a bit wayward and confused at times.

  60. Geoff Sharp says:

    Semi,

    I did notice your had a lightly different bent to Desmoulins & Hung. You observations re Mercury are interesting and I was surprised Mercury was left out of the original studies. Your inclusion of the eccentricity may be a missing component…I am keen to see how the picture looks at solar max, we should see a catch up of the phases if the theory holds.

    The evolution of Planet Theory will be documented very soon I think…someone like Shirley would do a great job. I think Jose deserves the most credit, he didnt complete the science but he knew AM was the controller on solar cycle modulation. If you look carefully you can see the PTC type events along with the background AM power wave in his primitive graphs. Landscheidt was very close after that, he looked to mainly work on the zero crossings of AM and Torque, these now are seen as markers that occur each side of a PTC event so he was close but the marker point of 1990 did him no good and really the next one of 2030 is a bit late.

    I was lucky to stumble on Carl’s graph and notice something he didnt, the doors kept opening after that and it was very exciting. It’s amazing what you can find sometimes when you just keep digging.

    Paul has a lot of time for Charvàtovà as do I, her documentation of the non “trefoil” solar orbit pattern being the other key to the mystery of grand minima…I think this grand minimum will project this area of science on greatly.

  61. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke, in my book you’re on a plane above most due to your *spark*, resilience, & instinct about what variables to consider. Your blog: #1 today. Roles change over time, possibly enabling overall contribution to soar over lands that otherwise may never have been visited.

  62. Paul Vaughan says:

    Geoff Sharp – 12:21 Jan.10 “It’s amazing what you can find sometimes when you just keep digging.”

    Resilience in the face of vicious opposition is the key. The problem is too hard for most people to endure. I am often reminded of Gandhi.

  63. tallbloke says:

    Geoff said:
    The evolution of Planet Theory will be documented very soon I think…someone like Shirley would do a great job. I think Jose deserves the most credit, he didnt complete the science but he knew AM was the controller on solar cycle modulation.

    Excellent idea. At this stage I’m really only compere to this discussion, as you are all well beyond my meagre statistical capabilities. But I do have a degree in the history and philosophy of science so I will try to summarise the history of planetary-solar theory in a new post. With everyone here involved in adding missing detail in comments, and me updating the post, we can effectively co-author the piece.

    Hopefully, the process will bring up some neglected parts of the jigsaw which might assist our ongoing investigations too.

    Edit to add: The first installment is up here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/planetary-solar-theory-a-brief-history/

  64. tallbloke says:

    Semi Said:
    It is also not correct to say, that Mercury moves too fast and thereby it should be ignored (as said by mr. Hung) – from the point of view from Solar surface, all the planets move in retrograde direction, with the Mercury moving most slowly!

    Rozelot, Pireaux and Lefebrve (2004) suggested that the effect on Mercury’s orbit by the internal shifting of the Sun’s mass may require a re-appraisal of Eddington’s test and therefore of the veracity of General Relativity as the best available account of gravity.

    Einstein himself was not happy with the Mercury perihelion prediction or it’s outcome.

    Mercury is the
    innermost of the four terrestrial planets in the solar system,
    moving with a high velocity in the sun’s gravitational field. As a
    result of slight undulations in this field due to movements of the
    sun’s mass within it, the advance in the perihelion of Mercurys’
    orbit could be affected. As outlined above, it has also been
    conjectured that Mercury and the other planets could contribute to
    the dynamic spatial and temporal internal distribution of the sun’s
    mass through any or all of the processes summarised above.
    The gravitational interaction between the sun and the planets
    causes the barycentric motion of the sun, which is non-linear,
    stochastic and periodic. There is, therefore, a feedback process
    between two non-linear, stochastic and periodic processes: the
    internal shifting mass of the sun affecting planetary orbits and the
    planetary orbits affecting the internal mass of the sun by shifting it
    around, perhaps throughout the entire body of the sun.
    http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf pp956-958

  65. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: tallbloke – 5:46 Jan.10
    That quote is starting to sound Barkin-esque …and let’s not limit our focus to the internal dynamic-heterogeneities of just one celestial body. I still laugh when I look at the paper that effectively cons by representing the sun as a uniformly-rotating *circle*. (I think some of you know the paper I mean – which has been humorously used as a beating stick.)

  66. tallbloke says:

    Indeed, Barkin gets a mention in the paper linked in my last post.

    Hmm, which other soft-in-parts planets did you have in mind? Earth? Jupiter?

  67. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: tallbloke – 9:02 Jan.10

    Most of my thinking is about Earth.

    I realize others are (perhaps) more interested in the sun, but I imagine they realize the value in assessing solar influence of having a firm grip on the nature of major variations arising at the Earth-end. For example, Barkin offers us a very simple explanation for the geomagnetic anomaly patterns Vukcevic has been showing us.

    Awhile back I left some brief notes about Barkin lower-down on this page (which needs an update):

    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/DRAFT_VaughanPL2009CO_TPM_SSD_LNC.htm

  68. tallbloke says:

    Absolutely! May I suggest that to prevent this thread becoming unwieldy, we spread posts concerning the geomagnetic aspects and climate aspects between the north magnetic pole and solar-planetary-climate link threads.

    Alternatively, I would be more than happy to set up a new thread for you to put your own slant on things in. Give me a title and links to graphics, plus your text if you’d like to do a guest spot. If you don’t want to do email, you can just post it in the tagline data page (link upper left under ‘pages’) and I’ll copy and remove it. Vuk already left a couple of messages there.

    Edit to add: Paul, your big message just sent got dumped into the ‘pending queue’ due to the large number of links. Would you like me to lick this into a postable format for public consumption? I can email it back to you first for your approval/final editing.

    Edited again to say: OK, I’ve just approved it as I need sleep. Leave a note to say what you’d like to do with it.

    Cheers

    Rog

  69. Paul Vaughan says:

    QBO, terrestrial polar motion, ACW (Antarctic Circumpolar Wave), & arrays of geophysical phase-relations I’ve explored suggest that it might be worthwhile to look for “2 year echoes” in the terrestrial system. I shared some related notes here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/north-pole-position-shifts/

    Speculation:
    ITCZ-crossings can involve delays & vertical deflections. I was thinking about this in conjunction with Barkin’s ideas about oversimplified modeling assumptions, Sidorenkov’s ideas on the terrestrial hydrologic cycle, and the Russian school of thought on global circulation regimes more generally. Say there is an NH (northern hemisphere) winter signal that travels south – if there is a delay in transiting the equator-region, it would not be felt in the current SH summer, but rather in the next (a year later). Then if there was an echo (not necessarily a strong one) from that SH summer, it would similarly be felt in the next NH winter (~1 year later, to produce ~2 year return trip). Something analogous could be said regarding NH summers & SH winters.
    [end speculation]

    I don’t have the background to rigorously assess what is really going on physically, but I know with certainty that interannual oscillations in the 2-3 year timescale-range show *non*random phase-relations.

    It seems too coincidental that JN, the annual cycle, ACW, QBO, & polar motion would all fit like a glove. [Note: I can't be sure about ACW yet, but it is reported to be a wave-2 structure with an 8 year period -- even if this is only loosely true, it fits the pattern well enough to at least tentatively raise interesting questions, particularly considering the SAM/AAO pattern-disruption during the '98 gallop - (it looks like the big gallop interfered with ACW -- these are the sorts of things that disrupt time-normalized power-spectra, leaving nonstationary traces & intermittent multivariate phase-coherence).]

    I base these comments on piles upon piles of analyses – and here (below) I’m only giving a rough glimpse of the clearly nonrandom phase-relations that exist.

    The physics of the “2 year echo” speculation may need some adjustment &/or correction (by physicists, climatologists, whoever…), but based on the *non*random phase-relations I’m convinced that the following are key (by *whatever combination of mechanisms):

    If you know the work of Ivanka Charvatova, you’re likely aware that there are inner solar system power-bands at 1.6 & 6.4 years. (footnote appears below)

    V*E / |V-E| = (0.615172097829219)*(1) / |(0.615172097829219 – 1)| = 1.598563485
    4*(1.598563485) = 6.394253939

    J*N / |J-N| = (11.86630899)*(164.888325) / |(11.86630899 – 164.888325)| = 12.78649873

    (12.78649873) / 2 = 6.393249363

    Speculation:
    (6.394253939)*(6.393249363) / |(6.394253939 – 6.393249363)| = 40693.86799
    [end speculation]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Axial_tilt_.28obliquity.29

    Chandler wobble:
    (6.393249363)*(1) / |(6.393249363 – 1)| = 1.185416978
    QBO:
    (12.78649873)*(2) / (12.78649873 – 2) = 2.370833957
    [alternately 2*(1.185416978) = 2.370833957]

    There are also nonrandom patterns involving NAM/NAO/AO, SAM/AAO, & other interannual terrestrial oscillations which I’m investigating – here are a few glimpses:

    I have some really sharp preliminary univariate wavelet time-normalized-power color-contour-plots on file, but I need to translate them into multivariate arrays of cross-wavelet phase-coherence plots. It will also be interesting to investigate factors associated with intermittent phase-aberrations.

    There is much work to be done to render the insights formally presentable. Additionally, there is the need to educate even formal audiences, as the cross-wavelet phase-coherence summaries I’ve pioneered go well-beyond the more primitive methods I’ve found in the literature.

    A final noteworthy item for today is the re-alignment of QBO & the annual cycle that occurs to within 1.5 days every 211 years. (Keep in mind that this is happening daily, on average.)

    (I draw no conclusions regarding this pattern at this time.)

    Footnote: Although I focused on the 8 to 17 year timescale-band to capture ~11.1 year time-normalized power (in the image that follows), I imagine some of you are aware of the stronger 1.6 & 6.4 year power at lower timescales below the lower-cutoff in this JEV plot:

  70. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: tallbloke – 11:12

    I ran online courses for a number of years so I understand the forum organization challenges you’ll be facing. My sense was that these informal notes should be in this relatively meaty & active thread to further raise awareness that JN-related cycles can be linked to 11.1 year cycles via Uranus.

    When I have finished the phase-coherence calculations & image-editing (probably a matter of weeks), I’ll likely write up some notes, post them to a webpage, and drop links here & at WUWT.

    If anyone has hard facts on 2 year north-south terrestrial “echoes”, please let me know.

  71. tallbloke says:

    Paul, great stuff, bring it on. I’ll do a feature when you are happy with your webpage.

  72. Geoff Sharp says:

    The JEV morlet graph is interesting Paul. Even without the influence of N/U there looks to be a loss of power around the same time as the PTC type events noted on Carl’s graph.

    There doesn’t look to be much happening at the 17 year interval, I have been looking for something that might line up with the 17 year flow length observed in the Solar Doppler images.

  73. tallbloke says:

    There isn’t anything very exciting around 17 years according to Ray Tomes barycentre periods graph

    there are these two ~17 year cycles though:

    Mars’ Perihelion Oppositions 15 to 17 Years:
    Interval between Mars’ closest approach to Earth. In 2003, Mars will be the closest to Earth so far during the Christian era, and won’t be closer until 2287.

    Moon’s Phases 17 Years-0 to 2 days:
    Interval after which the moon’s following phase is repeated.

  74. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: Geoff Sharp (1:01)

    The harmonic mean of J & S is ~16.92 years.
    Geometrically this is how long it takes their combined effort to sweep 720 degrees (with J doing most of the work obviously).

    Evolution of your camel features is related to beats of JN/2 with the nearest harmonic of SN. SSB is a weighted centroid. Alternate weightings may be physically meaningless, but they provide a useful means of sharpening phase-perception — the lessons learned can then be applied to physically-meaningful quantities. Here’s an example of a prototype (which needs updating to match my present knowledge) sharpening method I developed 2 years ago:

    You probably recognize the bright yellow bordering the JN timescale in the early ’30s.
    The patterns in the plot match patterns in a variety of indices of terrestrial climate – (not easy to explain) – and suggested to me that some of the sought relations might involve differential equations (as opposed to, for example, simple bivariate linear wiggle-matching).

  75. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, a further thought on this 17 year flow length. That’s the ‘decay time’ and is a function of the sun’s internal resonance. It’s a bit like a bell being struck and then the sound dying away. The length of the decay time isn’t as important to us as the periodicity between the strikes on the bell, though it is of interest insofar as it might tell us something about the ‘memory’ of the magnetism in the solar material.

  76. Paul Vaughan says:

    Echoing on tallbloke’s note to Geoff, to make sure I have not misled: I briefly investigated 17 year solar patterns in connection with the harmonic mean of J & S a few years ago – nothing noteworthy turned up within a reasonable amount of time/effort so I moved on.

  77. tallbloke says:

    Thinking about it a bit more, the analogy of a cymbal being brought to a crescendo with nicely timed stick beats and then the sound dying away as the stick beats go out of resonant harmony with the cymbal would have been better than a single strike on a bell.

  78. Paul Vaughan says:

    I tend to assume everyone here knows how to do acoustic calculations, but there may be readers following along, wanting to learn.

    U-(N-J):
    (11.86630899)*(164.888325) / (164.888325 – 11.86630899) = 12.78649873
    (12.78649873)*(84.05119028) / (84.05119028 + 12.78649873) = 11.0981628

    Going back the other way:
    (11.0981628)*(84.05119028) / (84.05119028 – 11.0981628) = 12.78649873

    J-(N-U):
    (164.888325)*(84.05119028) / (164.888325 – 84.05119028) = 171.4442259
    (171.4442259)*(11.86630899) / (171.4442259 + 11.86630899) = 11.0981628

    And going back:
    (11.0981628)*(11.86630899) / (11.86630899 – 11.0981628) = 171.4442259

    -
    tallbloke, that Tomes spectrum to which you linked is for r (radius). Keep in mind that the spectra I’ve posted are for other time series. The dominant power band for r’ (radial velocity) is at the JS timescale. That for r” (radial acceleration) is at JN.

    What I am calling “JEV” is a more complicated beast. I was not satisfied with the other approaches I had seen. There appeared to be misuse of double-angle theorems in one paper. Others used metrics that discarded valuable information. My impression was that people were struggling with the geometry and not realizing that what they were looking for was a maximum of 3 other curves (or 4 other curves if Mercury is included). There is resonance between the JEV curve and the r curves, but reading your comment I am reminded of why people often insist that time series be plotted alongside power spectra.

    -
    One last note – about the “178 (or 179) vs. 171 (or 172)” thing: The ‘appearance’ of 178 (which shifts to another ‘apparent’ period periodically) arises due to beats among harmonics. Charvatova discusses this briefly in one of her papers, but the best way to learn what is going on is to break the curve down into UN, SN, & JN and investigate beats among important harmonics that fall close to one another. There are pitfalls (related to record length & subharmonics) for anyone trying to judge periods just by looking at curves or by looking at statistics.

  79. Geoff Sharp says:

    One last note – about the “178 (or 179) vs. 171 (or 172)” thing: The ‘appearance’ of 178 (which shifts to another ‘apparent’ period periodically) arises due to beats among harmonics. Charvatova discusses this briefly in one of her papers, but the best way to learn what is going on is to break the curve down into UN, SN, & JN and investigate beats among important harmonics that fall close to one another. There are pitfalls (related to record length & subharmonics) for anyone trying to judge periods just by looking at curves or by looking at statistics.

    Agree…there is not a regular period, only an average which if taken back far enough will probably come out at the synodic period of U/N (171.444 years). 172 years is the average if going back 6000 years. Gray’s website has some further reading on the topic.

  80. tallbloke says:

    Point taken Paul. One interesting thing I noticed about the Tomes power spectrum is the strength of the J+U resonance at 10.4 years. I think this shouldn’t be ignored. Timo Niroma notes that if the very odd and extremely long cycle around the time of the hiccup at the start of the 1800′s occurred is regarded as two (merged) cycles, the average cycle length over the period of record drops to 10.5 years. Cycles 21 and 22 were around that length I think.

    Ray Tomes says that as well as the ~11 year resonance, there is an underlying resonance of ~10.5 years and these two are what generate the beat which generates the ~115 year modulation of solar activity at the centennial scale.

    Food for thought.

  81. Paul Vaughan says:

    Correction: I withdraw my statement about what Tomes has done. I’d have to run some analyses to be sure exactly what he has done – and I would want to see the power as a function of time, rather than just looking at a summary of the whole record.

    I should state for the record that I mainly do these analyses of 11.1 year SSD cycles to highlight the utility of wavelet methods. More than once I have been misunderstood as advocating a physical theory.

    The stuff I do on terrestrial oscillations is producing one clean result after another, so I’m not hesitant to postulate physical links on that front.

  82. tallbloke says:

    Tomes states:

    “Using a spreadsheet FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) for 512 years starting in 1500 AD I calculated and plotted the FFT of the absolute N-S displacement of the barycentre relative to the Sun.
    You can see that when the absolute value of the displacement is used, the 11.86 year period of Jupiter no longer dominates the spectrum, but the planet pairs of frequencies (either + or -) make the strongest components of the spectrum. The J-N component is exactly at the true sunspot cycle peak period. Other periods found here in the range 8 to 14 years are also found in the sunspot cycle.”

    I think the power is as a function of time; the x-axis label states: Frequency of barycentre motion in 1/years.

  83. Semi says:

    Geoff: I have been looking for something that might line up with the 17 year flow length observed in the Solar Doppler images.

    Where have you found this 17-year flow length?

    There is a flow, seen for ex. in Mt.Wilson doppler images, that matches the Sunspot cycle (butterfly diagram), but only the last 2 cycles are available.

    I’ve tried to analyse this myself from absolute values either in MDI or GONG data, but absolute values in GONG data are seriously poisoned by daily and yearly (probably temperature) changes, and are good just to subtract one frame from the previous to detect the oscilations (which they are using them for), but no hint on the change of absolute values. The MDI data is also poisoned by a “wing” switch, and there seems to be some earth-yearly oscilation, which is probably an artefact of the SOHO orbit.

    I’ve already tried to determine the differential rotation from SOHO eit 304 images, with a sub-pixel precision, by rotating a “model” with the previous image and matching the individual longitude stripes with the next image and interpolating to a sub-pixel precision. The algorithm is very noisy. I found also an earth-yearly oscilation, opposite on north and south hemispheres (beside the toward-equator flow similar to Mt. Wilson data, almost indiscernible below the noise), and decided there should be rather some minor error in the rotation model or its matching onto the Solar image…

    (There also seem to be step changes in specified solar radius on SOHO images in 1998/12 (4 pixels) and again in 2001/12 (1 pixel), probably the SOHO moved away from the Sun twice, or the algorithm changed in 2001? The actually detected Solar radius on SOHO images (determined by circle matching the contour by me) steps unexpectedly only in 1998. Otherwise from these times the specified Solar radius on the images runs in an almost perfect sinusoid, also with sub-pixel precision… An inexactness in solar position/radius may affect my rotation model precission severely…)

  84. tallbloke says:

    Hi Semi, Leif Svalgaard has some graphs showing the old solar cycle continuing under the previous and next cycles which show an approximate 17 year length. I’ll try to find the right link if Geoff doesn’t have it.

    I thought I had found it here but I was wrong. Gave me a laugh anyway :)

    Please would you post a summary of your thoughts on tidal forces here when you find time?

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/tides-raised-by-the-planets-on-the-sun/

    It’s fine if want me to cut and paste from your papers if you don’t have time to, just tell me.

  85. Semi says:

    > … Mercury … I am keen to see how the picture looks at solar max,
    > we should see a catch up of the phases if the theory holds.

    If the Mercury is included in tidal calculations, the J-E-V cycle just disappears and there seems to be no link with the Sunspot cycle. I’ll post more on this in another dedicated thread here, probably until end of the week…

    > … Landscheidt was very close after that, he looked to mainly work
    > on the zero crossings of AM and Torque…

    The almost-zero crossings of solar AM are otherwise very interesting, compared with human history… You find years like 622 (Muhammad), 661 (introduction of budhism to Tibet), 800 (coronation of Charles I. – a first European empire), 1313 (termination of Knights Templar empire), 1453 (termination of Byzantia empire), 1492 (expulsion of Jews from Spain and discovery of America), …, 1811 (start of dissolution of world-wide Spanish empire), 1951 (minor peak – first commercial computer), 1989-1990 (fall of communist empire and spread of world-wide Internet – WWW was invented in 1989 and some first commercial email networks joined) – are these just a coincidence? The next one is 2030, and there was on wikipedia for this year, that computer power should overtake the human brain, but it disappeared sometimes (in January 2006). Now there is something about first manned missions to Mars. Mere science fiction yet…

    ——-
    Regarding the flows, lasting from previous and going to next cycle, this does not make their frequency 17 years, but rather just marking a longer decay…?

  86. tallbloke says:

    “Regarding the flows, lasting from previous and going to next cycle, this does not make their frequency 17 years, but rather just marking a longer decay…?”

    That was my interpretation here:
    tallbloke January 11, 2010

    “If the Mercury is included in tidal calculations, the J-E-V cycle just disappears and there seems to be no link with the Sunspot cycle. I’ll post more on this in another dedicated thread here, probably until end of the week”

    Fantastic! Thank you.

  87. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke 12:36 “I think the power is as a function of time; the x-axis label states: Frequency of barycentre motion in 1/years.”

    No, the power is summarized over the entire record as a function of timescale. Tomes did not use windowed-FFT – there are no dates on the x-axis – and the plot is 2D, not 3D – it is just a marginal summary of all-time.

    Thanks for clarifying that Tomes worked with |SSBz| (absolute value). An FFT for SSBz would show dominant spikes at J, S, U, & N.

  88. Geoff Sharp says:

    Semi,I wrote an article last year that has a whole lot of graphs and the paper from Howe.

    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/02/25/latest-solar-differential-rotation-information/

    The 17 year length of flow probably varies in length but science doesnt seem to have any answer for what generates these flows. Each solar cycle looks to use a proportion of the flow and the V shape allows overlap so that each solar cycle is around 11 years. I think the big secrets could be hidden here.

    It was interesting that Howe and Hill did a press conference not long after my article using similar sunspot overlays and discussing the flow length and latitude considerations…I had previously emailed Howe the overlay but received no response.

    Re your work on the SOHO images, I use the continuum images in the Layman’s Count and I am aware of the image size difference over the year caused by SOHO moving with Earth’s elliptical orbit. I use a rough calculation but would suspect your work would need something more precise.

  89. Geoff Sharp says:

    If the Mercury is included in tidal calculations, the J-E-V cycle just disappears and there seems to be no link with the Sunspot cycle. I’ll post more on this in another dedicated thread here, probably until end of the week…

    Have you tried just including the Mercury perhilion/aphelion data on its own merged with the JEV alignment data?

  90. tallbloke says:

    Hi all,
    sorry to pester, but as we’re just getting the blog underway, please take a quick look at Vukevic’ latest reply to my question here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/mr-vukevic-offers-a-resource/#comments

    I especially asked Vuk to call by again, so please weigh in so he doesn’t feel left out of the conversation.

    -thanks-

  91. Paul Vaughan says:

    Realizing that it may be decades or longer before the mainstream knows wavelet methods, I’m looking for alternate means of presenting patterns shared by terrestrial oscillations and solar system dynamics — how’s this?

    Will that work better for a mainstream audience?

    The wavelet plots still look cool, so I won’t be scrapping them.

  92. Paul Vaughan says:

    btw: The dynamics change after the middle of Charvatova’s trefoil. Before the middle: r”. After: plain JN.

  93. tallbloke says:

    Very interesting plot Paul. The UN conjunction in 1993 seems to have left it’s mark there. Which indicates that the alignment needs to be quite close to overcome the main JN effect?

    Speculation: Could this comparatively sudden wobble indicate that the conjunction of Uranus and Neptune causes some sudden magnification of a force, given that Jupiter is in opposition at that time?

    Given that it’s a ’tilting’ effect, you might expect the ‘z’ component to be the main force.
    Eyeballing it, the cycle length seems to be around 6.2 years, which takes us back to the 1/2J 1/3JS solar activity drop puzzle we were discussing on Vuk’s thread…

    Given we have a reasonable amount of clue about the Earth’s density gradient and angular momentum, and the size of the polar motion, the force might be calculable.

    Not by me though. :)

    And to answer your question, finally, I do think the easy to understand bi-variable plots are easier for gen-pub to get their heads around. But I agree, your wavelet plots contain more information and are great to look at even if we don’t fully understand them. A bit like you were recommending with the power spectra plots, put them both up together.

  94. Paul Vaughan says:

    Warning to those who don’t want to have to work hard: Ignore the following.

    tallbloke, the ‘discrepancy’ beginning late ’80s to early ’90s seems related to decadal nutation longitude crossing the main north-south axis of NAO.

    Here is a plot of polar motion radius with the 6.4 year oscillations ‘removed’ (roughly speaking):

    Note the synchrony of NAM/AO/NAO with GLAAM/LOD/QBO during that interval leading up to Barkin’s ’98 ‘gallop’ (when we saw typically interannual SAM/AAO variability flattened):

    (Bear in mind that I have 1000s of other plots on file – i.e. there’s a much bigger nonrandom picture influencing my confidence.)

    It’s all too nonrandom. This puzzle can be solved (via phase-aware methods) – I am sure of it …but it involves tedious patience, a clear schedule, and an unpredictable amount of time/effort.

    Thanks for the feedback on the new presentation-format I’m working on — MUCH appreciated.

    Important Note: Do NOT extrapolate these patterns back past ~1936 — on the other side of the trefoil there are aberrations related to r” (or something considerably phase-confounded with it).

  95. Paul Vaughan says:

    btw: Arches in polar motion like that straddling the late ’80s / early ’90s relate to SN (& UN on longer timescales). I have found striking phase-relations with regional extreme monthly maximum temperatures.

    Aside: I haven’t yet decided why that particular statistic – extreme monthly max – shows the pattern best — I suspect working out the details will be tricky due to beats between ~27 day periods [lunar & solar] and calendar months (which vary in length) — there are ways to tease patterns out of aliased records, but there are also the year, the QBO, & other cycles adding to the comlexity of the very interesting challenge. A lot of investigators have given up, claiming the record lacks sufficient resolution & duration to answer some questions …but that’s lazy — there’s a lot of valuable, untapped info in existing records.

  96. tallbloke says:

    I have to confess I found myself getting bogged down in confusion with all the terrestrial variables. It takes someone with proper statistical training to get a handle on the relative importance of data discrepancies I think. I’m not bad at visualizing forces at work with fluids and spinning/orbiting bodies though. Probably because I started work as an apprentice in an engineering factory, and learned how to handle big machines.

    You’d have thought forward thinking earth sciences depts at universities might be looking for promising self directed PHD students with teaching qualifications to shower funding on about now, given the climategate debacle. Maybe because, as you observed, it’s an interdisciplinary set of problems, it’s hard to get the turf disparate faculties to co-fund this kind of work in joint honours degrees etc.

  97. Paul Vaughan says:

    Tenured profs with funding are always looking for bright folks to work on THEIR projects. THEIR projects may be of little interest (and of little relevance).

    Another problem with interdisciplinary studies involving rigid disciplines like math, stats, physics, engineering, & computer science is that the culture in those disciplines is INWARDS, INSISTING firmly on becoming “one of them”. Each of these fields is so deep that being “one of them” is more than a full-time job …& that’s just for one of them. The cultural belief (& usual procedural rule) is that it isn’t administratively justifiable to spend money on people (even talented hybrids) who aren’t either “one of their own” or in the process of officially becoming such …so effectively the sense of social responsibility does not extend beyond the clan. Can civilization, as a whole, afford the inefficiency of multiple duplication of everything? (Is it even necessary or desirable? Some ‘ideals’ hinder…)

    Freedom to pursue important truths can be costly.

    Anecdote: I’ve found a seasonal bias in AO (Arctic Oscillation) reconstructions based on SLP (sea level pressure) — it inflates errors by a factor of 2 (nothing to scoff at). This relates to my work on QBO, polar motion, & solar system dynamics — I haven’t yet checked to see if it has implications for strong correlations between winter AO [conditioned on QBO phase] & aa index. The workload is really piling up here…

    …but, on topic, I’m hoping to *soon find time to throw Mercury into the JEV mix (using an approach that differs from Semi’s)…..

  98. tallbloke says:

    Hmm, agree with all that.

    I downloaded aa index last night. The only option was the 3hourly readings. I grabbed the lot from 1868, but open office’s spreadsheet choked on it. I’ll have to patch it in as 20 year chunks, averaging it and reducing the dataset as I go.

  99. Paul Vaughan says:

    Monthly aa index 1868+ (column):
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/RELATED_INDICES/AA_INDEX/AA_MONTH

    Monthly QBO 1948+ (table):

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/qbo.data

    Convert table-to-column & vice-versa using Excel’s “offset” function.

  100. Paul Vaughan says:

  101. Paul Vaughan says:

    Carrying on with this theme of using a presentation-format designed for lay audiences:

    Note that the only time GLAAM & LOD don’t match QBO & JN*2a phase is when SOI is at 180 degrees:

  102. tallbloke says:

    Paul, many thanks for the aa data. Just as a double check, I’ll compare the NOAA data against a section of the data I obtained (RAL).

    The regularity of the J-N data on your plots makes me wonder how we would differentiate that from the J-E synodic cycle, since the periodicity seems very similar. I wonder if close appraoches of M and V affect the amplitude of the LOD GLAAM and QBO indices.

  103. Paul Vaughan says:

    There are armies upon armies of linear folks obsessing about amplitude – many are oblivious to phase. The path less traveled supplies vital nutrients. Resonance along the way makes travels more interesting. My sense is that it’ll be a relative breeze for autopilot lemmings to work out amplitudes once a conceptual handle on multivariate phasing is provided.

    On a more technical note: It would be the second subharmonic of the beat of the 4th EV subharmonic with the terrestrial year that would show coherence with QBO.

  104. Paul Vaughan says:

    If you’re wondering about resonance, use
    A*B / |A-B|
    If you don’t get a huge number, the possibility of resonance can be dismissed (so JE is out).

  105. tallbloke says:

    “It would be the second subharmonic of the beat of the 4th EV subharmonic with the terrestrial year that would show coherence with QBO.”

    If I understand this statement (!), the 4th EV subharmonic is simply the EV synodic period, i.e. 1/5 of the EV cycle, which consists of 5 successive conjunctions of EV. The beat of this with the terrestrial year gives 1.6255 and the second subharmonic of that is 1.6255/3=197.9 days, which looks like just under half of the 398.9 day EJ synodic period.

    Also, I’m wondering, if this is the resonance which shows coherence with the QBO, why did you choose to show the graph of the 2sinJN Vs QBO?

  106. Semi says:

    Geoff Sharp: latest-solar-differential-rotation-information …

    Some comments to this – very interesting – article:
    There is nothing “retrograde” in Solar motion around PTCs. The orbit is prograde, but on different track than “normally”. The retrograde Sun events are rather very rare… (The times, when Solar AM is negative to the planets)

    > It is thought the sunspots are created at the poleward edge
    > of the fast and slow zones (yellow /green), but I am sceptical
    > …
    > ruling out the dark blue/blacks areas at high latitudes

    The Sunspots probably occur most at the shear layer? The difference of speeds may induce magnetic field…

    There is yet another puzzle with the Solar differential rotation: Why the Sun rotates faster on equator than on poles?!
    The planets probably are not responsible for this, as they all move slower then the Sun rotates and more or less at the equatorial plane, so they would gravitationally brake the Sun and cause slower rotation on the equator. The Coriolis effect should also slow down the equator, not the poles: upwelling of the matter at equator (or at 40°?) should slow down, downwelling at the poles should have no effect (is on the axis), what about matter travelling poleward? As it is travelling toward the rotation axis, its acceleration should be in direction of rotation – speeding the upper latitudes… There seems to be just the opposite to the Coriolis effect on the Sun! This is a puzzle, probably not only to me…

    ——————————

    Paul Vaughan:
    > Realizing that it may be decades or longer before the
    > mainstream knows wavelet methods, I’m looking for
    > alternate means of presenting patterns shared by
    > terrestrial oscillations and solar system dynamics
    > — how’s this?

    I highly appreciate your Wavelets – they show not only the frequencies, but how they change over time – much more information in one chart than the FFT could give… I would use them myself, if I found some source code, that could be ported to Delphi Pascal language (tried a lot, but no chance yet).

    Anyhow sometimes the frequency match may not be enough, there should be also no time-shift, or there should be an explanation of the lag, and the time-shift may not be negative (cause preceding effects). So a matching frequency can be used as a guideline to find actual influences, but as the whole Solar system more or less resonates, you may find more resonating patterns, which are NOT causing that effect…

    On your charts (here Jan16, 5:06) – the SOI is quite out of phase at some times. Other charts seem to show rather a good match. What is actually the sin(2a-(J-N)) ? There is probably nothing with 2-year periodicity regarding Jupiter and Neptune alone…?

    ——————————

    Of the Neptune – there is another probably interesting concern. In the physical-astrology circles: the Aspects of Neptune planet are responsible for Earthquakes. There is an agricultural/astrological calendary, printed at least half year in advance (Maria Thun Verlag), that has the “Z” letter for Earthquakes on the day (in my language version), that show pretty good match with most earthquakes over the year, as compared with wikipedia list of major Earthquakes… One (my) idea about this is, that the Neptune spins 16 hours and is 4 light-hours from Earth (at some times preciselly quarter of its spin), so there could be some node of it’s spin-wave nearby? I’m not sure, if this “spin-wave node” is a nonsense, probably it is…? But the exactness of Earthquake prediction in that calendary is striking.

  107. tallbloke says:

    “So a matching frequency can be used as a guideline to find actual influences, but as the whole Solar system more or less resonates, you may find more resonating patterns, which are NOT causing that effect…”

    The music of the Spheres indeed.

  108. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke, I may have misled with my JE comment. JE by itself doesn’t match QBO. However, starting with JN and then considering E is equivalent to starting with JE and then considering N.

    (11.86630899)*(2) / (11.86630899 – 2) =
    2.405420102
    (2.405420102)*(164.888325
    ) / (164.888325 + 2.405420102) = 2.370833957

    Don’t let the “2a” (i.e. 2 years) trip you up – it’s just a matter of harmonics. You can change the 2 to a 1 in the calculations if you use J/2 & N/2. You’ll get the Chandler wobble period – i.e. half the QBO.

    Another note: Don’t confuse harmonics, subharmonics, & overtones. (The wiki explanation is good.)

  109. Paul Vaughan says:

    The mainstream already accepts that celestial bodies affect EOP (Earth orientation parameters). The shared patterns I find have zero-lag across all timescales (verified via time-integrated cross-correlation algorithms) and they occur across a variety of terrestrial variables. I investigate phase-relations, not physics. The JN patterns are nonrandom.
    =
    Anyone looking into the physics should, of course, keep phase-confounding with other variables in mind.
    =
    [The ~11.1 year patterns, on the other hand, leave a pile of (interesting) questions.]

    “2a” is just a subharmonic of the terrestrial year. I showed the calculations above. If you use 1a with the 2nd JN harmonic, you’ll get the Chandler period instead of QBO.

    Windowed FFT gives similar results to wavelet methods. You can even use simple boxcar-kernel smoothing. The following is achieved by simple variable-bandwidth smoothing:

    (You may need to adjust the brightness & contrast on your monitor to see the power-trace.)

    Note the patten match with:

    My sense is that a lot of people use FFT without understanding how it relates to smoothing. I certainly see a lot of goofy comments in the climate blogs about (imagined) effects of smoothing.

    I write my wavelet algorithms in Excel. Excel can’t handle all of the operations in one file, so there are separate modules that do different things and operating the collective set of modules is like operating a specialized piece of heavy machinery with lots of fussy levers, gauges, & crash-hazards. I used to rely on SPlus, SPSS, & SAS heavyweight stats-software, but site-licensing & downloading issues are downright irritating and access is conditional upon continuous affiliation with major institutions. Furthermore, the canned software lacked key features.

  110. Paul Vaughan says:

    What I was showing upthread is that 4VE is close to JN/2. The beat cycle is ~41ka. Thus, phase-drift is negligible on decadal timescales.

    (1)*(0.615172098) / (1 – 0.615172098) = 1.598564175
    4*(1.598564175) = 6.394256699
    8*(1.598564175) = 12.7885134

    The VE-based period nearest Chandler is:
    (1)*(6.394256699) / (6.394256699 – 1) = 1.185382353

    And for QBO:
    (2)*(12.7885134) / (12.7885134 – 2) = 2.370764706

    If you check the beat of the VE-based & JN-based periods nearest Chandler, you’ll get:
    (1.185382353)*(1.185416978 ) / (1.185416978 – 1.185382353) = 40582.39483

    This result is extremely sensitive to small changes, but it is based on NASA J2000 3000BC-3000AD orbital elements.

    Technical Notes: Using 1.00000027 instead of 1 for the period of the Earth year makes only very tiny changes in the periods nearest Chandler & QBO – and the very-sensitive long-beat changes only to 40693.86799, so this is not an issue. Using NASA J2000 1800-2050AD orbital elements produces only very small changes to the periods nearest Chandler & QBO, but the very-sensitive long-beat changes to 57303.66246 & 60708.54855 for 1 & 1.000003915, respectively ….but 250 years is a short period and the 6000 year orbital elements make more sense for estimating longer-term beats. I labeled my above axial tilt remarks as “speculation” — I haven’t done the Milankovitch calculations yet – if I had, I probably wouldn’t be speculating. Regardless of the ~41ka thing, VE-based & JN-based near-Chandler & near-QBO beats are stable across a range of plausible average orbital periods, so phase-drift of VE subharmonics relative to JN harmonics is negligible on decadal timescales.

    So getting around to answering tallbloke’s question:

    It doesn’t matter – i.e. there will be QBO coherence with both 2.370833957 (JN-based) & 2.370764706 (VE-based) ….or with anything close that isn’t too nonstationary. The physicists will have to think about what is phased-confounded with these things.

    It is important to note the striking stability of QBO. We should study aberrations from stationarity and see if they relate to other factors. For example, the QBO goes out-of-phase with Sin(2a-(J-N)) during the very strong peak in polar motion amplitude centred on the decade around 1952. [Although the polar motion record is a little short, SN appears related to polar motion radius limits (the envelope). I base this comment on analyses (not polished-up for presentation yet) using more than one method.]

    Some have suggested QBO is controlled by quasi-biennial cycles in solar activity, but I have looked into this and it doesn’t make sense because the terrestrial QBO is stable while quasi-biennial solar cycles are not.

    Others have suggested solar activity could be nudging terrestrial QBO phase. The speculative analogy is that it might be like steering an ocean liner a little off-course one way or the other.

    Certainly the claimed QBO-phase-conditioned winter-season correlation of geomagnetic aa index with AO & AAO has my attention, but that is a tricky matter to investigate due to patterns in the nonstationary periods AO & AAO (*very interesting patterns). I won’t get into details now, but you may have noticed my related comments on WUWT about my analysis of the (seasonally-biased) AO reconstruction residuals:

    Note the bright January (month 1) band – that’s a very serious violation of statistical modeling assumptions. Conditioning by month-of-year, residual variance is reduced by a factor of 2:

    (….and the year is just the most obvious temporal mode.)

    Stuff like that slows me down quite seriously. I first have to tediously discover and fix others’ errors with respect to something as simple & basic as the terrestrial year before I can sensibly proceed. It’s like being a Stat 101 instructor all over again – but this time for people with *deep foundations in other areas (…but deficiencies in data analysis fundamentals). [Related note: Don't use CDIAC's CO2 records - they're seasonally-*modeled* --- Use NOAA's series, which do not foolishly throw away month-to-month information.]

  111. Geoff Sharp says:

    Semi,

    Geoff Sharp: latest-solar-differential-rotation-information …

    Some comments to this – very interesting – article:
    There is nothing “retrograde” in Solar motion around PTCs. The orbit is prograde, but on different track than “normally”. The retrograde Sun events are rather very rare… (The times, when Solar AM is negative to the planets)

    Maybe its a matter of interpretation. I regard the retrograde aspect as the inner loop of the Sun’s path around the barycenter. The Zero crossings are just markers that occur next to the main disturbance (PTC) and always happen at U/N/S conjunction with J opposite. The pioneers concentrated on the zero crossings but perhaps missed the event that occurs nearby?

    There is yet another puzzle with the Solar differential rotation: Why the Sun rotates faster on equator than on poles?!

    I am thinking its just a matter of physics, the greater diameter demanding faster rotation? I am very keen to see the Doppler images in a few years time.

  112. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, the physics has it the other way. It’s a puzzle.

    OK, I’m taking this thread off sticky now to make way for a new post for Vuk on the ribbon – HCS queation.

    Keep going with this though, it’s a great thread. You can still get to it from the front page by hitting the December 2009 link under ‘archives’ on the right of the page. Thanks again to Paul, you, Semi, Vuk, and everyone who has contributed so far.

  113. Geoff Sharp says:

    Geoff, the physics has it the other way. It’s a puzzle.

    Think about 2 race cars on an oval track. The outside car has to go faster to keep up with a competitor on the inside, a cars differential works in the same manner. The distance traveled is further. The exterior of the sun is viscous allowing these forces to interact.

  114. tallbloke says:

    Yebbut, that’s the point innit? You’d expect the equator to rotate slower than the polar regions, but it rotates faster.

  115. Gray says:

    Possibly, as the solar surface approaches the planet there is a pull from the planet in the direction of solar rotation plus the velocity of the planet. As the solar surface passes the planet the pull reverses but the planet’s motion is in the direction of solar rotation so there is a drag minus the planet’s velocity.

    Or, is that truly dumb…I’ll risk it?

  116. tallbloke says:

    Hi Gray! Nice to see you here again.

    Kinda sounds plausible to me. Whether the magnitude of a gravitational or tidal effect would be enough I don’t know. But other explanations seem to be in short supply! Looked at another way, it might be an indication of just how highly mobile the surface layers of the sun really are, if relatively small forces can produce such a difference between equatorial and polar rotation rates.

    Wikipedia says:

    Until the advent of helioseismology, the study of wave oscillations in the Sun, very little was known about the internal rotation of the Sun. The differential profile of the surface was thought to extending into the solar inertia as rotating cylinders of constant angular momentum [3]. Through helioseismology this is now known not to be the case and the rotation profile of the Sun has been found. On the surface the Sun rotates slowly at the poles and quickly at the equator. This profile extends on roughly radial lines through the solar convection zone to the interior. At the tachocline the rotation abruptly changes to solid body rotation in the solar radiation zone [4].

    There is this other page, which waffles around the problem:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_rotation_in_stars

  117. Gray says:

    Hi tallbloke, I’ve been following the posts here most days.

    Earth’s atmospheric tides are more pronounced in the upper atmosphere, however they are mainly solar in propagation, the Sun thus being fixed relative to Earth’s rotation. There may then be some possibility for some surface tidal effect caused by the planets to be in play. That would be both diurnal with regard to solar rotation and latitudinal relative to the planets latitude I suppose. At this point merely a thought.

  118. Semi says:

    For the differential rotation problem: IF there was down-drafting (what is a word for “opposite of upwelling”?) at the Solar equator, it would by Coriolis effect speed up the rotation. It really seems, that while one wave is travelling poleward, the other wave is travelling equatorward and has to sink down there?

    Otherwise (remark to mr. Gray’s solution) – not only the planet moves, but the Sun also rotates, with larger angular velocity than the planet. Shouldn’t this be subtracted from planet’s velocity also? Anyway, mutual velocity is not a parameter in gravity attraction/force equations?

    ——————————————–

    I’ve found yesterday (in one of my earlier charts) another possible influence, that could match the frequency of Solar cycle – a derivation of length of acceleration vector of the Sun. The Acceleration of the Sun shows dominantly 11.86-year Jupiter cycle, with curls on the top of the wave, which can be extracted by a first derivation, showing dominantly the Venus, Mercury, Jupiter and Earth frequencies (in this order, sorted by FFT importance).
    See updated version of my last draft on Some Periodicities in the Solar system compared with Sunspot cycle, figures A8-A8c.

    But after all, after gaussian smoothing, there is again the boring 11.86-year Jupiter cycle in it, so maybe it’s again not the right match…?

  119. tallbloke says:

    Hi Semi, yes, I think sinking is the word used by oceanographers. The gravity equations usually treat bodies as point like objects unless tides are being considered, and this is one of the inadequacies of existing theory. The point is expanded to be be a homogenous, inelastic body, which the Sun most clearly is not!

    Gray’s point is that because the planets orbit in the same direction as the sun spins, there is always a bigger net gain in the differential gravitational effect of the orbiting body on the surface matter at the suns equator compared to matter at higher latitudes, due to the distance variation. Now this would be small, but nonzero, and has had a lot of time to build up.

    Without some calculations, we are just playing with concepts here however.

    Leif tells me that to understand differential solar rotation, I need to read this:
    http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2005-1/ :)

  120. Geoff Sharp says:

    There are different types of differential rotation making this exercise confusing. The “torsional oscillation” type viewed through Doppler imaging which shows different flow speeds at the equator as well as the layer changes as we look into the convective zone is not to be confused with the 25 day period at the equator and the 33 day rough period at the poles.

  121. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, it’s the latter type Leif and I were ‘discussing’. Whether or not we find an angular momentum transfer from the barycentric motion to solar spin, the equator never runs slower than the higher latitudes, so there is another reason for that I’m interested in learning about.

    Leif was forced to agree with me that the theory is nowhere near tight enough to exclude other possibilities, so a direct planetary effect on faster equatorial rotation is certainly possible.

    The images you’ve been discussing with Dr Howe are very suggestive of subducting currents at the equator (that’s the word we were looking for!) so maybe Semi is onto something with his idea about a coriolis force. The solar hemispheres do appear to be separated in their activity after all. More data on the meridional flows make give better clue in the future.

    Has anyone done continuous observations on the changes in the speed of the belts to your knowledge?

  122. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: Semi 8:56

    When working with noisy differences, one thing you can do to ease burden on the eyes is smooth over half the dominant period. If you are left with something that is still noisy, repeat.

  123. Paul Vaughan says:

    Getting around to addressing Semi’s comment about SOI (Southern Oscillation Index):

    SOI is an east-west oscillation. It borders the 2 major hemispheric modes (north & south); I suspect this may be a factor in phase-deviations from QBO (& from QBO-cophased factors). I am convinced that solving the SOI mystery will involve looking at integrals, derivatives, harmonics, & windowed-integrals over dominant spatiotemporal harmonics.

    It will be necessary to work with partial phase-residuals to work out the conditioning. I’m not sure how many have the diagnostics experience needed to carry out the work. The people I know who have the background don’t do research on climate.

    The other issue is patience. Automated algorithms won’t do since the research needs to push well-beyond the boundaries of what has been incorporated into them.

  124. Geoff Sharp says:

    Rog, I read your “discussions” with Svalgaard and it reminded me of previous discussions of my own. You will find it hard to get a straight answer.

    The differential rotation speed between solar equator and poles is a separate measure and in my opinion not linked to the Doppler images in a pure sense although may have an effect on the length of the “flows” observed. Dr. Howe suggests the slightly slower flows are being projected from the Tachocline and are then subject to the suns radial momentum which expands the flow on the way to the surface which takes 2 years (sunspots are born on these flows). This is different from the overall difference in speed between the equator and poles which is a result of diameter differences and physics in my opinion.

    If there is a transfer of angular momentum from the planets via spin orbit coupling this would I think translate into a wholesale change of either equatorial rotation or perhaps be totally taken up by the core and radiative zone which are thought to rotate as a whole (rigid structure perhaps)

    The big problem I have come up against is that there is no way to measure the overall equatorial rotation speed of the viscous surface of the Sun. I have seen some reports that suggest there is a stable beacon like reference that may be measurable but to date the information is sketchy (or kept hidden).

    Gerry and myself have shown there is missing angular momentum that could transfer to solar rotation…but until we can measure solar rotation accurately it will remain a theory.

    The Doppler images (not really showing rotation speed)only go back 2 cycles, but it is interesting to see SC23 displaying a much longer flow than SC22. SC24 should show an even longer flow that will suggest an overall speed up of the equatorial speed which fans out the flow into longer lengths due to higher momentum.

  125. tallbloke says:

    “This is different from the overall difference in speed between the equator and poles which is a result of diameter differences and physics in my opinion.”

    I respect you opinion Geoff, although my intuitive understanding of the effect of meridional flows and experience of turbulence at confluences working on river boats tell me to expect slower flow at the equator than either side of it. That said, I have no experience of bedless rivers with subducting currents. Being the son of a water engineer, one thing I’ve learned is that whatever you think you understand about flow can be turned upside down by the changing of any of several parameters.

    Leif acknowledged that at the conclusion of our discussion when he said in response to my complaint about the size of the link he provided, asking him if was just trying to keep me quiet:

    “No [and I did see the smiley], and it may be worth it [and I'll help as is my wont]. After all, angular momentum is part of the story :-)
    The theory is very data driven [observations with SDO will help a lot] in the sense that we need to know where the flows go and what the sound speed is.
    There are very few theories that are polished. But that is not important. I think we know what goes into the theory [the equations], but we don’t know all the boundary conditions. As we learn from observations, we ‘constrain’ the theory [pruning away wrong assumptions].
    I wanted you to see that the subject is not a complete mystery and that we have good reasons for optimism. In VERY broad terms [way beyond any six-year old], the differential rotation is the result of the interaction between meridional circulation [now what drives that one? temperature differences? and how do they arise? etc], Reynolds Stresses [turbulent fluctuations as you should know], and [to a minor extent] Lorentz forces [magnetic effects]. It is very hard to give a hand-waving explanation, because these things are complicated and our common day-to-day intuition does not measure up to such phenomena that we usually do not experience in our daily lives.

    This leaves plenty of room for other factors.

  126. Gray says:

    I’ve been pondering this variable surface rotation question some more. Since Semi’s statement that the solar surface rotates faster than any of the planets orbital speeds the idea has interested me.

    I want you to consider a visualisation if you will:

    Imagine a young hula hoop dancer, slim at the waist with ample hips and posterior tapering down to slender thighs. She starts the hula hoop spinning around her waist and begins a rotational gyration. Her waist due to its narrowness cannot impart much acceleration to the hoop so the hoop works down to her hips where a steady circular motion accelerates the hoop. If the hoop slips down as far as her thighs again it loses acceleration and falls to the floor.

    However, she can maintain the hoop’s rotational speed quite easily at the widest part of her anatomy. After a while she loses balance, and throws in two or three smaller gyrations. Immediately the acceleration imparted to the hoop falters and its rotation slows only to be rescued as she returns to her former timing and rotation.

    In this visualisation the waist and thighs are synonymous with the reduced circumference of the solar poles and reduced surface flow whilst the hips and posterior are synonymous with the solar equator and the increased surface flow.

    The dancer’s gyrations match the solar barycentre movements, showing a regular surface flow whilst the gyrations are wide and uniform, and slowing when the gyrations are reduced or chaotic. This model fits the observation that solar minima occur when the solar barycentre movements depart their normal regular sweep, (and tie in with J M Vaquero’s measurements of decreased solar rotation rate during the Maunder Minimum).

    It also fits with Charvatova’s warm periods during long periods of stable solar motion.

    There, Gray’s Solar Hula-hoop theory :)

  127. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve spent some time on JEV & JEVMe.

    Notes to report:

    1. Recommendation:

    a) Use at most a 2 day time step when investigating JEVMe. I would suggest 1 day resolution.

    b) Use at most a 7 day time step for JEV investigations.

    2. There appears to be a systematic relationship between JEV’ (the rate of change of JEV) and the rate of change of sunspot numbers. Open the following in 2 tabs & blink between them:

    2 things to note in particular:

    a) ~1900-1937 – in relation to what we know about correlations that flip over – and in relation to what we know about EOP (Earth orientation parameters) & aa index.

    b) Pinch-points in the JEV’ envelope seem nonrandomly related to phase-contrast destabilizations.

    These are preliminary insights. I may have more comment moving forward, but wanted to give others opportunity to start thinking about these patterns.

  128. Geoff Sharp says:

    I like the Hula-hoop analogy….spot on. The Sun is used to a rhythm but encounters an imbalance. That imbalance can happen in two ways.

    The internal loop is made greater and does not get close to the SSB like the other “balanced” internal loops and the other is where the outer loop is cut back substantially. The 2 types are governed by the timing of N/U. If the N/U bump on Carl’s graph is before J/S opposition (bottom of wave)it affects the inner loop (type A) and if the bump is after J/S opposition its a type B etc.

    Type A (inner loop) are the big ones causing the dancer to react more.

    The strange thing is this is fully known to science along with the solar slowdowns that occur at the same time, we can even predict the amount of dancer reaction by the size and timing of the bump.

    Animation of the solar path here:

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sim.swf

  129. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: Geoff Sharp 5:09 & Gray 2:39

    I use the hula-hoop analogy when explaining to people – works.

    Geoff, these patterns you describe are harmonic beats. Maybe one of these months I’ll have time to draft some notes. Your intuition on how the beats unfold is solid, so my notes will be of no help there – but there is the issue we all encounter of communicating with people who speak different languages…

  130. tallbloke says:

    Paul, great graphing work! The rate of change of sunspots matches very well with the JEV rate of change.

    I like the hula hoop analogy too Gray. Much more enjoyable to visualize. Don’t try it on WUWT when Carla is around though, or you’ll get you teeth kicked in.

    It ties in with the faster equatorial motion when you think about it. Assuming the transfer of angular momentum from the solar-barycentric orbit to the solar axial rotation, the extra angular momentum is going to throw out a bulge, creating a meridional flow towards the equator. Because the sun’s surface layers are so fluid and mobile, and the gravity is so strong, this surface-flow bulge is soon going to be subducted at the equator to restore the Sun’s average oblateness.

    Because of the shear processes and net energy flow direction created by the simultaneous meridional and latitudinal currents, and the turbulence caused in the convergence zone near the equator, we will see both a faster equatorial flow compared to the poleward latitudes, and a slower overall rotation of the surface layers compared to the solar core below the tachocline.

    Because the inner loops of the solar barycentric orbit are comparable in size to the solar radius, the bulge will be asymmetric, and will produce a compression wave to considerable depth towards the tachocline, which will concentrate and rarify the sunspot production ‘bubbles’ making their way radially outwards from the tachocline, which will go some way to explaining the variation in the solar cycles. More thought needed there.

    It’s all starting to make sense to me, and fits with observations.

  131. Geoff Sharp says:

    Paul,

    Re: Geoff Sharp 5:09 & Gray 2:39

    I use the hula-hoop analogy when explaining to people – works.

    Geoff, these patterns you describe are harmonic beats. Maybe one of these months I’ll have time to draft some notes. Your intuition on how the beats unfold is solid, so my notes will be of no help there – but there is the issue we all encounter of communicating with people who speak different languages…

    I think we suffer from the same problem, I have made a conscious effort to make each aspect easy to understand but not quite getting there. I had a chance to do a presentation at the recent AGU conference….perhaps I should have taken a bank loan and bit the bullet. I think personal communication will be the key for the future.

  132. Paul Vaughan says:

    A few more notes on the latest JEV insights:

    If the Jupiter perihelion cycle is included in calculations, the dominant periodicity is simply that of Jupiter. Using an average or osculating Jupiter distance produces a curve showing remarkable coherence with solar cycling, along with a nonrandom pattern of phase-contrast deviations.

    tallbloke, you may recall our 39mo SST & solar index ‘woodfortrees’ graphs exchanges on WUWT some months ago. It appears that the JEV’ curve would not be anti-phased with SST in the early 20th century, so this raises some interesting questions about phase-confounding and linear-correlation breakdowns.

    There is a pattern emerging here:

    Investigations of shared SSD & solar timing keep pointing to shared SSD & Earth timing. This doesn’t imply there isn’t any shared SSD-solar timing; perhaps it just emphasizes that isolating solar patterns in Earth records is not straightforward business.

  133. Semi says:

    Re: Paul Vaughan 9:09
    > When working with noisy differences,
    > one thing you can do to ease burden on the eyes
    > is smooth over half the dominant period.
    > If you are left with something that is
    > still noisy, repeat.

    Disagree! When I strive to extract the noise on the curve (derivation of acceleration), I will not loose it immediatelly by smoothing. I think this is after all the error of current research, that most scientists examine smoothed data and ignore instant changes.

    > on the latest JEV insights…

    I agree, that Sunspot cycle matches pretty well with JEV resonance/timings, but still no acceptable explanation of how it would work. The influence is probably not tidal, since if you add more planets, the Mercury dominates on short scales, the Jupiter on large scales. (I’m sorry for the word “disappears” that I used earlier when talking about adding Mercury to tidal calculations, since there is nothing like the Sunspot cycle frequency in tidal forcing even when only J,E,V are used, it is always dominated by Jupiter perihelion to aphelion difference)

    > Using an average or osculating Jupiter distance…

    Do you know of any forcing, that does not depend on distance?

    ————-

    Re: Geoff Sharp, 10:24
    > Gerry and myself have shown there is missing angular momentum

    The “missing angular momentum” is surely not in DE40* ephemerides. If you find any missing angular momentum, it either means, that you omitted something (asteroids), or that you used incorrect logic, since the ephemerides are computed in such a way, so that the angular momentum is always constant in them. It is possible and probable, that this AM-exchange occurs, but you will not find it in these ephemerides, since it was not used in their calculation… Would you rewise your research?

    You could also ask about this mr. E.M.Standish? (I was once so cheeky to send him an email about something in the ephemerides and received a quite inteligent reply…)

    If you were interested, I can send you some position/velocity data of the asteroids, used in the ephemerides calculation (the data-files for asteroids can be purchased from Swiss ephemerides http://www.astro.com, but the data-format is not compatible with DE40x ephemerides (they are more compressed)… I think it will not violate their copyright if I send you some text-file generated from them?)

    ————-
    For the case of hula-hoops theory – but the Solar innertial motion is quite out of phase with the Solar cycles? Still suspecting…

    > The dancer’s gyrations match the solar barycentre movements

    But the “dancer’s gyrations” usually must match the frequency of the hoop, otherwise it will get out of sync and fall down?

    Since the forcing is not continual, there should at least be some “kicks” that boost the faster rotation. It would be nice to catch some occurence, when the Solar equator sped up unexpectedly, it could be a key for the AM exchange… It’s a pitty there is not much exact data on Solar rotation spanning some longer time…(or is it somewhere?)

    ————-
    For the case of PTCs: if you happen to see (for ex. in my last draft, figure A2) the distance of SSB from Sun, at the times of PTCs the SSB moves for a much longer than normal time just at or below the Solar surface… May this be of some importance?

    Is SSB something “real” to be felt by the surface layers? Last time SSB entered Solar surface (690Mm) from outside at 2003/08 and it was a pretty “hot” time following. Now I’ve noticed, that when the SSB is entering the Sun from outside, it either already is a solar max, or even at solar min there is some rise in the activity (for ex. 1888), but there are some cases, when this does not apply… Will need some more research… Next time will be 2010-05-01, but this is the “shallow” PTC case, not the normal “steep” one, so let’s see…

  134. Semi says:

    One more note about DE40x ephemerides and missing AM: the equation, used for gravity attraction in them, is very complicated and seems unreal to me (Parametrized Post Newtonian gravity calculation). (I’ve once received a pre-print from the Astronomical Almanach Supplement chapter related to these new ephemerides, but later when I purchased the book, there was still the old chapter from 90′s describing the DE20x ephemerides…)

    The complication of the gravitational attraction equations may just mean, that it didn’t work well with the old simple equations and needed to be twisted hard to match the reality, just because other exchanges of AM were omitted…?

  135. Paul Vaughan says:

    Semi 8:09 “Disagree! When I strive to extract the noise on the curve (derivation of acceleration), I will not loose it immediatelly by smoothing. I think this is after all the error of current research, that most scientists examine smoothed data and ignore instant changes.”

    Perhaps you are overlooking the importance of time-step beats with dominant harmonics. There is a phenomenon known as “aliasing”.

    The “noise” is not really noise (in the statistical sense) if you window-integrate differences over dominant harmonics. Such smoothing is recommended only for communicating visually with a non-statistically-inclined audience; wavelet methods work fine on the raw differences.

  136. Paul Vaughan says:

    Here is an example of an issue with time-steps (i.e. temporal resolution):

    Note the “concentric-blue-dot-ring circular-features” that disrupt the power trace periodically. The pattern is caused by the time-step (1 calendar month) occasionally being insufficient for rapid successions of Venus alignments. I will be updating this graph in the weeks ahead.

    -
    Semi 8:09 “Do you know of any forcing, that does not depend on distance?” / “[...] still no acceptable explanation of how it would work”

    These are matters for physicists. I investigate timing, in part to showcase the utility of phase-aware methods, such as wavelet methods.

  137. Gray says:

    tallbloke,

    Yes I agree that the analogy may help picture how the poles would rotate slower relative to the equator.

    According to Charvatova the sun moves in an area representing 4.4 solar radii and with a changing velocity of between 9-16 m/s if I’ve understood right. Looking at Geoff’s solar path trace the fast and wide part of the motion comes at the beginning of, and through the maximum and the tight slower circle occurs at minimum.

    Geoff,

    A dim question. The solar path on the link you gave moves clockwise but am I viewing that from above the Sun which would be rotating anti-clockwise. Is there a link where I can dial in different dates for the the path or is this a one-off? Thanks.

  138. Geoff Sharp says:

    Gray,

    The software is sim1 by Carsten, it can be found here along with sim2. http://arnholm.org/software/index.htm. I have asked him about orientation in the past but he was also unsure. Whether the viewer is at the north or south pole is a good question. BTW the solar cycles dont keep in sync with the different loops. I see the loops as a background engine, the power being measured by the AM value (assuming the centre of the sine wave as zero). J/S being the main source but being tweaked by N/U over the 172 yr conjunction cycle. Along with the tweak a spanner is thrown in at important intervals.

  139. Geoff Sharp says:

    Semi,

    The ephemeris used in the project is DE405. Asteroids Ceres, Juno, Vesta and Pallas are included (they make little difference). Planet AM is calculated using the Sun as the axis point. The Sun is calculated using the SSB as axis point. To achieve the same inertial frame the solar AM is deducted from the Planet AM which gives the variance (not a constant variance)

  140. Gray says:

    Thanks Geoff,

    That’s what I needed to know…I’ll take a look though at the link.

  141. Paul Vaughan says:

    When I wrote …

    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VaughanPL2009_11.1aCycleSSD.htm

    …I included a link to a cautionary note:

    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/LFJS.htm

    I knew I would have to follow up later — now I have the result:

    The ~11.1 year period in JEV is J+N, not J-(N-U).

  142. Paul Vaughan says:

    Correction: It’s closer to J+N than to J-(N-U).
    More precisely: 11.0549702558003

  143. Semi says:

    Hello…

    Sorry for the year 1888 in my earlier post, it’s rather an error, again…
    After all, there seem to be no consistency in the distance of Sun from SSB compared with the Sunspot cycle, sometimes the same event falls at max, sometimes at start of min, sometimes at the rise…

    ———————————————-
    Re: Geoff Sharp, 12:02
    > Planet AM is calculated using the Sun as the axis point.
    > The Sun is calculated using the SSB as axis point

    But the AM should be (and is) constant relative to the barycenter. Here you are summing values from two different reference frames, which may not be correct… (I’ll have to look back at your work (later, hope that soon), if there is already mentioned some justification for this method…)

    ———————————————-
    Re: Paul Vaughan 8:57
    > … in part to showcase the utility of phase-aware
    > methods, such as wavelet methods

    You would be very kind to run your Wavelet on the Daily Sunspot counts (either original dayssn.dat from sidc.oma.be or processed by me (removed undefined rows))… I would be interested in the high frequencies in it, since FFT is not much clear and there seem to be some peaks near planet frequencies, but unclear… (There should be 27-day frequency due to Solar spin, when one hot region rotates periodically toward us and behind. Frequencies arround 89 days, 140 days, 224 days, 1 year, 1.09 year etc would be very interesting…)

    I know, that Sunspot counts may not be really exact proxy of the cycle (some large spots count as 1 same as small spots), using 10.7 radio or total sunspot area would do it better, but these series are rather short yet…

  144. Geoff Sharp says:

    Semi,

    Re: Geoff Sharp, 12:02
    > Planet AM is calculated using the Sun as the axis point.
    > The Sun is calculated using the SSB as axis point

    But the AM should be (and is) constant relative to the barycenter. Here you are summing values from two different reference frames, which may not be correct… (I’ll have to look back at your work (later, hope that soon), if there is already mentioned some justification for this method…)

    This maybe our divergence point. I am very much persuaded that all the solar system planets orbit the Sun directly…I know this is different to your views and others. But if correct then calculating planet AM from the SSB will give erroneous results. When I summed the Planet AM calc from Sun axis point and then wiggle matched with Solar AM calc from SSB the match was perfect…but they are not in the same inertial frame, Gerry picked up on that instantly. The wiggle match should not have happened, its a product of the JPL calculating solar AM in the wrong reference frame.

  145. Gerry says:

    This paper describes the n-body numerical integration equations used to create the JPL Development Ephemerides:

    http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/XSChap8.pdf

  146. Paul Vaughan says:

    Treating conjunctions & oppositions equivalently:

    V: (0.615172098) / 2 = 0.307586049
    E: (1) / 2 = 0.5
    J: (11.86630899) / 2 = 5.933154494

    The pairwise beats:
    (0.307586049)*(5.933154494) / (5.933154494 – 0.307586049) = 0.324403759
    (0.5)*(5.933154494) / (5.933154494 – 0.5) = 0.546013784
    (0.307586049)*(0.5) / (0.5 – 0.307586049) = 0.799282087

    The lowest period (highest frequency) is 0.324403759.
    [Recall that frequency = 1 / period.]

    The nearest-harmonic of the next-lowest-period is:
    (0.546013784) / 2 = 0.273006892

    Their beat:
    (0.273006892)*(0.324403759) / (0.324403759 – 0.273006892) = 1.723149058

    The harmonic of 1.723149058 nearest to 0.799282087 is:
    (1.723149058) / 2 = 0.861574529

    The beat:
    (0.799282087)*(0.861574529) / (0.861574529 – 0.799282087) = 11.05497026

    This is the period of the envelope.

  147. tallbloke says:

    Gray Wrote:

    “The solar path on the link you gave moves clockwise but am I viewing that from above the Sun which would be rotating anti-clockwise. Is there a link where I can dial in different dates for the the path or is this a one-off? Thanks.”

    Gray, as I understand it Carsten’s program is viewing the solar path from the south pole.

    For other dates you might try the gravity simulator program.

    http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/what.html

    Paul, did you spot semi’s request?

  148. Paul Vaughan says:

    About the request for high-frequency solar periodicity via wavelet methods: That would require a major overhaul of the software. The way the algorithms are designed, everything is already pushed right to the computer/software-combo’s crashing-limits with monthly-data. By making some design trade-offs, retailoring is feasible, but I have nowhere near the amount of time required anytime soon, as this is not related to projects for which I am currently funded.

  149. Paul Vaughan says:

    Different ways of characterizing JEV give slightly different results:

    The middle one is rate of change of sunspot numbers.

  150. Gray says:

    tallbloke

    Thanks for that with the planets and solar rotation being anti-clockwise it seemed odd that the Solar Path sould be clockwise.

    With the hula-hoop analogy, as Semi says the thrust would be timed and rhythmic, presumably at the frequency of solar activity. It may be the case that the timing, speed and direction of the thrust then dictated any surge in surface rotation. Rather like spinning a wheel by hand. If you connect at approximately the wheel’s rotation rate and then accelerate the wheel the action is smooth. If you are moving faster or slower than the wheel as your hand connects with its surface energy is lost. Likewise if part of the directional force is at an angle to the direction of movement the acceleartion effect would be lost.

    This all might provide an answer to Geoff’s observation that the solar activity doesn’t readily match the solar path as you’d expect.

  151. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve been looking into this JEV thing in increasing detail and at this stage I can say phase-deviations between JEV and the sunspot cycle appear nonrandom if one looks at derivatives and windowed-integrals over key harmonics. Furthermore, even the amplitude relationship appears nonrandom. The relationships are complex and it is going to take a good deal of work to organize my findings into something consumable.

  152. Paul Vaughan says:

    Sunspots & JEV – Collection of Graphs:

    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SunspotsJEV.htm

    The main point is that the mismatch pattern is nonrandom.

  153. Paul Vaughan says:

    Geoff, have you ever taken a look at the 2nd derivative of AM?

  154. tallbloke says:

    Would that be the AM acceleration on the Sun Paul? If so, I think Geoff has got Carl’s old graphs of that.

    Great work on JEV by the way.

    I noted on WUWT that you wisely refused to be pulled into a discussion of causality, but I think Ching Cheh Hung’s predictions on solar flares speaks of an Electro-Magnetic effect operating across interplanetary space to these planets.

  155. Geoff Sharp says:

    Geoff, have you ever taken a look at the 2nd derivative of AM?

    Not sure I even know what it is Paul, a sub harmonic derivative perhaps? Personally I dont think we need to move into the ultra deep, the top level says it all. But I would encourage any investigations that surround planetary theory, as long as we discard those that are obviously fatally flawed….2012 comes to mind.

  156. Geoff Sharp says:

    tallbloke,

    There does look to be a fairly close correlation between the JEV alignments and the 172 year average AM powerwave. But I personally think they are 2 different processes. Pauls work if I am not mistaken will probably be more tide related than AM related.

    BTW….some very interesting comments of yours on WUWT, keep it coming. There seems to be quite a few catching on, the ClimateGate effect perhaps?

  157. Gray says:

    Transits in 2012. In each of these cases the inner planet visibly crosses the Sun’s disk viewed from the outer planet.

    Mercury from Jupiter February 26th
    Mercury from Saturn March 28th
    Venus from Saturn May 6th
    Venus from Earth June 6th
    Mercury from Saturn June 25th
    Venus from Jupiter September 20th
    Mercury from Saturn September 22nd
    Mercury from Venus December 18th
    Venus from Saturn December 21st

    Geoff, I’m not sure I totally rule out 2012 even :)

  158. tallbloke says:

    Gray, statistically, how unusual is it for that many transits to be taking place in any year?

  159. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, I’ve been looking at some alternative theories of gravitation. It’s possible the sun is about three times it’s currently estimated mass. If true, this would affect the planets estimated masses too, and of course their angular momentum.

    I’m wondering how difficult it would be to recast some solar AM graphs with that theoretical value plugged in?

    Might we expect the curves to look a bit different?

  160. Gray says:

    tallbloke,

    It’s exceptional but not massively so. I have no statistics year by year. However, Venus and Earth only transit 4 times in 243 years so a Venus Earth transit alone is already a 1 in 60 shot.

  161. tallbloke says:

    Gray: interesting. Could you easily see what transits were occurring last time there was a transit of Venus from Earth (6 years ago)? Or is it a time consuming fiddly operation with your nice orrery software? :)

  162. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: Geoff Sharp 12:22

    Regarding 2nd derivative: Just difference the series twice – this gives you the rate of change of the rate of change (or acceleration of AM).

    Richard Holle linked (on WUWT) to a Freeman & Hasling paper we discussed months ago [ http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/paper18.pdf ] – it looks a lot different now that I’ve read more literature, run tons of analyses, & learned to do astronomical calculations more precisely — they are missing this:

    There’s a lot of work to do, but I can see how EV, JEV, JN, r, QBO, terrestrial polar motion, LOD, & GLAAM all fit the same timing framework. (Some might speculate that the solar cycle should be included in this list.) The key is in recognizing that J & N set the upper & lower limits on the timing framework.

    S & U modulate. S may do so with large amplitude, but it sets neither the longest (U-N) nor shortest (J-N & J+N) waves. Viewing everything relative to N (the slowest thing) makes it simpler to work out the various harmonic beat envelopes (quantitatively). [Bear in mind that JS can be represented as the beat of JN with SN.]

    Re: tallbloke 11:36

    To which of Carl’s graphs are you referring? I plan to do some calculations to verify intuition (following insights arising from the review of the Freeman & Hasling paper) – it will be good to compare and account for similarities & differences of indices.

  163. Paul Vaughan says:

    Semi, in your speculation about periodicity in sunspot records, bear in mind solar rotation when working out the candidate periods — relative-power & phase-contrasts (along with residuals) in the ~30-80 day range might be of interest.

    Surgery on algorithms has a way of taking weeks or longer [and severely derailing other work, some of which is on deadlines], but when I have time (in the months & years ahead), I am interested in pursuing and discussing this further.

  164. tallbloke says:

    Paul, my memory letting me down again, the graph I was thnking of is for z not AM

  165. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke 11:36 “[...] work on JEV [...]“

    Can you (& others please speak up too) see the systematic pattern in when R’ & JEV’ disagree (by comparing with JEV & JEV’ envelope features)? I am interested in feedback – it helps me gauge how much effort I need to expend on explaining (which takes time away from new analyses – eventually I might devise an index that captures the pattern, but that is not a short-term priority – at this point I’m curious to know if people need additional indices to see the pattern).

  166. tallbloke says:

    Paul, I think what I need more than anything is some definition of terms. What is your definition of JEV angle? And what does the Y axis scale represent on the JEV angle graph?

    You know what all the curves are because you generated them from the data, but for us, it’s hard to remember what they are with no axis labels to help as we move between graphs. Tedious for you I know, but it would really help our understanding I think.

    I’m getting glimmers of ideas by looking at your graphs, and there is a lot in them to think about.I agree with you that there are non-random patterns to the phase relations and solar cycle amplitudes. Give me more time to study them, and I’ll try to say something with more depth about them.

    Thanks for sharing the fruits of your hard work, and well done with the discoveries so far.

  167. Gray says:

    tallbloke,

    Re Transits: It’s quite a simple process, but you have to do each planet separately watching for the inner orbits to cross the sun and then noting the date of each transit. I ran a few comparative checks on different years for interest but didn’t pursue it further as an investigation. It might be worth seeing how time consuming say running a five year sequence would be and what data needs to be collected before embarking on 250 year’s worth.

  168. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ll be honest: I don’t think the mainstream is ready to hear about JEV-R correlations, so I’ve been cutting a lot of corners in presenting JEV-R work ….so that I can get back to the LOD/QBO/polar-motion stuff that the mainstream seems more willing to hear about (& which is supported by well-known & accepted (& large) bodies of info). However, I don’t mind adding some JEV-R notes as questions arise — seeing what questions arise is helpful for prioritizing. (I’m not abandoning conventionally-unpalatable lines of investigation – just minimizing the related communication-time (since I have bills to pay and need to eat!))

    One note now: The vertical axes are normalized to put everything on a comparable scale – it’s straight linear rescaling – (no nonlinear tricks) – relative heights are preserved in the mapping onto (-1,1).

    I’ll need time to develop (more technical) notes about what “JEV” is (…but I assume people who know the work of Desmoulins, Wilson, Hung, & Semi can get the general gist in the meantime).

  169. Geoff Sharp says:

    I think there are at least 3 Freeman & Hasling papers. I contacted Jill Hasling sometime back as Freeman has passed away, I was interested in their claim of the Jovian orbit axis point around the SSB but was unable to get any verification. I notice they also state the 178.7 Jose period but have not tested it.

    Their work on LOD might prove more fruitful.

    tallbloke,

    If the Solar mass was found to be different I dont think it would change the curves in Carl’s graph http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sunssbam1620to2180gs.jpg
    The overall AM values would increase but the modulation remain the same. The current calculations already show a vast difference between the solar AM and planet AM but the modulation curve is similar.

    Paul,

    I agree with tallblokes last summary, I am miles off understanding your work but would comment that I find a separate J/N frequency difficult to accept. If we are taking about solar distance changes to SSB the Sun is controlled by the big 4 simultaneously, the combined forces acting as one. This might change if a different mechanism ie electromagnetic connection etc was involved perhaps.

  170. Gray says:

    Paul,

    A point of clarification, in JEV-R what does the R signify? Thanks

  171. tallbloke says:

    Gray, R is the sunspot number. R’ is the rate of change of sunspot number.

    Don’t embark on a big analysis of transits, it was an idle question! What might be interesting in the light of the non-discussion I had on WUWT yesterday with Leif Svalgaard, would be a look at Venus-Mercury transits Earth-Mercury transits to see if particularly big solar flares are associated at the time of transit or when Mercury moves to 30 degrees from the sunspot group.

    Paul, you’ve been doing a massive volume of unpaid work and it is appreciated. The ‘rates of change’ graphs are very informative, and will help get a handle on the Sun’s surface viscosity, and the momentum and decay of the waves which travel around the circumference stirring up magnetic activity.

    Paul has updated his JEV page with additional tech notes
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SunspotsJEV.htm

    I’m trying to think how best to set about analysing the link between the solar cycle amplitudes, the planetary relationships of JEV and the background ‘swell’ controlled by the Jovians. Semi’s inclusion of N-U relative velocity is interesting, maybe introducing the orbital angle of the Sun’s barycentric orbit might help too. My instinct is that if we can find a ‘rule’ that works for solar cycle amplitude, a lot more people will sit up and take notice, and the research funding might be forthcoming.

  172. Paul Vaughan says:

    Geoff 1:47 “I find a separate J/N frequency difficult to accept.”

    That’s not what I’m suggesting – as before, we are just “talking different languages” about the same things. I’d like to explain, but I’d basically have to organize a whole online course on “my language” – and I have to get on to other work that involves deadlines. For now this is a communication failure and I take my share of the responsibility.

    I’ve updated this in response to some of the questions:

    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SunspotsJEV.htm

    The main benefit of the calculation exercise has been development of understanding of what others have been claiming. I would advise looking at the results, but not trying to read too much into them. The work was undertaken casually (and I never finished it – I just ran out of time).

  173. tallbloke says:

    Posted on WUWT, plus a few embellishments.

    Informed speculation:

    There is an energy wave traveling around the sun created by the big players, primarily Jupiter and Saturn. It doesn’t show up much in oblateness studies because the high gravity on the sun keeps everything pulled pretty spherical, apart from the average oblateness due to rotation. This gravitational force transforms the wave into a longitudinally compressed wave which has sub eddys which stir up the matter between tachocline and solar surface, producing anomalies in the magnetic field which produces sunspots.

    This low frequency, long lived wave is modulated by the shorter term stresses induced by the JEV cycle which beats with the long term wave to cause the main rise and fall of the ~11 year cycle and a ~105 year cycle. The ~172 yr interval where U and N conjoin, creates a period of time where the addition of all forces brings the centre of the sun very close to the centre of mass of the solar system. At these times, the angle of the Sun’s orbit about the centre of mass can change radically over a period of months, upsetting the latitudinal motion of the circulating pressure wave and causing a slowdown in sunspot production which can last for several solar cycles. (Maunder, Dalton, Now) This effect will not be regular each ~172 years because the relative positions of J and S, and the location of the peak compression areas in the circulating wave relative to the sudden inclination of the solar orbit will also modify the effect.

    We should not expect therefore, that a nice easy correlation is going to be found between the JEV cycle and the amplitude of the sunspot cycles. But neither therefore, is this to be regarded as a reason for dismissing the correlation, which is clearly a good one, oscillating as it does in and out of phase, but never by a whole cycle. It just means we need to determine the additional modulating influences and model the Sun’s behaviour with these other factors included.

  174. tallbloke says:

    In amongst the ridicule, here is the substantive part of Leif Svalgaard’s reply, and my answer:

    Leif Svalgaard (04:10:49) :
    The Sun is in free fall within the solar system and feel no forces

    This is Newton’s assumption from a priori reasoning, like Einstein’s thought experiments with clocks (proved to be nonsense by Louis Essen), not the outcome of any practical empirical investigation. You know, the sort of thing employed by the scientific method?

    The problem with Newton’s clockwork universe reasoning which you so unreflectingly parrot (Norwegian Blue, lovely bird!), is that the Sun is not a billiard ball of rigid matter which obeys his simple laws of motion, but has deep outer layers of magnetically active highly mobile plasma. As it moves in it’s highly eccentric planet determined ‘orbit’ (more a clover leaf shaped dance in fact), it swings through interplanetary space which contains magnetic fields. These will interact with the Sun’s own magnetic field and cause disturbances in the form of pressure waves.

    Never mind, it was worth a try. I’ll leave you with your C17th Dead Parrot Newtonian thought experiment.

  175. Gray says:

    Tallbloke,

    I cribbed these from Wikipedia:

    Transits of Mercury from Venus

    June 11, 1971
    December 25, 1976
    November 17, 2005
    June 4, 2007
    June 3, 2011
    December 18, 2012
    December 17, 2016
    July 2, 2022
    January 16, 2028
    August 1, 2033

    Mercury Transits from Earth

    1970 May 9
    1973 Nov 10
    1986 Nov 13
    1993 Nov 6
    1999 Nov 15 Partial transit
    2003 May 7
    2006 Nov 8

    2016 May 9
    2019 Nov 11
    2032 Nov 13
    2039 Nov 7
    2049 May 7

    Venus Transits from Earth

    Before 2004, the last pair of transits were in December 1874 and December 1882. The first of a pair of transits of Venus in the beginning of the 21st century took place on 8 June 2004 and the next will be on 6 June 2012 . After 2012, the next transits of Venus will be in December 2117 and December 2125.

  176. tallbloke says:

    The Mercury Transit from Venus on Jun 4 2007 formed part of Ching Cheh Hung’s prediction:

    Large solar flares were forecasted to start between late June 3 and early June 5, 2007, when the
    sunspot group 960 was rotated to overhead point of Mercury and Venus. They would also have been very
    likely to start on June 7 or 8, 2007, when the sunspot group was rotated to the position overhead of Earth and Jupiter.
    As shown in table V, the largest solar flare (M8.9) for sunspot group 960 actually started at 5:06 a.m.
    UT on June 4, within the first forecasted time period

  177. P.G. Sharrow says:

    To Tallbloke and all; more ruminations from an old electrican.

    Solar rotations

    The Sun is a self energized motor/generator that powers the solar system by it’s gravity fields angular momentum and it’s rotating broad band Electro-Motive Force (EMF) output.

    Modern accepted science has a hard time recognizing the total of the energy transfer as most of these are deemed too small to be of consequence or not recognized at all.

    First, the sun is a very broad band EMF transmitter, as if it were a Tesla power tower that transmitted in all frequencies. We primary recognize the energy output in the light and near light regions. But all of the output is important as loading of the field causes a loading drag on the transmitter. Other bodies embedded in the field suck the field strength down as in an electrical load or short. This loading or short also generates it’s own field that effects the transmitter. They are locked together in a mutual fields.

    The Sun also generates a very strong magnetic field that is spinning as if it were an inside out electrical motor. Most of this field is generated internally by circulating metallic materials, as in the earth’s magnetic field. Circulations in the Heliosphere (atmosphere) creates additional fields that push on the internal fields mostly horizontal lines of force and speed up the surface circulation. This causes the equatorial regions to travel faster then the poles as the polar heliosphere is pined or locked to the internal fields vertical lines of force. The metallic bodies in the solar system are also drag or anchor points loading of the rotating solar magnetic field. More push and pull, more energy transfer.

    As you can see Gravity is not the only mutual field to be considered in energy transfer.

    I hope this helps in visualization of the solar energy system.

  178. tallbloke says:

    It certainly does help, and thanks for your insight.It is my intuition that the ‘back EMF’ produced by the planets might have more of an effect on the Sun than current dogma considers. Your post seems to back that up.

    But how do we go about quantifying it? Can we get any clue by looking at Brian Tinsleys work on the Earth’s global electrical circuit and the amount of variation in the Earth’s main dipole field caused by the Sun?

    Other ideas?

    I’m copying these two posts to the ‘what is solar-planetary theory thread because they relate to ideas about how we can devise tests for it. I’d like to keep this already very long thread focussed on planetary motions and solar periodicities. – Thanks.

  179. Paul Vaughan says:

    A note for other investigators:
    During the recent review of JEV-Sunspot phase-relations, I noticed a very interesting variable that has been overlooked. Although I don’t have time to discuss it now, I may have something to offer on it months out (after some more mainstream contract-work that shelters & feeds me).

    I’ve added some comments on a (loose) analogy with sea-kayaking here:

    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SunspotsJEV.htm

    (Clarification: The kayak analogy does not relate to the overlooked-variable mentioned above – that is something else entirely.)

    One loose end before I move on from this for now: I’m curious to know if readers intuitively understand paragraph 1 in the “Technical Notes” section – thanks for feedback.

  180. tallbloke says:

    Hi Paul,
    well I get it. Conjunction and opposition score high, and the mass/distance of the three is calculated and weighted into the final calc too. Seems like a reasonable scheme if we are assuming a gravity based effect, though it might be interesting to try other weightings on an inverse r^3 dropoff magnetic basis.

    So come on, you can’t leave us hanging this way. I suggest you tell us what the other variable is, then leave us to work on it in our own way. That will engender a livelier discussion next time round, and you’ll get more in depth feedback on your contribution, which has been huge already.

  181. Paul Vaughan says:

    I haven’t varied the power on the JEV calculations, but that was my very first instinct way back when I was first discovering Landscheidt — and I built software not long after that allowed such adjustments – as well as decompositions. Differential equations involving multiple forces need not be assumed to be simple & univariate – I agree with your intuition.

    Part of the reason I’m holding back on the other variable is that it is also an angle – and I’m eager to avoid getting tied up in complicated misunderstandings about “which angle” I’m talking about in which sentence (since these things don’t have simple names – and require long paragraphs). I’ll give it a stab – don’t confuse this with the OTHER angle discussed on the webpage:

    Consider the spatial average I described in the technical notes section. I worked with the radius. That radius is associated with an angle that flips around – quite suddenly sometimes, since the index maximizes over 4 functions that are shifting in dominance discretely even though motion is continuous & smooth – and the angle has 2 orientations. The pattern of flipping around could integrate meaningful patterns over windowed-intervals.

    The calculations would be tricky, particularly since there would be a variety of features of the dynamics that could be encapsulated into different indices of the same dynamics (including angular derivatives that would show sharp discontinuities, etc.)

    I’m not suggesting there’s anything to this – just saying I haven’t seen any evidence that anyone has looked at this yet (and if they did I would want to repeat their work to see for myself – that’s how I operate).

    I’ve always liked geometry.

  182. tallbloke says:

    More power to your elbow. I enjoyed tech drawing at college too. Constructing ellipses was one of my favourite aspects of producing projections.

    I was once told by one of my logic professors that it could be proven mathematically that it was impossible to trisect and arbitrary angle geometrically.

    I devised a method which was accurate to within a cats cock hair (northern expression) and demo’d it on the blackboard next lesson. When he repeated his claim that a mathematician such as he could prove my method inaccurate, I erased it and drew a fresh angle. Then I asked him to trisect it mathematically as accurately as I could geometrically.

    He roughly sketched the trisecting lines and wrote 1/3 in each section. Nobody loves a smartarse. :)

  183. Paul Vaughan says:

    If the ever-changing position of a ‘maximum bulge’ – which makes discrete jumps – matters, this wouldn’t obviously be inconsistent with the FFT power spectra we’ve seen for the ~30-70 day range, particularly in an intermittent-amplitude scenario (which is what this would be) …but I’ll be clear: I’m not ‘hoping’ for something here – just pointing out what hasn’t been investigated (so far as I’m aware).

  184. Paul Vaughan says:

    btw: This is what happens when you adjust the power mr^x to see what r & AM are hiding:

  185. Geoff Sharp says:

    Posted on WUWT, plus a few embellishments.

    Informed speculation:

    All looks pretty good tallbloke, you have an understanding of the variable power of the 172 yr avg cycle caused by the changing Jovian positions. But if I could comment on the previous 172 yr reference.

    The ~172 yr interval where U and N conjoin, creates a period of time where the addition of all forces brings the centre of the sun very close to the centre of mass of the solar system

    This does indeed happen but the zero crossings or Sun on SSB are markers that Landscheidt and others have used to predict solar downturns are in fact only markers that occur near the important “PTC” event. The Sun does not vary its path on the zero crossing, the Sun alters its path on the nearby PTC event. This is the vital new data we have learned since Landscheidt.

    BTW I see Dr.Svalgaard continues to use loose terms like “the correlations are lousy” on WUWT….if he is referring to the 172 year period then he is clearly using propaganda. If he truly believes this statement he should back it up with evidence from a proper evaluation. I challenge him to do so.

    The data has been laid out for him at http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/1 where he can compare 6000 years of solar proxy 14C records (that are backed up by 10Be records)with the planetary lineups that centre every 172 years on average along with the angles that stipulate the strength of the downturn involved. There are a couple of areas where he may have limited success but by and large the correlations are strong.

  186. tallbloke says:

    “The Sun does not vary its path on the zero crossing, the Sun alters its path on the nearby PTC event.”

    Geoff, can you give me the link on your site which covers this?
    Ah, found one. http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/61
    We are talking about two different types of ‘path altering’. What I’ve found is that when you look at the barycentric motion ‘in 3d’ the x,y motion bringing the sun close to the barycentre coincides with rapid fluctuation in the z axis. This has the effect of radically changing the angle of ’tilt’ of the Sun’s orbit around the barycentre. Because the sun is close to the barycentre at the time this occurs, it may not impart huge amounts of energy into a direction change countering the Sun’s inertial motion, but I thought it worth noting.

    Paul Vaughan
    January 26, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Paul, The question of how to go about interpreting the available sunspot data in relation to ‘jumps’ in the strengths of planetary alignments from one pairing to another seems very complex to me. I wish you well with your analysis, you are much more likely to be successful in managing (in the management sense of the word) a systematic investigation than I am.

    “This is what happens when you adjust the power mr^x to see what r & AM are hiding:
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/zm269…png

    More explanation required for this dummy. Have you altered r^2 to r^3 here? Is the ‘timescale’ on the y axis an averaging period, indicated by the ‘pulling in’ of the endpoints as Y increases? Judging by the way the graph seems to ‘cross over’ at 12, 24, and 36 years, we are seeing a dominant J orbital period here, yes?

  187. Geoff Sharp says:

    tallbloke,

    I see the zero crossing as an extrema of an existing path. During times of N/U opposition the path is the same but doesnt come as close to the SSB…its a modulation that matches the sunspot cycle modulation perfectly. But as N/U come together they exert their extra AM on J when they team up with S forcing the Sun close to the SSB. The 3 planets equaling the force of J.

    The PTC event is different and usually occurs after the zero crossing and is a very different disruption to the normal AM path produced by J/S. The camel hump is N/U clawing back the normal decline in AM caused by S every 10 or so years. The Sun’s path at this time is radically different to the normal inner loop which now goes nowhere near the SSB. Through the Holocene this also coincides with every solar slowdown.

    Your observation of the Z axis changes at zero crossings is interesting. Does this happen every time?

  188. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke 7:34 “[...] ‘jumps’ in the strengths of planetary alignments [...]“

    Jumps in location, not strength. There’s more than one bulge, so depending on destructive/constructive interference, the location of the max-combined-bulge jumps (even though individual component-bulges are in continuous motion).

    -
    Regarding http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/zm269…png :

    Y-axis is time-integration (smoothing) bandwidth.

    This one was for mr^2.69 using SSBr — a graph for SSBam will show something similar.

    It’s not J you’re seeing — it’s J-N. You see J (& S & U & N) in SSBx, SSBy, & SSBz, but in synodic space (SSBr & SSBam & others) you see J-N, S-N, & U-N [& their beats, which include J-S, which is simply (J-N)-(S-N) = J-N-S+N = J-S].

  189. Paul Vaughan says:

    [not
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/zm269…png ]

    Readers: Skip the rest of this post unless curious about wordpress quirks.

    That’s irritating – they look the same, but wordpress changes “…” (3 individual dots) into “…” (3-combined-dots represented as one symbol – not sure what editors call it).

    I use dots . for primes ‘ in weblinks to avoid the stupid-looking “%##” things (like how a space in a weblink gets changed to “%20″) — the primes ‘ mean derivative (continuous) or difference (digital/discrete) – but when they are up against the “.png”, 2nd derivative ends up looking like “…”, but it’s really dot-dot.png – so now you know what you need to interpret what “r..” means in the weblinks I put up – it means 2nd derivative of SSBr.

  190. Paul Vaughan says:

    What a difference a few months of calculation & analysis makes – now it’s so obvious what Freeman & Hasling were missing.

    Can’t be sure, but I may understand what the de Vries cycle is…

    Reading Barkin was like focusing a lens.

  191. Paul Vaughan says:

    Time to review Figure 7 here tallbloke:

    Abarca del Rio, R.; Gambis, D.; Salstein, D.; Nelson, P.; & Dai, A. (2003). Solar activity and earth rotation variability. Journal of Geodynamics 36, 423-443.

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Abarca_delRio_etal_JGeodyn03.pdf

  192. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: No. There was one around 1804 (from memory, I’ll check but it’s within a year or so), but no equivalent in 1993.

    Paul: I see what you mean about the location of ‘average max bulge’ hopping around as the alignments change. Thinking about Ching Cheh Hung’s analysis, and the secondary ‘peak’ at 30 degree angles, it seems to me that it’s possible there are 12 main ‘sub eddys’ in the main wave travelling round the sun. A bit like the harmonic spacing of the storm systems on Jupiter. So we might expect the relationship of ‘max bulge’ to sunspot location to be quite complex.

    Fig7. Yes, the switches from phase coherence in the 1700′s to anti-phase in the 1800′s and back to phase coherence in the 1900′s is interesting, and lends another clue to the ~105 year cycle. The ocean is a huge energy battery, and we nee to understand the inverter circuitry better. Looks like you are getting a good handle on the various oscillators, a colour key to http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/fh.png would be handy!

  193. Paul Vaughan says:

    About Fig. 7: It’s the U-N cycle. It makes me wonder if there was a Chandler wobble reversal around 1765. Compare Fig. 7 with the JEV-Sunspot graphs – you’ll see the same envelope. The JEV envelope is ~125 years. I think it will be wise to review the Abarca et al. paper in light of recent insights. Those folks might already know (some of) the truth… (I can think of MANY reasons why they might not (or cannot) go public…) Also, consider the possibility of periodic (i.e. intermittent) coupling (like the sea-kayak analogy I gave).

    Regarding the draft-graph – there will be more – days to weeks from now – LOTS of work to do… For now: This relates to AM (Sun w.r.t. SSB) – those indices are all derived from it.

  194. Semi says:

    Hello, back again…

    ———————–

    Re: Paul Vaughan:

    > Can you (& others please speak up too) see the systematic
    > pattern in when R’ & JEV’ disagree (by comparing with
    > JEV & JEV’ envelope features)? I am interested in feedback

    I don’t seem to understand many of your charts, as the serie labels seem little cryptic and there is usually no explanation. It’s better, when wrapped in the HTML page, that at least describes, what the serie names mean… (But still there are charts in SunspotsJEV.htm with no description, or 1 short description line for 4 charts, that does not seem to match them all). I found no conclusion, if the JEV-R synchronicity was proven or disproven? Just the conclusion, that the community does not understand and underestimates wavelet methods. Some of us do understand wavelets (at least a little), but as cannot compute them ourselves, so we help other ways…

    > I’m curious to know if readers intuitively
    > understand paragraph 1 in the “Technical Notes” section

    Without that paragraph, the serie labels would be meaningless. I don’t seem to understand it thoroughly, but at least it explains, what JEV means in former charts…

    ———————–

    > Semi, in your speculation about periodicity in sunspot
    > records, bear in mind solar rotation when working out the
    > candidate periods

    There is just the clear 27-day signal of solar rotation, what else frequencies could the rotation induce?

    ———————————————–
    Re Gerry:
    > This paper describes the n-body numerical integration
    > equations…

    Thank you very much…

    ———————————————–
    Re Tallbloke & WUWT:

    > The ~172 yr interval where U and N conjoin,
    > creates a period of time where the addition
    > of all forces brings the centre of the sun
    > very close to the centre of mass of the solar system.

    Just a technical note – the “very close to the centre” occurs rather in the Jose’s interval of cca 179 years, which is the main cycle of repeating in Solar AM.

    Just the PTCs are 172-year apart on average (as says Geoff, I still didn’t verify that), and they drift on the AM charts by this difference, changing types A and B in Geoff’s terminology, by being placed on different parts of the 179-year cycle.

    > The Sun is in free fall within the solar system
    > and feel no forces

    In my opinion, the Sun is in free-fall only against the large planets, with which it shares the orbital center (SSB). The small planets orbit differently…
    It seems logical to me, that the Sun cannot move in free-fall against all possible conflicting influences…

    ———————————————–

    Re: P.G. Sharrow

    This is a nice explanation on EMF that I’ve been seeking for some time…

    But, can you, please, extend it a little – how does it happen, that rather slow planets make the Sun spin faster – on the first glance it seems, that they should rather brake it…?

    Also – could you verify my statement, that althouth the Jupiter magnetic moment at the distance Jup-Sun is 100x larger than Earth’s magnetic moment at the distance Earth-Sun, but due to conductivity of IMF the Sun’s magnetic field is 100x larger at Earth’s distance, so the Earth’s magnetic field could be comparable with Jupiter’s at the Sun?

    I’ll look also at the other thread, that was assigned to it…?

    ———————————————————-

    Re: Geoff Sharp:
    > The data has been laid out for him at
    > http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/1

    This looks very convincing! Congratulations…

    ———————————————————-

    Re: Tallbloke:
    > motion bringing the sun close to the barycentre
    > coincides with rapid fluctuation in the z axis

    I don’t think the distance on Z-axis is any unusual at these times, but the Angle may get very high at these times, as the distance minimizes. (consider 1m high at 100m distance is not very large angle, but 1m high at 0.1m distance is radically larger angle)

    > There was one around 1804
    Surely there was one in 1811 (start of fall of Spanish empire), the next one was 1989-1990 (fall of communist empire), and the previous one was 1632, previous 1453 – in this line.

    The 1492 one was on a different trough in the cycle, continuing the line with 1671 (weak), 1850 (weak) and 2030.

  195. Geoff Sharp says:

    You will find the zero crossings will not follow a 179 year pattern as well. The same planets are involved. Basically Jose did not go back far enough.

    Do a simple test with this solar system viewer.

    http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html

    The last zero crossing was 1990 when S/U/N were together with J opposite which is the only combination that works for zero crossings. Go back 10 cycles, the 179 year cycle will take you back to year 200 which is 65 years away from the configuration. The 172 year cycle will take you back to year 270 which is 5 years from the configuration (265).

    Notice how the alignments in 265 and 1990 are different. 1990 is stronger (more aligned), this is the same thing that happens with PTC alignments, they vary in strength. With the PTC its important to know what angles provide the strength. An exact alignment is weak which is the opposite to a zero crossing.

    If you understand the above exercise everything will become clear.

  196. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Geoff and Semi, I need to look closely at my plots again before I comment further.

    I’ve been reading some Copernicus, for reasons which will become clear.
    I was also reviewing an old WUWT thread here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/28/astronomical-society-of-australia-publishes-new-paper-warning-of-solar-quieting-and-global-cooling/

    Some interesting comments from E.M. Smith at the bottom.

  197. Paul Vaughan says:

    Semi, I have no intention of wasting my time on cosmetics of graphs that have nothing to do with my income & main research interests, but if you have some specific question about the JEV-sunspot graphs, feel welcome to ask. People are welcome to draw their own conclusions about the informal collection of graphs.

  198. Gray says:

    tallbloke

    The E.M. Smith posts were very interesting – Thanks

  199. Geoff Sharp says:

    Chiefio raises a point that is still not answered (and not likely to be so on WUWT). The AM conservation going on in the EMB system has radius vectors are tied to rotation which is measured in the real world.

    If the Jovians orbit the SSB (I am sceptical)then the radius vector of the Sun/Jovians must vary greatly (JPL not showing that). But if so we have a mechanical link for spin orbit coupling. If the the radius vector changes because the Jovians orbit the SSB then there must must be a trade of in rotation as seen in the EMB, only in reverse.

  200. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Semi…….. read your request for further insight. As I think in pictures and not words I will have to create an in depth answer and put it on the other thread.

    PG

  201. Paul Vaughan says:

    Demonstrating phase-confounding — JN resonance with EV:

    Another note on phase-confounding:
    I’ve isolated the ~11.1 year signal in Earth-Moon AM-relative-to-Sun — the period is J+N …and it lines up with JEV Phase.

    And then there’s this:

    For comparison: With a J-N overlay:

  202. Paul Vaughan says:

    Geoff Sharp 12:42 “[...] AM [...] EMB system has radius vectors are tied to rotation which is measured in the real world.”

    That’s what this was about:

  203. tallbloke says:

    Hi all,
    I’ve been busy these last few days reading Copernicus and Kepler, and a couple of obscurely referenced commentaries about them. This research has brought me to decide my next post will be on harmonics within the solar system.

    So it’s nicely timed Paul, that you should bring up these points just now.

    I’m still getting to grips with your notation, so please confirm if I have this right:
    r..AM..EMnAM.. means the rate of change of the velocity (second derivative or acceleration) of the Sun’s barycentric radius multiplied by the second derivative of it’s angular momentum, compared to the second derivative of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system?

    If so, I find that exciting, and I think it might go some way to explaining the correlation I found between changes in Earth’s length of day and the changes in the z axis distance to the solar equatorial plane. Would you agree?

    P.G. Sharrow: It seems no matter what I try to encourage, people are going to use this thread as the general meeting place, and I don’t want to force a change which will kill the conversation, so just go for it, and I’ll copy and paste material that seems relevant elsewhere to the relevant threads. More admin work, but better than discouraging people from posting. When everyone agrees this page is getting to unwieldy to load, We can start another ‘general thread’.

    If you want to make a graphic, I’ll host it here and give it a thread of it’s own along with your ideas. If you don’t have suitable software for making a graphic, just sketch it on paper, and send me a digital photo of the sketch.

    Geoff: I’ve emailed an astronomy professor to ask about matters relating to radii, no reply yet.

  204. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke 11:15 “[...] the correlation I found between changes in Earth’s length of day and the changes in the z axis distance to the solar equatorial plane. Would you agree?”

    Since the record-length is short, S (in SSBz) & S-N (in SSBr, SSBam, etc.) both show rough correlations.

    The best match I’ve found uses at least 2 axes (x & y):

    If you compare x, y, & z, you will find VERY heavy confounding, so if you are making a case for z being special, it’s a breeze for someone else to show that the same reasoning applies for x alone and for y alone. (Looking at x alone, y alone, or z alone, the dominant periods are simply J, S, U, & N.)


    r” = radial acceleration of sun w.r.t. SSB
    AM” = acceleration of angular momentum of Sun w.r.t. SSB
    EMnAM” = acceleration of Earth-Moon angular momentum w.r.t. SSB (with harmonic-smoothing to reveal the pattern)

    tallbloke 11:15 “[...] multiplied by [...]“

    There’s no multiplication – there are 3 separate curves.

    The main point is: There is heavy confounding in SSD – i.e. SSD indices are not independent, so one can find an infinite number of indices that show the same basic curve-shape.

    For example, analyses based on radius are a mere hair from being equivalent to analyses using AM.

    (…so if someone tells you something is “unphysical”, you might remind them of lurking variables (that might be “physical” and confounded with the “unphysical” variables you are studying).)

  205. Geoff Sharp says:

    Paul Vaughan 10:44 pm

    Paul I am not sure how you have calculated LOD, but most of the graphs I have seen take away the normal reduction in LOD caused by the Earth/Moon system leaving the small fluctuations that arise from other means. My point is if the Moon must move out every year because the Earth is slowing in rotation speed the same must apply in reverse. If it could be proved that the Jovians orbit the SSB then the Solar radius vector must vary by more than the normal “Keplerian” values which would require a trade off in AM. My view is this is not happening but I would love to be proved wrong.

  206. Paul Vaughan says:

    Thanks for the clarification Geoff.

  207. tallbloke says:

    Paul, thanks for your clarification too, and your notes.

    I think z is a special case because of the orientation of the Sun’s spin axis. Whereas gravitational forces acting on the sun in the x and y planes cancel every ~27 days as the Sun completes each rotation, gravitational forces acting in the z direction are acting for half the planetary period, getting stronger and weaker as the planet approaches maximum deviation from and it’s zero crossing points WRT the solar equatorial plane. This seems to fit better with ideas around the cycles we discuss, though there is a confounding with x,y as well because of the approximate coincidence of longitudinal locations with z displacements.

  208. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke, there’s no getting around the fact that SSBz dominant-periodicity is nothing more than J, S, U, & N. I’m not buying the notion that Saturn controls LOD oscillations with a lag equal to Saturn’s period. The Neptune modulation (S-N) shows up in all sorts of terrestrial time-series. To get such a modulation, at least 2 axes are required. SSBz is special for reasons you listed, but I haven’t yet found any noteworthy correlations involving it (or any other single static axis, including ones intermediate between the mutually-orthogonal x, y, & z). I don’t rule out the possibility that there’s something important to discover about SSBz, but I do rule out my interest in discussing it further (until something major about it crosses my radar).


    Upon a more careful read of Abarca del Rio et al., I will (with hearty LOL) withdraw my suggestion that these guys might know something more than meets the eye. If one filters all the confusion out of the paper, there’s about 4 pages of substance. Their various comments about lags are a great source of humor, but the SST / solar cycle phase graphs remain priceless (even though the authors completely miss the systematic nature of the phase-reversal). Also, the AAM / solar cycle decadal-timescale graphs are useful puzzle-clues — and it’s a credit to the authors that they draw specific attention to the possibility of confounding (although they seem to misguidedly place higher odds an internal mechanism). Maybe these guys should have whittled out the ramblings before publishing, but at least their longish example draws attention to the misguidedness of the assumption that everything on Earth should simply follow a solar cycle.

  209. Paul Vaughan says:

    In case the connection between J-N & J+N isn’t obvious, I’m sharing these calculations:

    (164.888325)*(11.86630899) / (164.888325 – 11.86630899) = 12.78649873
    (164.888325)*(11.86630899) / (164.888325 + 11.86630899) = 11.06967194

    (164.888325) / 2 = 82.44416248

    (82.44416248)*(12.78649873) / (82.44416248 + 12.78649873) = 11.06967194
    (82.44416248)*(11.06967194) / (82.44416248 – 11.06967194) = 12.78649873

  210. tallbloke says:

    “I’m not buying the notion that Saturn controls LOD oscillations with a lag equal to Saturn’s period.”

    No worries, I’m not trying to sell it to you. :)

    As I see it, U and N Still control the ~180 year period, (varies depending on J and S at time of U and N conjunction), because their orbits are slow, and their influence accumulates over centennial scale periods in the z axis. J and S control the ~60 year cycles within this, but that is modulated by the U and N relative position when J and S conjoin near the max point of deviation from the solar equatorial plane every third conjunction.

    Need sleep. More tomorrow.

  211. Paul Vaughan says:

    The only periods in SSBz are J, S, U, & N. There are no beats – i.e. no U-N, no J-N, etc. — not even most peoples’ beloved J-S (which is useless in my book) — now there’s an inflammatory comment! [ :

  212. tallbloke says:

    Yes, this is why I carefully said U and N, J and S rather than U+N and J+S, to avoid confusion with your notation. The forces are additional due to the long periods these planets spend above and below the orbital plane, not due to the beat of the orbital periods (though that is important for the x,y plane forces you have been investigating). As I see it, the lag involves not the periodicity of one of the planets orbits, but the inertia of the system. And that inertia is partly why the signal settles down at a data smoothing of around 24 years, which is a long way off the 30 year Saturn orbital period anyway. I’m thinking of kinematics here rather than resonance.

  213. Paul Vaughan says:

    U+N is not the same thing as U-N.

    A-B = A*B / |A-B|
    A+B= A*B / |A+B|

    As explained previously, 24 year SSBz smoothing falls at a subharmonic of J, putting a stop on J and leaving S dominant – and that is also why you see a best-lag that is a multiple of S …so the curve conveys primarily the phase of S at a lag of S.

    The patterns that show up in terrestrial time series are U-N, S-N, & J-N. Note that S-N falls close enough to S to make it difficult (using just the “eyeball” method) to differentiate between the two with the short records we have.

    Tomes shows a way to find power other than J, S, U, & N in SSBz by looking at f(SSBz), or more specifically |SSBz|, but the distribution of that power in time is relevant. A simple time-plot of |SSBz| should be a cure for anyone thinking the J+N power in |SSBz| matches the solar cycle.

  214. tallbloke says:

    Yes, that’s why you didn’t see me saying anything about ~11.1 year cycles in my last post. I think the ‘z’ axis power of the gas giants is expressed over a longer time period. Specifically the ~60 year cycle and the ~180 year cycle, and probably longer term cycles associated with the relative position of U and N conjunctions relative to the tilt of the solar equatorial plane and the ~900 year cycle of every third J and S conjunction as it sweeps the point of greatest declination relative to the Solar equatorial plane.

    We are in agreement I think that the x,y plane harmonic motions of J-N and JEV are the modulations best fitting the ~11.1 year sunspot cycle. Both the x,y motions and the z motions are important, but via slightly different mechanisms perhaps.

    Can I just double check with you what your notations signify please. i.e. |XXXx| and f(XXXx) and if the italicisation is important. Thanks.

  215. Paul Vaughan says:

    SSBz power is only at J, S, U, & N (no 60, no 180, no 900).

    tallbloke “[...] J-N and JEV are the modulations best fitting the ~11.1 year sunspot cycle [...]“

    J+N, not J-N.

    |x| = absolute value of x
    f(x) = function of x

    Example: f(aa), which I’ve used as a shorthand for a fairly complicated transform of aa index here:

    When appropriate occasions arise, I explain in more detail (usually when something formal or profitable comes up) …but no need to hesitate to ask – sometimes the explanations are simple.

    tallbloke “[...] if the italicisation is important [...]“

    I was emphasizing that the J+N power in |SSBz| shows no temporal coherence with solar cycling …in contrast with the J+N power in f(EMnAM”), which shows very little phase-contrast drift (i.e. there’s decent temporal coherence), for one example.

    I recommend spending some time on learning more about spectral analysis. Considering your interests, this is quite important. It can be done in Excel. Also, there is freeware. Some people opt to use stats software, but that is not necessary.

  216. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke “Both the x,y motions and the z motions are important, but via slightly different mechanisms perhaps.”

    The patterns I find are not dependent on inclusion of a z-axis (which has motion orders-of-magnitude smaller than motion in the xy plane).

    If/when-ever I find a good use for SSBz info, I’ll let you know… (There are an infinite number of analyses which I haven’t run yet.)

  217. Paul Vaughan says:

    Useful info on QBO:

    “The Quasi-Biennial zonal wind Oscillation (QBO)”:

    http://ugamp.nerc.ac.uk/hot/ajh/qbo.htm

    Image-sequence:

    With alternate color-scheme to accentuate the downward propagation:

    …So the (simplified version of the greater) task is to figure out the role of SSD in the 100mb to 10mb band.

    Those of you studying solar rotation might get some ideas from looking at this stuff.

  218. tallbloke says:

    Paul, thanks for the notes, I want to make the effort to understand your work as far as I can.

    The patterns I find are not dependent on inclusion of a z-axis (which has motion orders-of-magnitude smaller than motion in the xy plane).

    Well, not much smaller in terms of the Sun’s motion about the barycenter, around a million kilometers up-down relative to the equatorial plane, as opposed to three million for the biggest orbital loops . But although it’s smaller, it contains reverses in direction, which x,y motion doesn’t. This may be important.

    If/when-ever I find a good use for SSBz info, I’ll let you know… (There are an infinite number of analyses which I haven’t run yet.)

    Thanks, I’ll keep on with it in the meantime. My intuition is that solar cycle modulation timing is an x,y thing as your excellent work shows, and the z motion is more to do with solar cycle amplitude through overall background power. Although the z cycles don’t show the degree of phase coherence your x,y work, they do nonetheless more or less coincide in various ways. Maybe you could try introducing SSBz as a scaling factor to see what happens when you compare it to sunspot numbers, always remembering the breakdown around UN conjunction. My graph may be ‘unphysical’ but might provide a hint as to how suddenly the Sun snaps in and out of it’s anomalous minima at these times. http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ssn-ssbz.jpg?w=700&h=449

    Take a look at Ray Tomes’ new thread if you get the chance, maybe another person’s take on z axis motion will clear up any misunderstanding I’ve inadvertantly introduced. He also offers a viable mechanism.

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2930

    Ray posted a couple of comment here yesterday, and pointed some others here too. It would be great if we could return the compliment and assist his enquiries with some input. I think you would be interested in the work Ray has done on longer cycles, check the later posts in that thread on page 2. 1.17, 2.35, and 8.8 million year cycles on Mars coinciding with Earth’s changes in Magnetic polarity. Fascinating stuff.

  219. Paul Vaughan says:

    What you’ve isolated here …

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ssn-ssbz.jpg?w=700&h=449

    … is N.

    I’ve added new images here (currently in the “Appendix” (reorganization likely at some point in time)):

    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SunspotsJEV.htm

    Note the N signal, in addition to the J+N signal, in f(SunEMnAM).

    Now might be a good time to review my notes here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/predicting-changes-in-solar-activity/

    The z-axis isn’t the only axis worthy of attention. Spatial orientation, far more generally speaking, is sure to be a factor. In 2008 I looked at rotations thinking about the direction of the centre of the galaxy …or dominant sources of cosmic rays …or whatever (since I knew even less about the physics at that time). I’m not willing to limit my focus to just one static axis.

    The “language” barrier is a major obstacle in this conversation. If you spend some time learning about spectral analysis and time-integrated cross-correlation analysis, these exchanges will become far more efficient. In the meantime, I’ll have a look at what Tomes has to say.

    I’ve got a pile of new cross-wavelet results on QBO, LOD, GLAAM, SOI, etc. It’s going to take a lot of work to organize something consumable (even for experts, let alone for lay audiences). Solving the mystery of SOI should be climate science’s TOP priority – it is their best hope of reestablishing credibility in the public eye – (more civilian oversight of the agencies doling out the dough won’t be enough – fear of astrology is on the chopping block).

  220. Gray says:

    Hi tallbloke,

    The Ray Tomes thread is very interesting:

    This is a new short article for Jupiters Dance

    http://www.jupitersdance.com/thefinalwaltz/

  221. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: tallbloke

    SSBz requires ~4.71 doublings to par SSBx&y.
    -

    A few thoughts after reading Tomes:

    1) There needs to be a graph of the index being discussed – this is terribly important. (Also, a supplementary graph with sunspots overlaid would be a helpful luxury.)

    2) The spectral analysis needs to be done as a function of time.

    3) In the resonance graph, 2 amplitude ratios have been omitted. (Keep in mind that the suggested 10.5 year resonance appears empirically derived.)

    4) It might be wise to point out that J+N plays important roles on other axes.

    5) I was quite surprised to learn that Tomes does not know how to work out harmonic beat envelopes theoretically. Also, I was stunned at his lack of awareness that tallbloke has simply isolated S & N signals. Practical consequence: Although Tomes may be expert on some aspects of timing, I won’t necessarily be trusting his notes (& particularly his anecdotes about various cycles) without running my own calculations. No offense is intended.

    6) I agree that differential reaction of layers of celestial bodies to dynamics of other celestial bodies demands more serious focus. On that point I 100% support Barkin, Tomes, & whoever else is challenging ridiculous modeling assumptions (which have taken deep root in the conventional mainstream in part due to respect for intractable mathematics).

    7) It should be possible to devise other indices based on Tomes’ suggestion that conjunctions & oppositions in the plane of the solar equator are (for some purposes) of muted (or nullified) importance. This is one idea I take away from the presentation (not because I’m buying the notion, but because I’m interested in devising alternate means of quantification to investigate phase-relations, whether they are physical or not).

    Thanks sincerely to Ray Tomes for giving us something to think about.

  222. tallbloke says:

    The “language” barrier is a major obstacle in this conversation.

    I agree with this. I find comments like:

    What you’ve isolated here …

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ssn-ssbz.jpg?w=700&h=449

    … is N.

    And

    SSBz requires ~4.71 doublings to par SSBx&y.

    Too elliptical and condensed to be able to make any sense of them. It might be “efficient” as far as you are concerned but it’s cryptic and impenetrable to me.

    If you spend some time learning about spectral analysis and time-integrated cross-correlation analysis, these exchanges will become far more efficient.

    Unlikely to happen – see the ‘about me’ page. I’ve succeeded in getting you and a couple of other people interested in working on this stuff, and you are racing ahead of me now. I don’t want to be an impediment to progress so I’m moving on to other relevant matters.

    I’m not willing to limit my focus to just one static axis.

    Neither me. I’m maintaining my interest in the work others are doing on x,y but in a ‘hands off’ passive way since they (including you) have more powerful mental and computational methods than I).

    I was stunned at his lack of awareness that tallbloke has simply isolated S & N signals. Practical consequence: Although Tomes may be expert on some aspects of timing, I won’t necessarily be trusting his notes (& particularly his anecdotes about various cycles) without running my own calculations. No offense is intended.

    None taken here. I disagree with you, but everyone is entitled to their own point of view. Especially those who take the trouble to do their own calculations. I said a while ago that I thought your abstract statistical expertise might be complemented by my material understanding of fluid mechanics, mechanical inertial lag, damping of oscillating systems etc. Maybe if you studied those you’d see where I’m coming from with my choice of time integration variables in the z axis. I did a study on the libration of Mercury’s orbit to help inform my choices by the way.

    At the moment I’m working on Miles Mathis’ analysis of Keplerian orbits and his new theory of gravity which improves Bode’s law and explains the optical equivalence in the apparent size of the Moon and Sun from Earth, and the optical equivalence of Mercury, Earth and Saturn from the Sun, among many other things. When and if I’ve convinced myself that he is onto something important, I’m going to see if I can apply his method to working out the electromagnetic effect he has isolated from the planets onto the Sun. Mechanical algebra is within my current remit. :)

    Cheers.

  223. tallbloke says:

    Gray, nice draft article you’ve got going there. If you Liked Ray’s piece you should check out his other work on harmonics. The relationship of whole number series from lynx abundance –> cosmic scale phenomena will appeal to you as much as it does to me I’m sure.

  224. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke, if a series has stationary components J, S, U, & N and you smooth at a subharmonic of J, you will suppress J, leaving S, U, & N. This will be true regardless of what physics is or isn’t at work. I’m not arguing against your bandwidth choice, but rather arguing for sound interpretation.

    Best Regards.

  225. tallbloke says:

    Paul,
    Yes, Jupiter’s orbital period is very approximately at the length of the solar cycle anyway, but phase beats with it. Suppressing J (though it’s overall longer term contribution is still included in the data) helps us to see the longer term amplitude change caused by J,S,U and N which hypothetically relate to the longer term variation in solar activity.

    You might notice that my averaging of the sunspot data over the sunspot cycle period in the same graph also suppresses individual solar cycles, but enhances our visualization of longer term solar activity levels too.

    Looking at the comparison to LOD data, the damping of the J signal at Earth is clear. (to me anyway.) The thirty year lag is another clue that the process is well damped too. Which is one of the reasons I favour the sub-crustal currents theory. I’m sure there are more immediately transmitted electromagnetically induced effects hiding in the shorter term changes in LOD which ride on the bigger amplitude longer term signal though. You may or may not have noticed that Ray Tomes liked my SSBz-LOD graph, but refrained from coming to a judgement about the SSBz-solar activity graph. He said he’d think about it though, which is good enough for me.

    The data is out there. How to present it is open to all. As are judgments as to the soundness or otherwise of the various interpretations which can be made. As things stand, the bigger the variety of presentation, and the more diverse the reasons for the choices of interpretation the better in my view.

    It’s an open field…

  226. tallbloke says:

    …Which we’ll continue discussion about on the What is Solar Planetary Theory thread

    This has hit nearly 230 comments now and is getting long to load. Anything directly relevant to Semi’s paper that comes up, I’ll paste in here.