Tim Channon: Modeling the Solar Polar Fields and Barycentric Motion

Posted: March 14, 2011 by Rog Tallbloke in Astronomy, Astrophysics, Energy, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

As each solar cycle progresses from minimum to sunspot maximum, the magnetic fields near the poles of the Sun weaken and then reverse polarity. Cycle maximum usually follows within six months to a year or so of the fields crossing the zero point, and the polar fields then gain opposite polarity strength until sunspot minimum is reached.

Solar physicist Leif Svalgaard has noted that the strength of the polar fields at solar minimum are a reasonably good indicator of the amplitude of the following cycle, and based his 2004 prediction of a max of monthly sunspot number of around 70 for solar cycle 24 on this metric. Although at the moment this estimate looks a little on the high side, it is a lot closer than the predictions made by solar physicists such as Dikpati and David Hathaway, who based their predition of a very high solar cycle amplitude on models of their conception of a ‘solar dydnamo’ – a self regulating and self regenerating effect of the Sun’s consumption of its fuel in the solar nuclear furnace. Once again, observation and heuristic phenomenological modeling has trumped the Babcock Leighton dynamo theory models.

On this blog, the central theme of our investigations has been to test the possibility that the motion of the planets is intimately linked with the solar cycle and its changing levels of activity. The gravitational effect of the planets on the Sun causes it to describe an ever changing radius of orbit around the centre of mass or barycentre of the solar system. By investigating this motion with respect to time, and comparing it with the records of solar activity we have, sunspot counts since around 1600 and satellite age measurements of various solar activity parameters, we have discovered tantalising covariances and suggestions of harmonic resonances.

Back in 2003, independent investigator and talkshop contributor Vukcevic developed a formula to describe the changing solar polar fields which has closely mimicked the Sun’s magnetic activity since. The terms in this formula are based on the motion of the biggest of the gas giants, Jupiter and Saturn. You can see a graph based on his formula and the WSO polar field data here.

In a complementary line of investigation, talkshop contributing author Tim Channon made a study of the possible set of cycles and amplitudes which could replicate the reconstruction of solar activity since 1610 made by NASA’s Judith Lean. This thread attracted a lot of interest, with over 200 responses in comments so far. Tim has also used the software he created to do cycles analysis to discover the dominant cycle periods which describe the motion of the sun around the solar system barycentre caused by the motion of the planets, predominantly the four outer gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. He has now discovered that these same dominant cycle periods successfully replicate the record of changes in the solar polar fields.

For planetary-solar theorists this is exciting news, because it forms a new line of evidence demonstrating the strong possibility of a link between  solar motion caused by the planets, and the changing levels of magnetic activity observed on the solar surface.

Here is Tim’s plot showing records of the changes in the field strength of the solar polar fields in red and the output of his cycles analysis software using the solar barycentric motion dominating cycle periods. The Pearson R2 value for the correlation is 0.975, or in layman’s terms “just about spot on.”

Tim Channon - solar polar fields vs model

Tim Channon - solar polar fields vs model output using barycentric periods

This is a very impressive result, but Tim is at pains to point out that the period for which data is available is very short, and so the forecast is highly provisional. According to the updated plot of the solar polar field strength maintained by Leif Svalgaard the field strength is rapidly dropping to zero and he thinks the solar cycle is therefore already close to maximum. It will be very interesting to see what happens next.

At long last we have a close range forecast, albeit based on a short time span data series, which ties planetary motion to observable solar activity. An additional caveat though, is that the sun has been acting anomalously over the last few years, and we only have the vaguest of ideas about its non-linear behaviour. Still, if this forecast shows skill against observations over the coming years, it will be a vindication of cycles based analysis, and another boost for the planetary-solar theory.

Comments
  1. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    Can they project the cycle back 4.5 billion years?
    Or is this like the current science of staying withing a few hundred years out of a few billion?

    Makes absolutely no sense for an extremely narrow window of study to project when not even a few hundred thousand years are not included.
    All the planets were much closer and tighter and rotating faster and so was the sun.

  2. AJB says:

    Hindcast?

  3. vukcevic says:

    Rog
    Just one more important confirmation, would be interested to see more details of Tim’s calculations. It also shows a short period about a year; Venus or Earth’s contribution? There is a good agreement with my results up to 2013, but after then there is significant deviation between two: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm (this one is a more detailed version then http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm you linked two further up in the article).
    I’ve just emailed to you file for the Mount Wilson polar fields data for1967-1980, if Tim wishes to extend his graph back to 1967.

    [reply] Thanks Vuk, link updated and data forwarded.

  4. Tim Channon says:

    AJB: Forecast, hindcast and so on. Try foresight hindsight.
    Nothing to do with stag parties and other deer things. ;-)

    I have not solved the solar timing riddle but limited time extension from data is often possible. In this case a hindcast over a human long period looks sane but wrong. Sane here means the math is stable, rational looking result and vaguely has transitions at the right times.

    So far as I know the only chronometric timing mechanism in the solar system is inertial, the planetary movements. The sun meanwhile behaves as though vaguely timed to that but also looking chaotic, random, or more properly with unknown law.

    What Tallbloke has turned into a post came from a comment deep in a thread yesterday and is a first result of a quick look.

    I will be looking in more detail at the data.

  5. Tim Channon says:

    Vukcevic: It was you who brought the dataset to our attention and once I came across the data it is a very useful brick in the solar problem.

  6. tallbloke says:

    Tim says:
    “What Tallbloke has turned into a post came from a comment deep in a thread yesterday and is a first result of a quick look.”

    My bad.
    No pressure Tim, we just want the secrets of the solar system and the sun’s activity unlocked whenever you have the time to spare. ;)

    In your comment yesterday you mentioned “runs from 1749 and is ssn data”
    Could we have a peek at the plot so we can compare solar minima timings?

  7. T G Watkins says:

    Fascinating stuff – wish I had the knowledge to add something – I love the ‘careful’ statements and caveats.

  8. Gerry says:

    Tim,

    If the “double wiggle” plays out this will prove to be a real breakthrough. Even if it doesn’t, the quality of the model fit to the data looks superb. More details, please, on exacly how the fit was obtained. Did the software employed determine the best periods for the smoothed fit, and if so how many cycles were used? Also, what kind of match is there to known planetary cycles?

    I notice that Leif’s plot,

    http://leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png,

    shows a secondary wiggle signature between 1968 and 1971. Including the WSO data back to 1967 to see how it might affect the determination of cycles and the future extrapolation obtained from them would be extremely interesting.

  9. vukcevic says:

    I have superimposed Tim’s graph

    against the WSO graph

    The match is incredibly close, it does not leave any doubt.
    Vuk Tim vs wso

  10. tallbloke says:

    Hi Gerry,
    We’ll just have to be patient, Tim has a lot on his plate at the moment. I’m sure he’ll make things clearer in due course and plot the extra data back to 1967. What he said in his comment on the Hathaway thread was that he constrained the periodicies to those found in his decomposition of the barycentric motion and then ran the SPF data past them.

  11. tallbloke says:

    OK,
    Tim has made a composite dataset with the WSO data back to ’67 and rerun his software to produce this plot. Earlier model in green, model run on extanded dataset in blue.

    It turns out now I’ve spoken with him that these models were generated allowing the software to find its own periodicities. The Barycentre period driven model is on the other link in the Hathaway thread and I’ll update the main post with that next. Apologies for the confusion, I’ve been very tired and error prone the last few days.
    SPF Tim

  12. Tim Channon says:

    vukcevic: Have the data thanks.
    (if can let me know the source of the data for citation I will add that)

    Decoding it. Seems to be a problem.

    Got it. Early part of the data has a 10 day time error.
    26th Jan 1977 has to be no data and all earlier data shifted back in time by 10 days. Then the overlapping data at scale factor of 0.5 matches well.

    The data character is different. Spectra of both does not suggest what was done to the newer data: we only know it was filtered.

    Never mind, chuck a composite dataset in a file and see what happens. 318s later, a little different, , lower r2, 0.965 but I am not trying to do more than rough quick answer.

    The plot shown above contains the butt joined datasets.
    The model based on the shorter data is in green, hindcast to the earlier graph start and the forecast.
    Model of the composite data.

    The hindcast matches well enough as does the forecast.

    Tallbloke and myself had a telephone conversation earlier during which I emailed the above plot. He made an interesting comment. The wiggle 2013/4 might be common with 1970 and 1990/1, ie. there is a flat in the data then too.

    **this is at the zero field crossing ** and that makes it highly significant.

    The two falling lines do not.

    I wonder whether this is real or a instrumentation/observation problem, a dead point/hysteresis?

    There is a great deal more to investigate.

  13. See - owe to Rich says:

    This is the first time I have posted at this site – having come here indirectly from WUWT. The stunning nature of Channon’s graph has prompted me to say how privileged I feel to be one of the early observers of it.

    I am intrigued by his statement that he hasn’t solved the solar timing problem. Is it the case that hindcasting the model gives increasing discrepancies against the timing of past maxima? Could those past maxima be used to make the model more accurate, or does some chaos intervene?

    Anyway, if the short term forecast works out well, it looks like a protracted bumpy maximum from 2013 to 2016, during which official observers will say “OK maximum is over now, we can expect the next minimum in 2019…”. And this site will be saying “no you got it wrong last time and you’re doing it again…”.

    Great stuff,
    Rich.

  14. vukcevic says:

    Hi Tim
    Great work. Interesting that L. Svalgaard is predicting rise in the PF similar to your software projection.
    Data 1967-1980 is from the Mount Wilson Observatory, and originally emailed to me by Dr. L. Svalgaard. As far as I know it is not available online.
    I would ignore the MWO data, it was not as good, they started measurements some 10 years prior to the WSO, possibly with inferior system

  15. Tim Channon says:

    v: if nothing else the extra data is a sanity check even if it is a bit wrong.

    This does mean I cannot published the data although I expect permission could be gained.

  16. Tim Channon says:

    This has some curious features. Note the zero crossings.

    I would appreciate a sanity check on the barycentre data. This was computed locally from DE421 and 10 day data including nutation etc. first data point 1967/04/29 (April)
    Does JPL roughly agree?

    X Y Z R Vx Vy Vz Vr
    29/04/67 0.002101026 -0.0027848895 -0.0012078288 0.0036917164 0.0008801894 0.0003928086 0.0001496869 0.0001556392

  17. Tim Channon says:

    If that barycentre data is correct this went close to the centre of the sun late May 1990. The Wolffe and Patrone paper suggests this might release excess energy at such times.

    This paper discusses extreme solar flares May 1990.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997AstL…23..557T

    Updated plot with ssn is here

    Perhaps this is cherry picking but it cannot be ignored for clues.

  18. tallbloke says:

    Hi Tim,
    Good spot with the solar flares. The sunspot data might make more sense plotted with signed values. My thinking is that the ~22 year Hale cycle is a function of the Jupiter orbital period x 2 and the Jupiter-Saturn synodic period.

  19. vukcevic says:

    tb: My thinking is that the ~22 year Hale cycle is a function of the Jupiter orbital period x 2 and the Jupiter-Saturn synodic period.

    Precisely. The first thing I did at the start 2J & J/S. (http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm ) hence my ‘obsession’ with the electromagnetic feedback rather than gravitation or angular momentum.
    vuk ssn formula

  20. tallbloke says:

    Morning Vuk,
    If we go back to Tim’s Chirp of the barycentre data

    Tim chirp
    We can see a cluster of peaks relating to the Jupiter orbital period, and the synodic periods of Jupiter and Neptune and Jupiter and Uranus. 11.86 ~12.8 and ~13.8

    There is another cluster of smaller peaks related to Jupiter Earth and Venus synods and oppositions, and half the Jupiter-Saturn synod around 10 years.

    I think the interactions of these two clusters account for the spectrum of solar cycle lengths clustering around 10.38 and 12 years laid out by the late Timo Niroma.

    Timo - SCL

    Then there is Ray Tomes z-axis pair frequencies to consider

    Tomes - z pairs

    I sometimes think that we’ll work out the planetary-solar relationship by looking at and thinking about these plots together rather than trying to crunch exact numerical relationships. It’s as if the Sun ‘hops’ from being most influenced by the gas giants when they are in certain configurations to the inner planet frequencies when they form important alignments. This speaks of electromagnetic/gravitational influences rather than a purely gravitational solution to me. But it’s all still an open question.

    It’s a bit like a cryptic crossword. The clues don’t tell you the answers directly, but let you know you got them right once you got them. :)

  21. vukcevic says:

    tb
    The way I see it, whatever hypothesis you take,
    a) the principal problem is the transfer mechanism.
    b) Next is the source of the ‘~ 11years fundamental period’.
    c) Deviation from this of + – 10-15% apparently is not of great interest to the solar science, as long as the periods average out, since as we are frequently reminded ‘sun is a messy place’.
    Currently situation is:
    – No sign of a) being resolved any time soon.
    – I think on b) we are there; 2J + J/S is near enough the mark, as the polar fields show, being more regular then SSN.
    – Although a useful pointer, until a) an b) take a firm root in the solar science, I think c) is not going to make the slightest difference to any change in the currently accepted wisdom.

  22. lgl says:

    tallboke

    First you say this is based on barycentric periods, then you say “these models were generated allowing the software to find its own periodicities”?? What are the main periods of Tims reproduced signal?

  23. tallbloke says:

    Hi lgl, I’ll let you know once I’ve had a close look at the data. The barycentic periods plot is different to the ‘freeform’ plot. The both have an R^2 value over 0.97, but the periods in each are quite different. More ASAP

  24. The following, from Vukcevic, deserves to be underlined:
    Precisely. The first thing I did at the start 2J & J/S. (http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm ) hence my ‘obsession’ with the electromagnetic feedback rather than gravitation or angular momentum
    Plasma universe theory is gaining momentum:

    http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html

  25. Tim Channon says:

    Ambiguity needs sorting out. I will explain what happened, not actually complex but as you will see there is room for brain and finger mixup.

    1. The solar field data came my way.

    2. I fed that into the software here with it set to auto. This completed normally and is one plot.

    3. During execution I noticed a curiosity which echoed barycentre data. The idea came to me of try a mad experiment. I took the output from previous work on barycentre, the in progress model configuration which is also the starting condition for continuing a run. (the software can be told to resume: it reads this file instead of creating a new one)
    In fact I renamed the existing file and edited it to lock the periods so that they would be identical to the model found from for barycentre data.

    4. I did a restart using the edited file but using input of the solar polar field data instead fo barycentre data. The software was free to change phase and amplitude but not periods.
    This completed normally and that is the source of the second plot.

    5. The model period parameters are very similar, why I was curious if it would work. It did if not as accurate a match.

    6. I deliberately distinguished the plots by filename.

    IN ADDITION AND NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT

    Spectra of barycentre data. This however will differ by exactly which barycentre data or derivation has been used.

    It’s no more than slight effort here to produce spectra plots, mostly about getting the right data, importing the result for actual plot and getting the graphic onto the web.
    So within reason ask if you want to see something.

  26. tallbloke says:

    Hi Tim,
    Before we start on new plots, please could you list the periods in order of amplitude for the R=0.982^2 SPF model and the Fixed barycentric periods you used for the R0.975^2 model. I know from our chat they are quite different for the two principle periods, but I’d like to see if any suggestive relationships pop out of the other terms. Thanks.

  27. Gerry says:

    Every once in a while I wake up early from a “Eureka” dream. This morning I awoke with the strange thought “1967 to 1971 – Look at the barycentric solar orbital angular momentum then!”

    And here it is on one of my favorite charts:

    Gerry-am

    This is the first of two retrograde segments of the Sun’s motion with respect to the solar system barycenter on my plot. It coincides nicely with the unusual wiggle in solar polar magnetic field strength between 1967 and 1971.

    Tim has extrapolated a similar field strength wiggle between 2012 and 2014. On my plot, this is not a period of solar retrograde motion wrt the barycenter, but rather the approach to a minimum angular momentum point. It is conceivable that the upward ramp in angular momentum following the 2014 minimum may be another prolonged solar minimum period lasting to 2021. Just sayin’…

  28. tallbloke says:

    Hi Gerry,
    If the graph in my first post on this blog has any significance, there is a minimum in the z-axis data around 1967-70 too. The data is retarded 30 years, but if that’s wrong, there is a minimum around 1940 anyway.

    tb=z-axis

  29. AJB says:

    Vuc,

    Agreed. The ~11/22 year time base is likely derived from Jupiter – has it ever crept way out of sync with Jupiter’s elliptic orbit? Timo’s work suggests that’s unlikely. But it’s causation is likely to be electromagnetic (I’m sorry; we see little else on the Sun and Newton is still my trusty friend. EM Smith’s thoughts show there’s a lot of missing mass to consider too). So, to some entirely copper-bucket inspired, uneducated cannon fodder, probably wearing a massive bulls-eye over its heart:

    If we forget the wind and spiral we’ve all been poring over for half a century and treat the Sun as a dipole, what do we see? – Little dynamos moving in various complex ways inside the field of a bigger one with the odd frozen lump of iron like Venus whizzing around. Why is that not one big complex dynamo with timing that may mimic barycentre calculations but for completely different reasons? Lots of room for inductive effects here and some of the little ones must affect each other too; the effect of Uranus’s field could be particularly interesting [cue astrologers’ wilder emotive meanderings:-)].

    For starters, the big outer field appears to alternate in polarity ‘in sync’ with the slightly inclined ecliptic orbit of the little one that should have by far the strongest field effect of any of those. But the alternating one hunts randomly a little too. Can we prove mathematically all this is due to the inductive effects of all these fields interacting? That is the challenge.

    Now put back the Parker part (a model mostly used to understand and operate in space close to the equatorial). Can the two coexist? Is the model hiding (or rather causing us to forget about) that big alternating dipole? A tricky one and I doubt we have the ability to detect let alone measure what may really be happening anyway.

    Near the equatorial one completely overwhelms the other, the wind messes up everything. But due to differential rotation that relationship must invert at some point as we consider increasingly higher latitudes at the Sun; I’m not suggesting the relationship is linear but the Sun still has ‘open’ (an unphysical misnomer) field lines and the planets are a long way off. As we move toward the poles in dipole mode we meet flux lines that intersect each planet in turn so the gas giants may have a greater effect if there is indeed a trade-off with equatorial fields at all.

    Near the planets, dipole field lines would be near normal to the roar and complexity of the wind but inclined by the spiral, etc. Interesting of itself perhaps and there are magnetotails to be considered too but I digress.

    We’d never be able to detect such dipole fields or measure any flux changes in them here or anywhere near a planetary field. Unless through sheer ignorance I am unaware of a mathematical proof that says otherwise, it’s not enough to simply say they don’t exist; we are severely compromised in our ability to detect and measure them.

    Let’s sit on the other side of the saw on this flimsy branch: If the Sun’s polar fields behave in the way Dr S describes (determining the size of the next cycle, etc.) are we looking at (for want of a better term) a slow acting “magneto-transistor” (no electrical nonsense please) whose characteristics are a massive gain factor and slightly uneven rise and fall time. Don’t think I’d want anything with such distorting qualities in my hi-fi thanks but the analogy doesn’t seem too outrageous or limiting.

    Moving on out to twig level then: Could times like we’re in now be a point at which the polarity inversion skips a beat as part of bringing things back to Jupiter’s overriding time base because it’s about to overshoot? Is that what the de Vries ‘cycle’ (slightly fuzzy harmonic) and Tim’s curious blip are all about? Could that have flare inducing implications and at the same time determine whether we enter a strong subsequent cycle at this time?

    Taking the analogy one step too far perhaps; consider “substrate chaos”, the energy dispersal characteristics of which may relate to how off centre and in which half of the cycle the polarity switch takes place, leading to both a varying degree of flare activity at this time; the size of the cycle following and how long the beat-skip process takes to complete.

    That is, directly moving to a week cycle and less severe minima like the Dolton or giving us one further strong cycle before crashing as may have happened before the Maunder set in (either case producing yet more fuzzy higher-order harmonics to confuse). Is there anything to be had from the 10Be record in this respect; a comparison of Cycle 5 and those leading up to the Maunder? Somehow I don’t think there’d be enough resolution to tell anything useful and, given the random nature of all this, I don’t suppose it would tell you anything you could hang your hat on anyway. We’ll just have to wait and see.

    So back to causality and finally falling out of the tree: One thing to consider in the imaginary future looming fast as we head for the ground could be the time differential between north and south poles switching. Do they take turns in which crosses first? The limited data we have cannot reasonably tell us that and due to the random nature of spot breakdown and polar field rebuild you might need several millennia’s worth to justify that. Regardless, I hope you see where I’m going with that. The Sun’s poles flip but the planets’ generally do not. Maybe there are much longer even fuzzier higher order harmonics in all this which induce occasional planet pole flipping too.

    In essence then, I’m suggesting the solar system might be a giant electromagnetic feedback loop that’s very noisy and get’s its basic timing principally from the orbit of Jupiter (for whatever reason, being the strongest planetary field probably).

    Bring on lighted tapers and commence firing. Tim should drop his ‘h’ and wear antlers for easy identification amid the ensuing smoke :-).

  30. tallbloke says:

    AJB says:

    Nice post, thanks. I did find some interesting things out about parker spirally aligned planets and the solar wind speed here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/breakthrough-major-discovery-on-planetary-solar-connection/

  31. Tenuc says:

    vukcevic says:
    March 15, 2011 at 8:37 am
    “…hence my ‘obsession’ with the electromagnetic feedback rather than gravitation or angular momentum…”

    Perhaps if we assume that gravity is actually a combined force with a component of attraction and another of repulsion, caused by the EM field of emitted ‘bombardment’ particles, we can start to understand how both gravity and magnetism are involved.

    Here’s the link to Miles Mathis paper on this, with maths so simple even I can see what he’s getting at… :-)

    http://milesmathis.com/uft.html

    Miles also has an interesting spin on angular momentum and presents a new and improved equation. I found the maths a little more challenging but got there in the end…

    http://milesmathis.com/angle.html

  32. P.G. Sharrow says:

    “Gravity” sets up or is a setup that yields a static field of about 300volts per meter. Gravity acts as if it were a linear accelerator of matter. Deep space acts as if it were very negative charged. Matter acts as if it had a deep lack of charge. This causes warpage of the”dielectric” of matter. That is the nucleus is warped from its centered position and therefor the atom is trying to recenter its self with its center of mass, therefor acceleration of matter.

  33. @Tenuc, @P.G.Sharrow:
    Great!

  34. AJB says:

    tallbloke,

    Take a look at this I just unearthed …

    http://csem.engin.umich.edu/CSEM/Publications/Israelevich-AA-2000.pdf

    which leads to …

    http://butch.engin.umich.edu/CSEM/Publications/Israelevich2001.pdf

    Still reading and need a couple more passes. Assuming this stands, looking a lot like it might be your missing causation.

  35. AJB says:

    tallbloke,

    So then, flares may be induced by interference in wind delivery to a planet caused by a planet inner to it, resulting in a feedback starvation/surge to the Sun’s poles, yes?

    Two of them in concert messing with another with the right wind dynamics might get nasty. Could this extend to the gas giants (lag time accepted)? Probably because we see those “too common to be reasonable” nasties that look to us like there was a M-V-S near conjunction but it doesn’t happen predictably due to varying wind dynamics.

    This may be why bigger flares are more common around cycle minima when the dipole is weekest and the differential of any surge could be greater. Not sure where that leaves us but I can see it might not be a bad idea to order in a few sheets of A393 sometime :-)

  36. P.G. Sharrow says:

    AJB; I read both the csem and the butch papers,twice, interesting. The csem paper is a much harder read then the butch paper. I’m not sure why the csem data is averaged per 7 rotations for each data point, confusing. I would suggest the butch paper first as it is less opaque, as well as easier on old eyes. ;-) The field circulations demonstrated in the butch paper works well into the motor / generator view of the solar dynamo. We need to consider the 11 year SSN cycles to be energy pulses in a 22 year cycle of solar magnetic fields. There is the possiablity that the hemisphereic changes in polarity is due to the sun dragging the planetary system in one phase and sun being pushed by the system in the other phase. The csem paper also points out that turbulence in the sun at the transition causes sun spots, and the collapse of the magnetic field during the magnetic field polarity transition. pg

  37. AJB says:

    I meant strongest, doh! :-(

  38. AJB says:

    P.G Sharrow says

    “There is the possiablity that the hemisphereic changes in polarity is due to the sun dragging the planetary system in one phase and sun being pushed by the system in the other phase.”

    Nothing is dragging anything anywhere! It’s all because the planetary fields move in relation to the Sun’s dipole (because everything is rotating about the barycentre) altering the amount of flux returned to the poles. Think dynamos, not breaking Newtons laws. The flip is due to Jupiter’s inclined orbit – geddit?

  39. AJB says:

    The flip is due to Jupiter’s inclined orbit … hmmm, in which case it should flip as usual this time too! Time I went to bed to recover from falling out that tree I think :-)

  40. tallbloke says:

    AJB
    (because everything is rotating about the barycentre)

    well, not as far as we can tell. The inner planets rotate about their respective Sun-planet barycentres. Geoff Sharp took a careful look at what Jupiter and the other gas giants are orbiting. I’m not sure he came to firm conclusions, but in any case, the elipticality of the orbits would produce the principle you are outlining.

  41. tallbloke says:

    From the conclusion in the Butch paper:

    “The total strength of the ra-
    dial current is 3  109A. Thus the surface density of
    the closure current flowing along the solar surface can be
    estimated as i = I =R  4 A/m, and the magnetic eld
    produced by this current is B = 0i  5  10−6T, i.e.
    several percent of the intrinsic magnetic eld of the Sun.
    This seems to mean that any consideration of the solar
    magnetic fi eld generation should take into account the he-
    liospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing
    inside the Sun. Such a conclusion corroborates our recent
    result (Israelevich et al. 2000) that there is a feedback be-
    tween the solar wind flow and the main solar magnetic
    field.”

    Sounds like there might be a planetary modulated feedback there.

    Good find AJB!

  42. AJB says:

    tallbloke,

    “the elipticality of the orbits would produce the principle you are outlining”

    You’re right. Need to think about this polarity flip thing some more. Jupiter doesn’t flip poles AFAIK. I’m guessing the inclined orbit has something to do with it but it doesn’t quite add up. Any thought’s?

  43. AJB says:

    tallbloke,

    Hmm … doesn’t it still need the outer planets to be rotating about the barycentre to make the long term timing work? Need to concentrate on bread earning work for a bit. Can you clarrify which planets are included in Geoff’s calcs? Tim, do you know?

  44. tallbloke says:

    vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2008 at 10:43 am (Edit)
    Leif Svalgaard (18:08:10) :
    vukcevic (11:57:17) : I will assume that the Alfven’s current has certain effect on the solar surface events ( ? ) etc

    Thank you Dr. Svalgaard. I accept that there may be number (2 or more) currents, of various orientation and designation, but certainly they must interact via their associated magnetic fields. Whenever there is an interaction there is a chance of a feedback. In my view for a feedback to affect oscillations it is not strength of the feedback signal that is most crucial, it is its direction (+ or -) and susceptibility of the system to oscillation. Required energy is supplied by the source of oscillations and even weakest of the feedback signals will eventually cause a build up (or down) of oscillations with power which is number of orders of magnitude greater the feedback signal itself.
    If Heliospheric currents constitute a close electrical circuit

    then there is a good chance for rise of a feedback.
    Recently I came across this statement:
    “This seems to mean that any consideration of the solar magnetic field generation should take into account the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun. Such a conclusion corroborates our recent result (Israelevich et al. 2000) that there is a feedback between the solar wind flow and the main solar magnetic field.”

    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2001/34/aah2814/aah2814.right.html

    I assume the authors are referring to a bidirectional interaction.
    As far as existence of a double dynamo is concerned for number of reasons I remain highly sceptical.
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 15, 2008 at 1:10 pm (Edit)
    vukcevic (10:43:54) :
    Assuming there are such interacting currents. what do they do? What specific effects do they have? And how i sthat related to the solar cycle.

    There are actually many dynamos on the Sun. Of different sizes and lifetimes. Some are global, some are local. I will concede that it is unlikely that there are exactly TWO dynamos, I would say thousands are more likely.
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 15, 2008 at 1:31 pm (Edit)
    vukcevic (10:43:54) :
    that there is a feedback between the solar wind flow and the main solar magnetic field.
    sufficiently vague to mean almost anything. In actual fact, the IS a very strong connection, but it goes the other way: It is the main solar field that generates the solar wind. One can even put a hard number of that: The observations show that the Sun delivers ~600 kW/Wb to power the solar wind. This power from magnetic flux law also governs the winds from other stars.

  45. tallbloke says:

    AJB:
    The solar equatorial plane and the plane of Jupiter’s orbit are about 7 degrees apart. Jupiter alternately spends around 6 years above and 6 years below the sun’s equator. I have plotted the z-axis motion in varuious ways to see how it relates to overall solar activity and the hemispheric asymmetry of sunspot production. Check the archives on the blog. There are some interesting and promising correlations, and an unexplained puzzle.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/sunspot-asymmetry-barycentre-to-solar-centre-link/

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

    Geoff looked primarily at Jupiter, and was concerned with changes in angular momentum.

    When Saturn and Jupiter are together, the Sun must ‘lean back’ further from the combined barycentre to counteract the mass (think hammer thrower), compared to when they are opposed. Consider what this does to the Sun Uranus and Sun Neptune distances. Seems to me there is a constant struggle and juggle going on which attempts to balance these forces. Which leads to the question of what the shape of the path of the solar system barycentre itself is through space as the solar system orbits the galaxy.

    It gives me brain fade trying to visualize all the motions.

  46. Malaga View says:

    Tenuc says: March 15, 2011 at 6:51 pm
    Perhaps if we assume that gravity is actually a combined force with a component of attraction and another of repulsion, caused by the EM field of emitted ‘bombardment’ particles, we can start to understand how both gravity and magnetism are involved.

    Thank you BIG TIME for the link to Miles Mathis…

    I came across his work when I first began looking at the connection between sunspots and climate… at that time it was just another confusing / contradictory piece of the jigsaw… so I kept on digging trying to develop a holistic understanding of how things fit together… and in the process I unfortunately lost the link to Miles Mathis.

    My current topic de jour is tidal forces… it has been on my dig here list ever since I first encountered the Galactic Gatekeeper over at WUWT… the manner in which he dismissed tidal effects on the sun raised a red flag… but there are so many red flags that it is impossible to know where to start… so I did my first pass and reviewed lots of standard theory and alternate theory at a fairly high level.

    I am now in my second pass in more detail… and I went to look again at the explanation of tidal forces on Wikipedia and this immediately raised a red flag… the explanation just didn’t make sense… the entry had been significantly cut back… and the entry seemed to be phrased in newspeak… and as I looked at other standard theory sites I encountered the same lack of detail and similar levels of obscuration… and then I remembered the work of Miles Mathis… but I could not remember his name or the title of the work I originally encountered: THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

    So last light I started reading Miles Mathis again… I started reading about tidal forces… and I began to understand why standard theory has gone into hiding and circled the wagons… and I began to understand that gravity is actually a combined force with a component of attraction and another of repulsion… and I read into the early hours of the morning about tidal forces… and then the penny dropped… and I am shocked… or more accurately in a state of shock… the concept that oceanic tides are caused by the earth repulsing the moon is stunning… but it makes sense and hangs together… the repulsive force gets stronger when the moon gets closer to the earth… and when the sun in magnetically quiet then the earth can focus more repulsive force towards the moon… so a magnetically quiet sun means more earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

    So magnetic repulsion is the unknown / magic mechanism that the Galactic Gatekeeper is ohhhh sooooo keen to keep under wraps :-)

  47. tallbloke says:

    I put up a brief post for Miles’ book ‘The Un-unified Field’ a while back. His combined gravitational ‘forces’ are expansion and repulsion by bombardment. The bombarding particles form the field underlying the currently conceptualised sub-nuclear particles. It is what Miles calls the foundational EM field.

    His application of it to Bodes law is particularly insightful, and an enjoyable read.

    http://milesmathis.com/bode.html

    I found his work on tides problematic, and he admits himself that it is a work in progress. However he is quite correct that the standard explanation is inadequate, and it was he who caused the wikipedia entry to get abridged.

    I put up a solar tidal paper around the same time as the Wolf and Patrone paper, but it didn’t get much attention at the time:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/giorgieva-et-al-planetary-tidal-effects-on-solar-activity/

  48. Malaga View says:

    I put up a solar tidal paper around the same time as the Wolf and Patrone paper, but it didn’t get much attention at the time:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/giorgieva-et-al-planetary-tidal-effects-on-solar-activity/

    THANK YOU for the reference… I missed that when I was travelling.

    I can understand your problematic reservations… the theory may not be perfect… but conceptually it is a revelation [that at least] I can understand… at this stage I am not swallowing it hook, line and sinker… but the concept that gravity is the NET effect of two opposing forces touches my buttons… especially when explaining elliptical orbits. The motion of the sun around the barycentre shows there are gravitational influences… this also means that the tidal force [however it is defined] on the sun varies as the planets change their position… so it looks like they are two sides of the same coin.

    Your Tides raised by the Planets on the Sun posting is also very interesting… because tidal bulges have been clearly identified on the sun… although they are called wiggles and magnetic ridges.

    My emphasis is inclined magnetically at the moment because sunspots appear to be a magnetic phenomena and because the Galactic Gatekeeper always repeats his challenge [or last ditch defence] regarding mechanism… my instinct is that this classic misdirection… the wonderful barry centre work shows correlation… but he knows he can always defeat this theory by falling back on standard tidal theory and the lack of another mechanism [that he will admit to].

    So I enjoy the irony… the misdirection has backfired… the barry centre correlation is there… and the harmonics are being identified and quantified.

    THANKS and DON’T STOP… or should I say: DON’T PANIC! :-)

  49. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Malaga View: Trouble is that we consider the Sun a big thing up there, where perhaps, if many are right, a round bright atmosphere, a plasma flame, but we do not see the electrode behind it. IMHO things work as traditional knowledge always taught:

    http://www.giurfa.com/unified_field.mht

    http://www.giurfa.com/unified_field_explained_9.pdf

    But take it as from a self educated layman.

  50. AJB says:

    tallbloke says, March 16, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Quick reply: Well yes, all pretty obvious stuff. But if you don’t know where the barycentre is, how can you derive the AM (not that AM has anything to do with it IMHO)? However, the relative positions ought to result in proportionately similar effects on dipole feedbacks and hence lead to similar looking correlations. The fact the sun takes a wiggly path though space is irrelevant IMHO. Still useful to know which has been shown to be rotating about what though, hence my question.

    I was being rash (sorry PG, I apologise; dragging/gravity/tidal concepts wind me up and it was late/early). Pole reversal seems due to the spot remnant pole rebuild process, local to the Sun, nothing to do with Jupiter’s inclination (closer to 6.09° WRT SolEq BTW). Tea gone, back to bread earning.

    Vuc: Interesting reply from Dr S. Pity he didn’t elaborate on his scepticism.

  51. Gerry says:

    tallbloke says:
    March 16, 2011 at 1:16 pm
    I put up a brief post for Miles’ book ‘The Un-unified Field’ a while back. His combined gravitational ‘forces’ are expansion and repulsion by bombardment. The bombarding particles form the field underlying the currently conceptualised sub-nuclear particles. It is what Miles calls the foundational EM field.

    His application of it to Bodes law is particularly insightful, and an enjoyable read.

    http://milesmathis.com/bode.html

    I found his work on tides problematic, and he admits himself that it is a work in progress. However he is quite correct that the standard explanation is inadequate, and it was he who caused the wikipedia entry to get abridged.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Tallbloke,
    I haven’t read Miles Mathis’ heretical book, but it was interesting to me that he didn’t mention that most useful of all “celestial mechaniker” tools, the Vis-Viva Equation, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Vis-VivaEquation.html,
    in his very interesting piece on Bode’s Law.

    Is Miles able to explain, accomodate, or modify Vis-Viva in his book?

  52. Tenuc says:

    Hi Gerry, don’t remember seeing vis-viva equ mentioned in what I’ve read, but Miles does have problems with the ‘standard’ treatment of Mass and Gravity, as you can see in his short passage here…

    “For me, mass is always separable into density and volume. Mass is not a dimension, it is DV. Volume is just the radius, and all radius has an acceleration. The acceleration of the radius is gravity, inertia, and materiality, all three. This is true both at the quantum level and the macro level. No, I don’t know what causes this acceleration of all things, anymore than the standard model knows what causes curves or pulls. I just propose the real motion rather than the curves or pulls, 1)because the math is easier, 2)because the theory is greatly simplified.

    The density part of mass I assign to the charge field. I do this simply because in Newton’s equation, that is what the density is referring to. I don’t know if matter has its own density, but in perfecting the current equations, it doesn’t really matter. Our current variable for density doesn’t stand for the density of matter, it stands for the density of the charge field. You see, mass is basically Newton’s invention, and in his equations, the mass breaks down as I have broken it down. If we write HIS masses as densities and volumes, the densities are coming from the charge field. They are photon densities, not matter densities.

    That is where all my theory is coming from. There is a lot of hidden information in classical theory (and in modern theory like Relativity and QM), and that is what I am trying to unbury. I am trying to use what we already have: to simplify it, clarify it, and extend it. That is where I believe the future of physics is. I want to have nothing to do with string theory, or anything like it. That is the wrong path.”

    Not sure, but I think he put some comment about how the original space rocket launches never seemed to enter the planned orbit and NASA had to make an empirical adjustments, based on experience, to improve their results. I’ll have a dig around some of Miles likely papers and see if this throws some light on your question.

  53. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Tenuc:
    Miles says that was due to the incorrect use of Pi as equal to 3.1416…., instead of 4. Read his article about Pi.

  54. Gerry says:

    Hi Tenuc,

    I’ve found over the 40 years that I’ve worked with Newton’s formulations and Einstein’s relativistic modifications to them, that Newton’s simple three laws are all that JPL and the U.S. Air Force need 99% of the time to successfully fly any of their most demanding deep space and near-Earth missions. For some applications, such as GPS, both special (SR)and general relativistic (GR) corrections are absolutely necessary to get that important last percent or so of accuracy, but at its limit relativity can drive you crazy. In the case of GPS, the GR pre-launch on-board atomic time correction is simple, elegant, and larger than the SR corrections. Unfortunately, the SR corrections for GPS do not seem to work exactly the way Einstein’s equations would indicate they should. See

    http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gps-twins.asp,

    http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp, and

    http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

    I had the great pleasure of working with the founder of the metaresearch.org website, the late Dr. Tom Van Flandern, at the U.S. Naval Observatory and as a fellow graduate student at Georgetown University (before he studied at Yale). My wife and I also had the pleasure of participating in his outstanding African total solar eclipse Edge expedition. Tom had an amazing mind. He pioneered the formulation of barycentric solar system inertial coordinates, among other great accomplishments. Like Miles, he was able to uncover big problems with some key classical and “post-classical” concepts. In so doing, he opened my mind to many aspects of rigorous science not taught in universities.

    If you like what Miles has done, Tom’s research results will blow your mind! RIP, Tom.

  55. Anything is possible says:

    tb:

    In (belated) response to your post of the 15th. at 1515, I’d like to throw this into the conversation, as it implies a link between ENSO and the length of Solar day :

    That, in turn, would explain the apparent correlation between the length of Solar day and global temperatures, with all that water “sloshing” to and fro across the Pacific providing a plausible mechanism for altering the speed of the Earth’s rotation.

    Thoughts?

  56. Tenuc says:

    Thanks Adolfo and Gerry for the reading list. Been through them and need some time to digest. I’m amazed how similar Tom Van Flandern’s view of science is to that of Miles Mathis!

  57. See - owe to Rich says:

    Returning (ahem) to Tim Channon’s deliberations, can I ask him how many planetary parameters he fitted in order to get his high correlation? Sometimes having too many parameters causes overfitting and then the model diverges as soon as one attempts to forecast or hindcast. I don’t want to be too sceptical here, but I would like some basic information which would help me judge how significant (statistically or otherwise) the match is of the model to the data.

    Thanks,
    Richard.

  58. Tim Channon says:

    I’ll have to look. What you are asking is a wide open subject because I am using novel techniques. The concept of overfitting is kind of valid but that depends on the nature of the data.
    Eg. where there is some kind of law the fit can be somewhat adequate, good case is mlo co2 which I can do on 3 terms on hourly 1958-1986 and on forecast 23 years to today the r2 rises to 0.998 (from memory). If I use say 27 terms (several days of computer time) there is more detail but adds no insight.

    In this case I am just matching the data, nothing to do with planets.

    Generally data only fits well if it is clean, random tends to get ignored. This is where looking at the residual can be useful.

    On checking the WSO only data used 7 terms, plucked out of the air reasonable number which tends to give good quick look results.

    The longer data seems ot have used 7 terms too.

    A model comprises two spreadsheet lines, bottom row copied as necessary to form a computed time series. sum(cols) can be done for components.

    Briefly available http://www.gpsl.net/data/polar-field2.ods
    openoffice/libreoffice
    Other data in there, model is off to the right.

  59. Murray says:

    Gerry posted http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/current-vs-maunder-am.jpg

    Looking at Geoff Sharp’s AM curves one sees a repeating 40,40,100 year pattern in the AM peaks. With all peaks separated by near 20 years (Jupite/saturn synodic cycle), our 40, 40 is tall peak, short peak, tall peak, short peak tall peak, with 40 years between tall peaks. The 100 is then short peak, low tall peak, short peak, low tall peak, and back to tall peak, with one short peak having been dropped. this pattern repeats over the 3000 years shown by Geoff, with short disruptions at near 1000 year intervals, and the short/tall being more evident at peaks, and then at valleys before and after a disruption.

    I have come up with thre following conjecture, but have no idea whether or not it makes sense. It does explain the AM pattern. Maybe it will help. Maybe you just tell me I’m nuts and don’t understand celestial mechanics, which is certainly true.

    There is a strange regularity in the AM graphs that shows a pattern of taller and shorter peaks as – tall, short, tall short, tall, short, short, short, short, tall. (The 4 shorts in a row could be thought of as short, weak tall, short, weak tall, and then tall). The cycles average very close to 20 years, so by eyeball the pattern of tall peak intervals is 40,40,100 years, and this pattern repeats. At near 1000 year intervals there is some loss of clarity lasting near 100 years, and then the pattern resumes. Between about 230 AD and 810 BC the 40,40,100 pattern is much more apparent at the troughs, and there seems to be about 1.5 cycles lost in switching from peak to trough and back to peak at the two ends of this period. Perhaps some modulating driver is slowly drifting out of phase, and then jumps back into phase, losing the 1.5 cycles. There is a loss of the peak pattern clarity also at about 1260 to 1160 AD, but without the peak to trough switch. What could cause the 40,40,100 year pattern?

    First, the approximately 20 year period mentioned above is actually about 19.85 years averaged over the 3000 year period analyzed, so must be the Jupiter/Saturn (J/S) synodic cycle. Not knowing any better I am assuming that the orbital travel of Uranus can affect the angular momentum (A/M) of J/S. Uranus has a slightly elliptical orbit and will accelerate when travelling from major axis intercept to minor axis intercept and decelerate from minor to major. The alternating acceleration and deceleration could drive the alternating high and low AM peaks. If the distance covered by Uranus around its orbit in each 20 year period is 80 degrees, then starting with a tall peak at the major axis intercept the first 20 year period will be 100% acceleration, the second will be 12.5% acceleration and 87.5% deceleration, then the acceleration periods will be 75% , 50%, 62.5%, 87.5% and back to 100%. The 87.5/100/75% sequence with decelerations between gives us the 40,40 and the following low,low,low,low (accelerations less than 75% are assumed to be low) gives us the 100. This pattern repeats perfectly.

    The loss of a short due to the 80 degree travel segments spread around 90 degree orbital quarters noted in the paragraph above supports this conjecture. When the 40,40,100 pattern is most visible, looking at the peaks, there are 5 troughs between high peaks for the 100 year segment. The center trough is least affected, (least deceleration) and therefore should have the shortest excursion. When the 40,40,100 is most visible looking at the troughs, the center peak of the 100 year stretch should have the least excursion. This pattern largely holds, which would also supports the Uranus ellipse hypothesis.

    Unfortunately, Uranus travels 85 degrees during each 19.85 years J/S period, which generates a pattern that doesn’t match at all.

    If the Uranus major axis also rotates 5 degrees during the J/S period, then Uranus would travel 80 degrees relative to its major axis for each cycle, and the pattern would hold. That would be a rotation of 0.252 degrees per year, which is almost imperceptible. A slightly different rotation rate (0.28 degrees per year?) might also generate the near 1000 year resynch pattern, or there may be another influence altogether.

  60. Gerry says:

    Murray,

    As you noticed, the Jupiter-Saturn synodic period is 19.86 years, so multiples of two and five yield 39.72 years and 99.3 years. This is further modulated by the Jupiter-Uranus synodic period of 12.782 years, the Jupiter-Neptune synodic period of 13.81 years and, as Geoff Sharp has emphasized, the Uranus-Neptune synodic modulation period of 171.44 years. I believe these three synodic modulations account for the amplitude modulation pattern you noticed. Without them, the amplitude modulation would be almost entirely multiples of 19.86 years only, including the multiples of three and four.

  61. Murray Duffin says:

    Gerry, thanks for the reply.
    Question1), what gives the multiples of 2 and 5? Certainly my guess gives 2 by necessity – one acceleration followed by one deceleration. 5 is also a result of my guess but I’m having trouble in putting it in words succinctly. Is there another explanation?

    Question 2) Why does Geoff’s 172 year period not show up in modulation or perturbations of the AM curve? Even those periodic shoulders are 180 years apart, not 172.

  62. Murray Duffin says:

    Oops:
    Question 3 -” This is further modulated by the Jupiter-Uranus synodic period of 12.782 years, the Jupiter-Neptune synodic period of 13.81 years and,”. These “modulations” are not apparent in the AM curves. What am I missing?

  63. Gerry says:

    Murray,

    1) These are simply the J-S synodic repetitions. The first repetition ends at synodic period x 2, the second at period 3, etc.

    2) The long 171.44 year U-N synodic period only shows up as a very slow change to the angular momentum signature over the course of many years of time.

    3) The combination of the several modulations does show up as partial cancellation or partial reinforcement of the amplitudes of the primary J-S synodic period, evidently resulting in the visible 40, 40, 100 sequence you noticed. Because it is the resultant of the superposition of a number of frequencies, a phase and frequency decomposition process such as a Fourier analysis has to be performed to determine the end result.

  64. Gerry says:

    Hi again, Murray,

    Before undertaking a Fourier analysis of the synodic periods of all four giant planets, some insight into what is happening can often be obtained by running

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

    to see the actual relative configurations of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune during the years of minimum and maximum angular momentum. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand equations:)

  65. Murray says:

    Of course I am talking about the 20 year synodic period repeated. I thought that was clear in my write up. It is the periodicity of the “partial cancellations/partial reinforcements” that is interesting, and the fact that we are talking about peaks and valleys of momentum, ie accelerations and decelerations. I have tried to present one [possible explanation of that periodicity, which is strongly evident over at least the 3000 years of Geoff Sharp’s curves. Also the approx. 1000 year repeated perturbation is interesting, especially because it seems to correspond to the approx 1000 years climate cycle we see in the Minoan, Roman, MWP optima.

    I understand what a Fourier analysis is, but haven’t the least idea how to do one.

    There is a further item that I haven’t yet tried to quantify. Deep grand minima (Maunder) and shallow grand minima (Oort) seem to appear at very close to the ends of a series of 20 and 13 eleven year solar cycles respectively, so a deep every 33 cycles or about 364 years, or about every second 180 years cycle I have elucidated. However there is mention of either an extra long cycle or a partly skipped cycle at the Dalton, so the effective cycle could be a bit less, like 357 years or 18 JS synodic cycles. OTOH this close relationship between 33 sunspot cycles and 18 JS periods may be meaningless as every number between 1 and 20 except 16 divides evenly into a number between 355 and 365.

  66. AJB says:

    Probably going to get into a lot of trouble for posting this preliminary, amateur rough and ready plot …

    Think mag fields interacting not direct conjunctions/oppositions. Polar field data is from WSO.

  67. Tenuc says:

    AJB says:
    April 12, 2011 at 6:43 am
    http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/3698/weirdcoin.png

    Think mag fields interacting not direct conjunctions/oppositions. Polar field data is from WSO.

    Nice graph AJB. Just eye-balling the two curves it looks like SC24 solar max will give a SSN of around 70, which is close to Hathaways latest prediction of 60 +/-30 – these are interesting times…

  68. AJB says:

    Hi Tenuc,

    Pity the “J-S Oppo March 1st” is shown one month too far to the right – doh! Maybe 45 +/- 10 but with some horrible spikes that might push up the official number – but anybody’s guess as usual. Intend doing higher res plots when time allows, all base data is to 10-day intervals, hence unconventional smoothing of daily SSN rather than using monthly SSN.

  69. ferd berple says:

    The question is why the solar cycle varies as it does. Given the size of the sun, why is it not more regular? Especially over a short period of time like a few centuries. Given that it does vary, then why does it vary within such narrow limits? Why do we not see solar cycles of 2 years or 20 years?

    What seems to be largely ignored is that the energy of photons is not a result of their brightness, it is a function of their wavelength. Thus at solar minimum we should expect the brigthness of the sun to remain constant, but the wavelength shift. The importance of this is that energetic photons have an ionizing effect, while less energetic photons do not.

    Thus a shift in wavelength can have a much greater effect than in allowed for in calculations of brightness or watts. We see this in amateur radio, where there is a huge difference in radio propagation between solar minimum and solar maximum. THis difference is often orders of magnitude, well beyond the fraction of a percent given by Solar Science.

    We know that ionization plays a role in ozone and cloud formation. Why is this very significant chagne in ionization levels during the solar cycle largely ignored by Climate Science?

  70. Vegasarcher says:

    TallBloke;
    I was just looking at the graph http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/tim-channon-modeling-the-solar-polar-fields-and-barycentric-motion/ posted above. I was curious if anyone had tried shifting the peak of the polar field to the right or left to match alternate peaks in the SSN and checked to see if there is any correlation between the amplitude of SSN and the amplitude of the Polar Field.

  71. AJB says:

    Vegasarcher says:
    April 29, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    Not exactly but you may find the second of these interesting:

  72. tchannon says:

    How curious. This is suggestive we need more time.

    I’ve been spending time trying to keep Tallbloke’s blog going so not doing the interesting stuff, break does no harm. Take this as a reminder to look again.

    There again this could form the core of a new post.

  73. pennlion says:

    Given how low the Polar field strength has been for ss24 and the length of time before polar swap if at all, and the slope over time decreasing from previous cycles, there must be a low valley ahead for the next cycle or more ahead. What would it take to reverse this trend and low strength going forward to bring the sun out of this valley. Is this really a Dalton like slump or could it be more like the Maunder minimum especially given that the polar field stregth is slumping so low.