It has long been recognized that there is a prominent 208 year de Vries (or Suess) cycle in the level of solar activity. Its appearance, however, is intermittent. Careful analysis of the Be10 and C14 ice-core records show that the de Vries cycle is most prominent during epochs that are separated by about 2300 years (Vasiliev and Dergachev, 2002). This longer modulation period in the level of solar activity is known as the Hallstatt cycle ( Vitinsky et al., 1986; Damon and Sonett, 1991; Vasiliev and Dergachev, 2002).It can be shown that the VEJ Tidal Torquing Model naturally produces changes in the planetary torques acting on the base of the Sun’s convective layer that exhibit a Hallstatt-like cycle.(*) Note that most of the values used in this blog post are stated to four decimal places. This is not being done to claim that the values have a precision to this level of accuracy but solely for the purposes of delaying the curtailment of the number of decimal places until the end of the calculations. In addition, it is important to note that the calculation done here are just a preliminary attempt to explain why the VEJ Tidal-Torquing model produces changes in planetary torque acting upon the Sun that exhibit a Hallstatt-like cycle. A detailed analysis of ephemeris data will have to be done before these preliminary results can be confirmed.
Venus-Earth Alignments in a Reference Frame That is Fixed with Respect to the Stars.
The following diagram shows five consecutive alignments of Venus and the Earth following the alignment of 2004. Each inferior conjunction of the Earth and Venus (i.e. VE alignment) is separated from the previous one by the Venus-Earth synodic cycle i.e. 1.59866 years. This means that, on average, the Earth-Venus-Sun line moves by 144.4824 degrees in retrograde direction, once every VE alignment. Hence, E-V-S line returns to almost the same orientation with respect the stars after five VE alignments or eight Earth (sidereal) years [actually 7.9933 years].
The above figure shows that after five VE alignments (i.e 7.9933 years), the E-V-S line falls short from completing one full orbit of the Sun with respect to the stars by [(360-(360*(7.9933 – 7.0000))) =] 2.412 degrees. Hence, the E-V-S line slowly revolves about the Sun, taking 150 EV alignments (= 239.7990 years) to move backwards [clockwise in the above diagram] by one point in the five pointed star or pentagram pattern. [Note: the actual movement is 72.36 degrees over the 239.7990 years while the mean spacing between each point on the five pointed star is 72.2412 degrees].
[Note: The 239.7990 year realignment symmetry for the VE alignments naturally produces a 243 year repetition time between the transits of Venus in front of the Sun. The reason for this is that the star point that is aligned with the South Node of Venus’ orbit (i.e. the one pointing out of the figure above) moves one to the left after 239.7990 years, and so two extra VE alignments are required (along lines 4 and 5 in the above diagram) on top of the 150 VE aligns in 239.7990 years (i.e. 152 VE alignments = 242.9963 ~ 243 years) before the Earth and Venus re-align near the South Node of Venus’ orbit, again.]
Technically, a complete repetition cycle of the pentagram pattern in VE alignments requires that E-V-S line revolves backwards by two star points (i.e. 144.4824 degrees) on five separate occasions. Hence, it takes 300 EV alignments (= 479.5980 years) to rotate backwards by 144.72 degrees (compared to mean spacing of 144.4824 degrees) and 1500 VE alignments (= 2397.990 years) to move backwards through the full Venus-Earth alignment pentagram pattern.
Hence, the VE alignment pentagram has a 2398 year Hallstatt-like symmetry re-alignment cycle with respect to the fixed stars. There is a possibility that this 2398 year cycle could play a role in modulating any long term cycles that exist in the torque being applied by Jupiter to the VE tidal bulge. However, to look for these long-term periodicities in Jupiter’s torque, we need to investigate how Jupiter [and Saturn] moves, with respect to the periodic VE tidal bulge in the convective layers of the Sun. This requires us to look at the motion of Jupiter [and Saturn] in both a fixed frame with respect to the stars and a frame that is revolving about the Sun at the same rate as the periodic VE alignments.
Jupiter in a Reference Frame that is Fixed with Respect to the Stars
The diagram immediately below shows the orbital position of Jupiter, starting at (0,1), every 0.79933 years, over a period of 35.9699 years [i.e. just over three orbits of the Sun]. It is clear from this diagram that, in a reference frame that is fixed with respect to the stars, the symmetry pattern perfectly re-aligns after moves roughly 24.26 degrees in a clockwise (pro-grade) direction. It takes Jupiter 71.9397 years (i.e. just over six orbits of the Sun or 45 VE aligns) to move 23.30 degrees in a clockwise (pro-grade) direction, to approach with one degree of producing a re-alignment of rotational symmetry.
Jupiter in a Reference Frame that is Rotating with the Earth-Venus-Sun Line
The Movement of Jupiter with Respect to the Tidal-Bulge that is Induced in the Convective Layers of the Sun by Periodic Alignments of Venus and the Earth.
The slow rotation of the Earth-Venus-Sun alignment axis can be removed provided you place yourself in a framework that rotates by 215.5176 degrees in a pro-grade direction [with respect to the fixed stars] once every 1.59866 years. In this rotating framework, Jupiter moves in a pro-grade direction (with respect to the Earth-Venus-Sun line) by 12.9993 degrees per [inferior conjunction] VE alignment.
The following diagram shows the position of Jupiter every VE alignment (i.e. 1.59866 years) in reference frame that is rotating with the Earth-Venus-Sun alignment line. This keeps the Earth and Venus in 12:00 o’clock position in this diagram. In contrast, Jupiter starts out at JO and moves 12.9993 degrees every 1.59866 years, taking 11.07 years to move exactly 90 degrees in the clockwise (pro-grade) direction and 11.19 years to the position marked J7.
Also shown on this diagram is the position of Jupiter after 27, 28 and 29 VE alignments. This tells us that Jupiter does exactly one orbit in the VE reference frame once every 44.28 years (= 11.07 years x 4), with the nearest VE alignment taking place at 28 VE alignments (= 44.7625 years) when Jupiter has moved 3.9796 degrees past realignment with its original position at JO.
The following table shows how Jupiter advances by one orbit + 3.9796 degrees every 28 VE alignments until the alignment of Jupiter with the Earth-Venus-Sun line progresses forward by
13 orbits in the VE reference frame plus 51.7345 degrees. This angle (see * in table) is almost exactly equal to the angle moved by Jupiter in 4 VE aligns (i.e. 4 x 12.99927 degrees = 51.9971 degrees).
VE_multiple______Angle of______Orbits_+__Degrees
of 12.9993_______Jupiter______________________
degrees
____ 28_________363.9796_______1__+___3.9796
____56_________727.9592_______2__+___7.9592
____84________1091.9387_______3__+__11.9387
___112________1455.9183_______4__+__15.9183
___140________1819.8979_______5__+__19.8979
___168________2183.8775_______6__+__23.8775
___196________2547.8571_______7__+__27.8571
___224________2911.8366_______8__+__31.8366
___252________3275.8162_______9__+__35.8162
___280________3639.7958______10__+__39.7958
___308________4003.7754______11__+__43.7754
___336________4367.7550______12__+__47.7550
___364________4731.7345______13__+__51.7345__*
This means that Jupiter returns to almost exact re-alignment with the Earth-Venus-Sun line after:
(364 – 4) VE aligns = 360 VE aligns = 575.5176 years
[i.e. 12.9993 orbits of Jupiter in a retro-grade direction in the VE reference frame, falling 0.2625 degrees short of exactly 13 full orbits]
Re-aligning the Movement of Jupiter in the Rotating VE Reference Frame with its Movement in the Reference Frame that is Fixed with the Stars
The following diagram shows the precise alignments Jupiter with the Earth-Venus-Sun line at
575.5176 years (360 VE aligns) and 1151.0352 years (720 VE aligns) in a frame of reference that is fixed with respect to the stars. Jupiter lags behind the VE alignments by 0.2654 degrees and 0.5251 degrees, respectively.
The important thing to note is that after four precise Jupiter alignments of 575.5176 years (= 2302.0704 years) the position of Jupiter advances from its initial position at JO (see the third diagram in this blog post) by 24.2983 degrees. This angle is almost exactly the same as 24.26 degrees of revolution that is required to produce a re-alignment of the rotational symmetry of Jupiter, in the reference frame that is fixed with respect to the stars.
Hence, the period of time required for Jupiter to precisely re-align with the Earth-Venus-Sun line in a reference frame that is fixed with respect to the stars is 2302 years. This is the Hallstatt-like cycle that is naturally found in the planetary configurations that are driving the VEJ Tidal-Torquing model for solar activity.
Damon, P.E. and Sonett, C.P., 1991, “Solar and terrestrial components of the atmospheric 14C variation spectrum”, in The Sun in Time, (Eds.) Sonett, C.P., Giampapa, M.S., Matthews, M.S., pp. 360–388, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Vasiliev, S.S. and Dergachev, V.A., 2002, “The ∼2400-year cycle in atmospheric radiocarbon concentration: bispectrum of 14C data over the last 8000 years”, Ann. Geophys., 20, 115–120.
http://www.ann-geophys.net/20/115/2002/
Vitinsky, Y.I., Kopecky, M. and Kuklin, G.V., 1986, Statistics of Sunspot Activity (in Russian), Nauka, Moscow
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Wow! That was quick. Thank you again Rog for highlighting my on going work.
The article at my web site has been slightly update if anyone want to see:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/the-vej-tidal-torquing-model-can.html
Ian,
Thank you for tackling a very difficult subject. Most of us find the Hallstatt cycle to be a bit illusive. It has two versions that are sometimes used, the 2300 and the 2200 year values. The 2300 value can also be derived from the J/S/U/N alignment cycle of 4627 years (4627/2 = 2313). The 2200 value can be derived by using a combination of J/S beat frequencies. Charvatova has a 2402 year cycle that is related to the distortion of SIM. Your 2398 year cycle seems to be very close to the Charvatova cycle. C14 proxy makes the Hallstatt cycle too important to ignore. Keep up the hard work.
Ian, using a trial copy of Alcyone Ephemeris I double checked the period for the ‘star point’ to move round by 1/5 and found it to be 251 years rather than the 239.8 you calculated. I don’t know the cause of the discrepancy.
‘It takes Jupiter 71.9397 years (i.e. just over six orbits of the Sun or 45 VE aligns) to move 23.30 degrees in a clockwise (pro-grade) direction’
Extending that timescale, these numbers seem to line up closely:
71.9397y x 81 = 5827.1157y = 34 Uranus-Neptune conjunctions
Tallbloke,
Interesting. but nature tells you that transits of Venus take place in a paired cycle that has a length close to 243 years. This can only be achieved by the 239.8 year re-alignment + 2 VE combination. I will look into it.
Ian: I’m not sure about this, but wouldn’t there need to be an 8 year difference between the transits and the star point translation? i.e. 243+8=251
Wouldn’t there be a drift in the alignment to the south node otherwise?
Rog,
i have just used the orrey in a program called Acquira and if you take the following dates:
Original VE alignment 11/01/2014 = 2014.0
Advance forward to VE alignment 29/10/2253 = 239.8 years
Add two VE alignments you move to 12/01/2257 = 2257.0
and you get back to the same point in the Earth orbit i.e. 11th of January in 2014 compared to the 12th of January in 2257.
Difference in year = 2257.0 – 2014.0 = 243.0 years.
Rog,
Take you starting point as VE alignment on the 1st January.
239.8 years is divisible by 5 VE aligns = 7.9933 years.
239.8 years is equivalent to 30 full trips around the VE Earth pentagram.
In this case, you are still on the same point of the pentagram.
The the starting point on the pentagram has moved 72.36 degrees in a retro-grade direction from its original position (i.e. one position to the left in the diagram in my blog post), after 239.8 years.
To get back to the original starting point you must advance by 2 VE alignments = 3.2 years
239.8 + 3.2 years = 243.0 years
251.0 years is not divisible by 5 VE aligns (251.0/7.9933 = 31.4 years) – so you are moving to a different point on the pentagram.
Thanks Ian. I’ll try to puzzle out what’s wrong with Alcyone Ephemeris, or the way I’m driving it. I’m using a half synod interval of 291.961 days, which seems to hold good over centuries.
Hallstatt is really a Jovian event cycle, it would have to show at 2224 and 2403 years (179yr difference). The problem is though that the V/E phase to the Jovian’s is ~90° degrees out at these nodes compared to the start and finish of a 4627.33 return. While at the slightly looser JSUN returns at +1542yrs, the V/E phase is the same, meaning that the so called 1500yr climate event cycle should be stronger than the 2224/2403yr ones.
I don’t see what adding up Venus transit cycles has to do with it.
[…] Ian Wilson: The VEJ Tidal Torquing Model can explain changes in … […]
@Rog: what calendar system is in Alcyone Ephemeris, according to Solex+DE421 numerical integration (astronomical “J”ulian date in parenthesis) and at heliocentric longitude°:
VE 2014/01/11 12:21:52 (2456669.01519) at 111.20°
VE 2257/01/13 11:08:50 (2545424.96447) at 113.19°
[btw: the difference in number of days reflects the difference° in position, astronomical exact up to the planets’ hour 🙂 ]
Can send the data points for V/E/J 2014-2257 or more.
@Ian: what is Acquira program, Google doesn’t find it; can you post a link. TIA
Ulric,
I am proposing that the torques applied by Jupiter to the intermittent tidal bulges created by VE alignments can naturally produce the observed long term periodicities in the level of solar activity (as indicated by Be10 and C14).
The VE Tidal-Torquing model is (currently) the only physically plausible model for producing a planetary influence on solar activity. Note: This does not mean that it is correct nor does it rule out speculation about other models, however, the crucial words are “physically plausible”. That is,
it, it is the only model that main stream scientists will give the time of day.
One of the standard arguments thrown up against planetary models such as the VE Tidal-Torquing model is that they do not produce the observed long term periodicities in the level of solar activity. You and I know that this is an absurd claim but that is not well know outside our little community.
Yes, there is the 2224 and 2403 years grand-alignment period of the planets that could influence solar activity but this Hallstatt-like period must influence the level of solar activity through SIM [Solar Inertial Motion] and this theory is as welcome as bacon at a Bar Mitzva when it comes to the main-stream scientific community.
If we can show that the physically plausible VE Tidal-torquing model can naturally produce the periodicities in the level of solar activity then their is the possibility that tiny box inside of which the main-stream scientists currently see the world may just get that little bit larger.
One final note: the 575.5176 year realignment cycle of Jupiter (=2302.0704 / 4) with the VE alignments is rock solid. In addition, it actually represents the periodicity of a torque that is being applied to the Sun by Jupiter.
TLMango says:
August 12, 2013 at 4:42 pm
.
Ian,
Thank you for tackling a very difficult subject. Most of us find the Hallstatt cycle to be a bit illusive.
That may be so, but even more of us find it elusive.
Chaeremon,
I used Aciqra Io 1.1.0 Copyright Caglow 2008-09 – An open source planetarium program.
Try going to this site:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/aciqra.html
to get the latest 3.2.2. version
Chaeremon said:
VE 2014/01/11 12:21:52 (2456669.01519) at 111.20°
VE 2257/01/13 11:08:50 (2545424.96447) at 113.19°
The crucial question is what is the angle around January 11 2265 A.D. [2014 + 243 + 8 years = 251 years] Is it closer to 111.20 degrees than 113.19 degrees? I would guess it would be 111.0 degrees. If this is true then maybe Rog is right in terms of alignment but wrong on which star point that he is referring to.
Note: this discussion only concerns the periodicity of Venus Transits, it is not directly related to the Hallstatt cycle part of my post.
Ian wrote: what is the angle around January 11 2265 A.D.
Solex says this VE occurs 2265/01/10 23:28:48 (2548344.47834) at 110.71°
Ian: The crucial question is what is the angle around January 11 2265 A.D. [2014 + 243 + 8 years = 251 years] Is it closer to 111.20 degrees than 113.19 degrees? I would guess it would be 111.0 degrees. If this is true then maybe Rog is right in terms of alignment but wrong on which star point that he is referring to.
This is indeed what I find. So my error was to take a fixed point in space and measure the time of transit of two star points, rather then follow one star point round the heavens?
“One of the standard arguments thrown up against planetary models such as the VE Tidal-Torquing model is that they do not produce the observed long term periodicities in the level of solar activity. You and I know that this is an absurd claim but that is not well know outside our little community.”
To be honest, I find your claim that they do absurd. A ~2300yrs event periodicity would not occur without the Jovian synodic cycles.
[Moderation note] It looks like Ian missed the ‘J’ off the end of ‘VE’. We all know his model relies on Jupiter’s involvement. -Rog
“but this Hallstatt-like period must influence the level of solar activity through SIM [Solar Inertial Motion]”
But all the events that make the Hallstatt-like period happen rapidly at specific Jovian configurations, so I don’t see how that can be true.
[Reply] And those Jovian configurations show up in SIM studies as well as Tidal studies. cf Charvatova
Adding up JEV periods till they get close to 2302 is meaningless. Where is the justification for multiplying the 575.5176 by 4?
It’s falling out of sync with the long term sunspot cycle average period too.
“And those Jovian configurations show up in SIM studies as well as Tidal studies. cf Charvatova”
There is no proof that it is SIM/tidal.
[Reply] No conclusive proof, but increasing circumstantial evidence. Ian didn’t claim conclusive proof. Look at the intro to the article.
“but this Hallstatt-like period must influence the level of solar activity through SIM [Solar Inertial Motion]”
Just suppose, as a mental exercise, that Valery Kotov is correct and there is a galactic or bigger scale of oscillation pervading the cosmos at around a 160 minute wavelength. Suppose further that this oscillation underlies various harmonies within the solar system and is itself a sub-harmonic of lower frequency oscillations. Then it would provide a rationale for the coincidence of planetary interaction frequencies and solar activity changes not because one drives the other, but because both are driven by an external force. Occams razor fans are not keen on this kind of thinking. But then, they’re not taking account of the exoplanets and other celestial phenomena found by Kotov that fit the pattern.
My approach is to observe what is actually functioning, and let that decide what the mechanisms can or cannot be.
Ulric said:
Adding up JEV periods till they get close to 2302 is meaningless.
My response – not if are trying to work out the repetition time for the net torques [note: not tidal forces] that are applied to the Sun by Jupiter. This dictates that you look for:
a) realignment in a frame of reference that is rotating with the VE alignments – since it is these VE alignments that are the source of the asymmetry in the sun’s convective layers that allow Jupiter to apply its gravitational torques. – this gives you the 575.5176 year period.
PLUS
b) realignment in a frame of reference that is fixed with respect to the stars the stars. This additional adjustment is more speculative since it assumes that the application of Jupiter’s torque
is more effective at specific solar latitudes – this translates to requiring the cycle to be complete when Jupiter returns to the same point in fixed in its orbit e.g. one of its nodes.
Ulric said,
Where is the justification for multiplying the 575.5176 by 4?
My response,
point b) requires four 575.5176 year Jupiter alignments.
Ulric said,
It’s falling out of sync with the long term sunspot cycle average period too.
My response,
No its not, The VEJ cycle is actually extremely well synchronized with the solar minimums over the long term – it is when solar sunspot cycle gets out of sync with the VEJ cycle that is when you get a collapse in peak SSN and a lengthening of the solar cycle length until the SS cycle re-synchronizes with the VEJ cycle.
See: http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/why-does-solar-cycle-keep-re.html
This is the result that Roy Martin found.
I can see a whole series of VEJ periods closely coinciding with a Jupiter node. All based on the Venus transit period, plus multiples of 8yrs. You’ll see Jupiter return to a node at a whole number of E-V synods at 12 Jupiter orbits, so you only need to look at every 12th one. At 84 Jupiter orbits is a good fit, close to 996yrs.
Dr. Wilson have you or anyone else used your VEJ cycle ideas to model and or predict sunspot cycles? Your work is so compelling. Congrats on your on going contributions!
R J Salvador says:
“Dr. Wilson have you or anyone else used your VEJ cycle ideas to model and or predict sunspot cycles?”
I made a major breakthrough last week on the planetary forcing of sunspot cycles that maps both the positions of sunspot maximum’s properly, and how and when 2-3 solar cycles every ~111yrs on average are weaker.
Ulric,
Great News! I hope you are able to consolidate your ideas. I know that any research that you do is thoroughly done.
I have the feeling that we are both stumbling towards a similar point from two different directions.
Ulric, remember when I “discovered” that Venus’ ecliptic latitude seem to closely match the distance of Jupiter from its mean orbital distance from the Sun, when the two variables were sampled at each alignment of Venus and the Earth?
What that relationship was showing, was that the slow drift of pentagram positions of VE alignments around the “fixed” orbits of Jupiter and Venus. The graph I produced was map of this slow movement over the centuries with the period between peaks being ~ 165 years.
I have found another interesting relationship between the orbits of Jupiter and Venus which involves one of the other Jovian planets. It could appear in one of my upcoming posts.
Ulric,
Sorry, I forgot to add that the ~ 165 year period seen in figure 7 of my paper:
Wilson I.R.G., 2011, Do Periodic Peaks in the Planetary Tidal Forces Acting Upon the Sun Influence the Sunspot Cycle?, The General Science Journal, p. 1
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/3812
is simply the beat period between 11.07 year VEJ cycle (which determines Venus’ ecliptic longitude) with the 11.8622 year cycle in the distance of Jupiter from its mean orbital distance from the Sun.
(11.07 * 11.8622) / (11.8622- 11.07) = 165.76 years.
Careful:
(11.86630899)*(11.05464062) / (11.86630899 – 11.05464062) = 161.6149984
If you check carefully, that drifts out of phase.
This does not:
164.888325 (Neptune)
I showed this in SunEMnAM 3.5 years ago.
Looks like Ulric has taken a step since this.
Paul Vaughan says:
August 3, 2013 at 8:03 pm
“Sorry, Roy Martin’s 111 year event series.”
JEV isn’t independent of JSUN.
Reminder #1:
A) 1/1499.158824 = 5S/2-J+N-U/2 = (5S-U)/2-(J-N)
B) 1/2298.160281 = 5S/2-J-N+U/2 = (5S+U)/2-(J+N)
Reminder # 2:
A) Amplitude of annual terrestrial length of day varies with J-N.
B) Amplitude of semiannual terrestrial length of day varies with J+N.
So fortunately the questions keep going deeper.
The key thing to notice there is the symmetry of 1500 & 2300.
(Look at the frequency algebra comparatively.)
– –
TB: Would you be able to get Roy Martin over here? I noticed a JEV follow-up from him that raised a discrepancy. (I had left the thread.) I need his sources to resolve the discrepancy. (I can’t rule out the possibility that resolving this discrepancy could be quite important…)
Ian:
I have been interested in a ~166.05yr cycle for several years. Divide it by 12, 13, 14 and 15 and you’ll see why.
Use 14 x 4332.589 as your base.
Paul said:
Careful:
(11.86630899)*(11.05464062) / (11.86630899 – 11.05464062) = 161.6149984
my response:
Careful:
You are using planetary orbital values that are averages for the period between 3000 B.C.
and 3000 A.D. Doing this will hide interactions between the planetary periods that might be taking place on much shorter time scales.
I should add that from a Jovian perspective, that ~166yr return is a pseudo cycle or local return period, and like the 179yr return, cannot be repeated in a row as there is too much slip. Nine steps puts Uranus at ~90° from Neptune and Jupiter.
What the ~166yr return interestingly shows is no resonance with Saturn, which is one clue that Saturn has nothing to do with sunspot cycle periodicity.
Ian says:
“I have the feeling that we are both stumbling towards a similar point from two different directions.”
I tend to stick to observation and deduction, and everything I am looking at contradicts all tidally based theories, so yes very different directions. The only point they could meet is at long term average periods, but even that isn’t quite happening yet.
Ian, your 2302 years is pretty close to 2298.160281 years.
What is the source of the orbital periods used in your estimates?
I would like to sort out the discrepancy in Roy’s follow-up. Estimates he claims are based on J2000 3000BC-3000AD periods are not in accord with orbital elements posted here:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t2.txt
It’s becoming clear that we all need to be more explicit about our sources of osculating element central limits.
Aggregation criteria are the spice of exploration.
Ulric Lyons (August 14, 2013 at 1:01 pm) wrote
“[…] Saturn has nothing to do with sunspot cycle periodicity.”
North-South sunspot area asymmetry observations suggest SEV plays a key role in torus/quadrupole asymmetry periodicity. There are phase reversals during periods of low overall solar activity, but not during periods of high activity. The patterns are systematic. Investigators trying to model sunspot numbers globally (i.e. temporally unwindowed with stationary harmonics) will completely miss this. With a tuned temporal windowing approach, the effect can be incorporated into other summaries (e.g. cycle length), so careful interpretation becomes both interesting & challenging. I’m convinced that the data have more to confess if viewed through the right lenses. There’s spatiotemporally-multipath interference in the signals, so it’s a tricky puzzle trying to determine exactly which summaries will expose attractors. (Methods that allow overfitting chase ghosts in this type of context.)
Paul Vaughan says:
“North-South sunspot area asymmetry observations suggest SEV plays a key role in torus/quadrupole asymmetry periodicity.”
Maybe, and there may be a relationship with coronal holes at that period too, but that’s not sunspot cycle frequency.
Ulric Lyons (August 14, 2013 at 3:33 pm) wrote:
“[…] but that’s not sunspot cycle frequency.”
We agree. (I probably should have clarified.)
– – –
Trying to follow up on Roy’s comments, I notice that JEV & J+N are very-near-synchronized (~11.07 years) using these periods:
0.2408467
0.61519726
1.0000174
1.8808476
11.862615
29.447498
84.016846
164.79132
247.92065
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par#D
I’m not willing to rule out the possibility that they are long-run-synchronized.
Thank you Brian H. I meant “elusive”. I’m a product of the Detroit public school system.
If Obama had a city it would look like Detroit.
Ulric,
I want to see your 111 year solar cycle. I’ve been using Dr Scafetta’s 114.79 year solar cycle in my research with interesting results. I hope you share your work with us soon.
Paul Vaughan says:
“I notice that JEV & J+N are very-near-synchronized”
At 19 J-N synodic periods they are, which is close to the Venus transit cycle.
TLMango says:
“I want to see your 111 year solar cycle. I’ve been using Dr Scafetta’s 114.79 year solar cycle in my research with interesting results. I hope you share your work with us soon.”
I am currently figuring out the best way to present it, and will look forward to sharing it. Along with something else that I spotted today. I found a rational reason why there should be a ~115Kyr beat between 4448yrs and 4627.33yrs.
Paul,
Thanks for clarifying the orbital periods that you use in your investigations. I think the JEV cycle of (~ 11.07 years) is the cycle responsible for timing the solar sunspot cycle and, as you say, the SaEV cycle for the Nth/Sth sunspot area asymmetry.
I have been trying to model the sunspot cycle based on internal sun processes that are under going a frequency shift. So far I can get a good match to the sun spot cycle lengths using two oscillators of frequency 19.04 yrs and 22.252 yrs plus their first harmonics by varying frequency of the 19.04 yr cycle on a 1230.9 yr cycle and the 22.252 yr cycle on a 178.8 yr cycle. I want to incorporate Ian Wilson’s work because I believe it is key. Does it make sense to use simple planet orbital frequencies as a first approximation? It’s interesting that the barycenter rotation of 178.8 yrs for the variation in the 22.25 yr cycle works.
Ulric said:
“What the ~166yr return interestingly shows is no resonance with Saturn, which is one clue that Saturn has nothing to do with sunspot cycle periodicity.”
You are right about this [at least not directly]! However, the 166 year cycle does have something to do with another property of Jupiter’s orbit and it’s possible influence upon the Sun.
RJ Salvador: take a look at this post
and my followup
RJ Salvador,
Interesting. Have you noticed that the beat period of you two long term modulating periods is near the de Vries cycle?
(1230.9 x 178.8) / (1230.9 – 178.8) = 209.2 years ~ 208 yrs
In addition, have you tried using 19.859 years and 22.34 years, that have a beat period of:
(22.34 x 19.859) / (22.34 – 19.859) = 178.8 years ~ Jose Cycle
TB says
“RJ Salvador: take a look at this post
and my followup
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/”
Excellent TB, I will give give the BART interacting signal model a try.
RJ
Ian Wilson says:
“You are right about this [at least not directly]! However, the 166 year cycle does have something to do with another property of Jupiter’s orbit and it’s possible influence upon the Sun.”
Yes directly, it does not fit. I think I have probably already covered the properties of Jupiter’s orbit on the other post unless you can add to it :
@Ian Wilson
Thanks for the de Vries cycle info. I didn’t notice that.
On the base solar frequencies, Yes I picked that relationship up from your VEJ work. So far the model resists using those exact frequencies except 178.8. I started with those.
RJ
As Paul knows, I first drew attention to the SEV period, not as a meaningless extension of JEV phenomena, but direct observation of short term planetary ordering of solar activity that I employ for long range weather forecasts. For example I made a deterministic forecast for a hot July 2013 from 4 years ago based on these three bodies, starting from the 6/7th July/ In actuality, it kicked in from the 5th. There are incidentally many examples of a hot UK July and it being cold in the U.S. at the same time.
Here is a plot of the four frequency Solar correlation. The fit is only 52% but it does a good job of adjusting for the changes in the solar cycle length and it picks up the general wave of the sunspot oscillation. I will try to modulate this with Planet orbital data to get a better fit. However I am fairly ignorant in this area. So in the end I will disclose what I get for those more skilled in the art to improve or challenge.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/46/l0vp.jpg/
RJ Salvador: Good work! Look forward to your next steps.
Ulric said:
“Yes directly, it does not fit. I think I have probably already covered the properties of Jupiter’s orbit on the other post unless you can add to it :
OK so over 179yrs there will be 9 x 6.5 Venus synod JEV’s and 7 x 7.5 Venus synod JEV’s. Then through every 166yrs the 6.5′s and 7.5′s will cluster up this way and that because of the shape of Jupiter’s orbit”
my response to Ulric’s statement:
“Then through every 166yrs the 6.5′s and 7.5′s will cluster up this way and that because of the shape of Jupiter’s orbit”
In the next few days I will put up a blog post that will discussing the “this way and that because of the shape of Jupiter’s orbit”.
Ulric, maybe I should clarify that by J+N I mean the axial period of ~11.07, whereas J-N refers to 12.8.
Ian I normally do my estimates with J2000 3000BC-3000AD, but this choice is just for illustration. It would be diagnostically helpful knowing which periods you use for your calculations.
(J+N) – J = N
and since JEV ~= J+N
it’s no surprise that
JEV – J ~= N
Afterall, Jovians constrain Terrestrials.
The physical interpretation of J+N is how long it takes the combined efforts of J & N to sweep out — or wind up — 1 circle of 360 degrees.
RJ, thanks sincerely for your contributions.
I too look forward to seeing the evolution of explorations.
Ulric, do you have a storyline to go with UEV & NEV? If not, I’m willing to bet that you or someone else will develop one…
Paul Vaughan says:
“Ulric, do you have a storyline to go with UEV & NEV? If not, I’m willing to bet that you or someone else will develop one…”
More important is pairs of Jovian’s with the EV synods. Beats with the 4627yr grand synod produce the inter-glacial nodes.
Ian said:
“In the next few days I will put up a blog post that will discussing the “this way and that because of the shape of Jupiter’s orbit”.”
Of course the shape of the orbit of Jupiter will affect the timing of the JEV syzygy centers as they precess around the orbital path of Jupiter every 14 Jupiter orbits. A pair of longer JEV intervals coinciding with a 110.7yr phase catastrophe could make for a deeper grand minimum.
It is also possible that very long J-S-U-N E-V phase cycles, could fall in and out of resonance with Earth’s orbital variation periods. A long shot at the change from 41Kyr to ~100-110Kyr glaciation cycle sequences.
I’ve refrained from draining the effort reservoir (needed for more vital pursuits) explaining it, but SJEV gives ~55 (Kondratiev) & ~111 year cycles:
During high solar activity, solar SEV expression sticks to 9 years, but during low solar activity it can phase-flip spatial expression, thus appearing to extend temporally to 9 + 9/2 = 9 + 4.5 = 13.5 years.
This happened ~1900 and again recently.
cf upper panel of figure 3 here:
Javaraiah, J. (2011). Long-term variations in the growth and decay rates of sunspot groups. Solar Physics 270(2), 463-483.
Click to access 1105.1066v1.pdf
The effect seems to be on solar north-south asymmetry via torus/quadrupole, but keep in mind that this does affect the shape of the solar cycle.
I have a pile of observations on this that are not convenient to explain. For sure there are clean connections with stratospheric volcanoes, heliographic asymmetry, solar rotation, and the chandler wobble phase reversal.
Since I didn’t have funding to explain (and possibly never will), I just dumped a bunch of lines & symbols on some graphs knowing that this would be enough for anyone else with time to look carefully.
Mursula, K. (2007). Asymmetric sun viewed from the heliosphere.
Click to access Mursula_ASR_2007.pdf
Observation-Based Speculation:
…So maybe the sun has a “free” wobble like Earth, that can escape resonant entrainment and reverse spatiotemporal resonance phase during low activity north-south asymmetric conflict.
Exploratory Caution:
Whenever there are phase reversals, there are systematic jumps away from what’s suggested by simple beat period calculations.
I hard-budgeted the time I spent volunteering these minimal notes. If anyone needs more technically precise info, please ask about one detail at a time and be very specific — thank you.
Amazing work you are doing here Ian with some expert assistance
As a beginner l can’t keep up so l have taken your first discussion of the VE alignments and the retrograde motion to return to original orientation
I have plotted your description in pictorial form from the link below
You will need to use the zoom function Control ++ on your key board to read or use the zoom function on picassa
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/FIBONACCI_GoldenNumbers#5912345991645525442
I did this to help me understand
In the process l did some fibonnacci and PHI searching and came up with some segment ratios based on the pentagram segments ( 5) !!!!
From the image…/ link
It takes 750 EV alignments to return to the same orientation ( complete the circle)
and
1198.85 yrs to complete the return to the same orientation.
I think this is your retrograde motion
The ratio of these is 1198.85 : 750 = 1.6.. PHI
also nested
239.77 yrs and 150 alignments is also PHI
239 : 150 = PHI
Nested fractals?
Anyway .. New to me. But intriguing.. Cheers
hi crikey
I like the way you’re thinking but note that V-E is almost 1.6 years so 1198.85 / 750 reflects that.
I applied the planetary orbital frequencies of Jupiter 11.86, Venus 0.615, Earth 1, and I also include Saturn 29.46 to the base four solar frequency model, I spoke about above. I used the orbital frequencies to modulate the magnitude constants of the solar frequencies.
There are a lot of moving parts here and it is difficult to keep effects ascribed to the proper cause. So I got 71.5% fit. Not great but hopeful when you consider I just dumped in the frequencies and assumed they would modulate other solar constants. The models reconstruction of the past does have a Maunder minimum but not as extended as we are told it was. The model’s prediction of future Sunspot activity out to 2050 predicts a Maunder type minimum. (too drastic?)
You can see the correlation here:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/35/0qex.jpg/
The prediction is here:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/825/1xnb.jpg/
The past reconstruct is here:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/545/nc9s.jpg/
The oscillation of the constants that go into this base solar equation
sn=(A*cos(w1*t +phi1)+B*cos(w2*t+phi2)+ C*cos(w3*t+phi3)+D*cos(w4*t+phi4))^2;
where,
w1=2*pi/(19.04*(1+0.01677*cos(2*pi/1230.9*(t-73.02))));
w2=2*pi/(22.252*(1+ 0.0008719*sin(2*pi/178.8*(t-34.97))));
w3=2*pi/(2*19.04*(1+0.01677*cos(2*pi/1230.9*(t-73.027))));
w4=2*pi/(2*22.252*(1+ 0.0008719*sin(2*pi/178.8*(t-34.97))));
are here:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/199/3xqi.JPG/
I think the answer is in Ian Wilson’s work. Those of you more knowledgeable and skilled in planetary and solar matters I am sure can improve on this.
Paul Vaughan says:
“SJEV gives ~55 (Kondratiev) & ~111 year cycles”
199.033yrs 124.5 V/E synods. At half that, EV and SJ are 90° out of phase.
“During high solar activity, solar SEV expression sticks to 9 years, but during low solar activity it can phase-flip spatial expression, thus appearing to extend temporally to 9 + 9/2 = 9 + 4.5 = 13.5 years.”
It is not that irregular at all.
J-S/E-V is actually nearer 192.6yrs over ~2000yrs. There is a slip where now and again they sync up at 9 J-S synodic periods rather than 10 J-S synodic periods.
Ulric, you can see how the 9 year wave reversed phase twice over the record (turquoise).
That’s observed. No theory. Straight observation.
So maybe you’re referring to some other aspect of solar activity? If so, just point — then I’ll take a look.
R J Salvador,
Sorry to put you to so much trouble but could you try
a 22.14 (= 2 x 11.07) year and a weaker (maybe half strength) 19.54
years signal and see if the fit is still plausible.
Cheers,
Ian Wilson
@Paul
You already knew J-S/E-V is ~198yrs, and you should know that SEV has no 13.5yr steps.
Thanks for the assistance ‘old brew’…
Question?
Why is a pentagram used to describe the motion of alignments?
——————————-
I noticed if you use a CIRCLE.
5 sections of 239 yrs = 1198 .83 yrs
150 EV alignments = 239.799 yrs
so 239 yrs to circumnavigate the circle
—————————————
But if you use a Penatagon
Ian says
1500 VE alignments ( 2397.99 years)
—————————————–
Now the Pentagon navigation is exactly.. 10 times the circular circumnavigation.?
Is this a mathematical property of the circle and pentagon .. 10 : 1 ??
So why use a pentagaon?
——————————-
Paul Vaughan says:
“So maybe you’re referring to some other aspect of solar activity?”
In terms of solar activity, so in this case synodic rather than syzygy periods, SEV is really ~18yrs, as an isolated factor.
Crikey, because the successive synodic conjunctions of Venus and Earth occur nearly 144 degrees apart, tracing out a pentagon in the heavens every 8 years. But it slowly precesses, at the rate Ian describes, taking 239.799 years for the translation of one ‘star-point’ around one fifth of the circle. But because the successive conjunctions are 144 degrees apart not 72, the full cycle finishes after ten such translations. As Ian said:
“Technically, a complete repetition cycle of the pentagram pattern in VE alignments requires that E-V-S line revolves backwards by two star points (i.e. 144.4824 degrees) on five separate occasions. Hence, it takes 300 EV alignments (= 479.5980 years) to rotate backwards by 144.72 degrees (compared to mean spacing of 144.4824 degrees) and 1500 VE alignments (= 2397.990 years) to move backwards through the full Venus-Earth alignment pentagram pattern.”
@ crikey
Venus-Earth orbit pattern gives a ‘rolling’ pentagram. It derives from the 13:8 (almost) ratio of their orbital periods.
MASTER KEY TO THE MYSTERY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM NUMBER 1
JUPITER OPPOSITE NEPTUNE IS COLD
JUPITER SQUARE TO NEPTUNE IS HOT
SATURN OPPOSITE URANUS IS COLD
SATURN SQUARE TO URANUS IS HOT
THUS SATURN OPPOSITE URANUS, SQUARE TO
JUPITER OPPOSITE NEPTUNE IS FOUR TIMES COLD.
BY INTERCHANGING URANUS AND NEPTUNE
IT BECOMES FOUR TIMES HOT.
SLIGHTLY OBLIQUE EXAMPLES OF THE LATTER
OCCURRED IN THE HOTTEST CLUSTERS OF YEARS
FOR THE LAST FEW HUNDRED YEARS.
© ULRIC ALEXANDER LYONS 2013
Ian Wilson
It is no trouble but I now have your two frequencies of 19.895 and 22.34 working along with 178.8 and now 1263.1 with an R^2 of 0.7216 (72.16%). I thought it was reasonable that if the frequencies are slowly altering then the phases are probably also slowly changing on the same basis. I tried to avoid this because it is a nightmare in correlation.
Based on your theory, I believe the model does a good job of describing a sun that has two solar processes one beating in time with Jupiter Saturn synodic period of 19.895 and the other of 22.34 set by the overall 178.8 yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion. The model changes the frequency of the 19 yr cycle by a maximum +/- 0.203 cycles per year and shifts the phase +/- 23.8 years over 1263 yrs and it changes the 22.34 cycle frequency by +/- 0.0439 cycles per year and shifts the phase by 2.0 years over 178.8 years. This gives rise to the de Vries cycle of 208.2 years.
The model also increases or decreases the sunspot number depending on the planetary orbital influence of VEJ and S. My preliminary inspection of the model indicates the planets act more on the 22 yr cycle than the 19 yr cycle. I believe this is your lock and unlock depending on whether the planet cycle is in phase with the 22 year cycle. So if the sun is at a point in the barycenter rotation that the 19 yr and 22 yr cycle are already somewhat cancelling each other and the planets are aligned to also suppress activity we get a Maunder type minimum and of course the opposite can happen.
I just got this working so it will take me time to organize it.
Here is the correlation. Sorry the graphic are weak on my correlation program.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/46/l0vp.jpg/
Additionally:
JUPITER OPPOSITE URANUS IS HOT
JUPITER SQUARE TO URANUS IS COLD
SATURN OPPOSITE NEPTUNE IS HOT
SATURN SQUARE TO NEPTUNE IS COLD
@ Ian Wilson
One more comment, yes the frequency oscillation are very small but if I drop them and just use phase shifts the model does not work well. This maybe a function of the model and not reality.
Also here is the form of the planet inputs:
A=F1+J1*cos(2*pi/11.86*(t+J2))+S1*cos(2*pi/29.46*(t+S2))+E1*sin(2*pi/1*(t+E2))+V1*sin(2*pi/0.615*(t+V2));
B=F2+J3*cos(2*pi/11.86*(t+J2))+S3*cos(2*pi/29.46*(t+S2))+E3*sin(2*pi/1*(t+E2))+V3*sin(2*pi/0.615*(t+V2));
C=F3+J5*cos(2*pi/11.86*(t+J2))+S5*cos(2*pi/29.46*(t+S2))+E5*sin(2*pi/1*(t+E2))+V5*sin(2*pi/0.615*(t+V2));
D=F4+J7*cos(2*pi/11.86*(t+J2))+S7*cos(2*pi/29.46*(t+S2))+E7*sin(2*pi/1*(t+E2))+V7*sin(2*pi/0.615*(t+V2));
Some kind of quadrupole magnetic moment, it cannot have anything to do with solar tides or barycenter business
RJ Salvador: Please can you tell me what the Phi1 Phi2 Phi3 Phi4 parameters are in your equation.
sn=(A*cos(w1*t +phi1)+B*cos(w2*t+phi2)+ C*cos(w3*t+phi3)+D*cos(w4*t+phi4))^2;
And also the origin of the 0.615 value in your recent comment. Thanks.
Ian Wilson is asking you to check the numbers he requested because they relate to another aspect of his tidal theory.
I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to try his requested values so we can compare the result with your current very promising correlation.
By the way, Your current correlation is better than 0.72 if Leif Svalgaard is correct about sunspots being overcounted by around 20% during the mid-late C20th
Ulric. I’m going to set up a new thread for discussion of your findings. Please could you email me some of the matches with historical meteo obs which support your findings. Thanks.
Thanks Rog. I just tagged Anthony Watts on facebook and said he needs to take a look at my findings on solar cycle phase catastrophe in Maunder, Dalton and now, his reply was:
“Another cyclomania example, not interested, sorry.”
He has not even seen it yet. I took Rog through it on the phone recently, and he should notice how it immediately relates to the Jovian relationships that I described above.
Ulric, could you output graphics from your Bisque software to show the configurations of the Jovians at hot and cold epochs to support your theory please. For inclusion in the new thread. Thanks.
Rog:
Dates for Jupiter opposite Uranus square to Saturn are:
2003-6
1974-6
1947-9
1934-5
1906 (Neptune ~in line wrong direction)
1865-6
1837 (Neptune ~in line wrong direction)
1796 (EV phase problem eg Dalton)
1768 (EV phase problem)
1726-7
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
May and August 1630 must have been scorching. Very warm 1615-16 too (J*U sq to S, N opp/conj)
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1600_1649.htm
The 20th Century has had the best run for hundreds of years.
Part of the problem here is that Britain is a small part of the world. And when it’s warm/dry in one place, it might well be cool/wet in another.
TB:
I will address your post in reverse order. Thank you for the comment about sunspot count over statement. I can trick the correlation program by raising all the sunspot numbers say to the power of 1.05 which gives the higher numbers more weight and it looks nice but I have not posted those results.
To TB and Ian Wilson:
I have two models now one with just varying frequency and another with varying frequency and phase. I ran Ian Wilson’s requested 19.57 and 22.14 in both of them. These frequencies will work. They seem to give a better fit around the Dalton minimum but this is subjective on my part.
Without optimization of other parameters model 1 r^2 is 0.692 and model 2 r^2 is 0.713.
The other solar frequencies in model 1 are 178.8 and 1237.3 and model 2 are 178.8 and 1245.3
I got the Venus orbital period from here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period
Let me know if it is wrong.
Here is the full story for model 1
A=F1+J1*cos(2*pi/11.86*(t+J2))+S1*cos(2*pi/29.46*(t+S2))+E1*sin(2*pi/1*(t+E2))+V1*sin(2*pi/0.615*(t+V2));
B=F2+J3*cos(2*pi/11.86*(t+J2))+S3*cos(2*pi/29.46*(t+S2))+E3*sin(2*pi/1*(t+E2))+V3*sin(2*pi/0.615*(t+V2));
C=F3+J5*cos(2*pi/11.86*(t+J2))+S5*cos(2*pi/29.46*(t+S2))+E5*sin(2*pi/1*(t+E2))+V5*sin(2*pi/0.615*(t+V2));
D=F4+J7*cos(2*pi/11.86*(t+J2))+S7*cos(2*pi/29.46*(t+S2))+E7*sin(2*pi/1*(t+E2))+V7*sin(2*pi/0.615*(t+V2));
w1=2*pi/(19.04*(1+0.01677*cos(2*pi/1230.9*(t-73.02))));
w2=2*pi/(22.252*(1+ 0.0008719*sin(2*pi/178.8*(t-34.97))));
w3=2*pi/(2*19.04*(1+0.01677*cos(2*pi/1230.9*(t-73.027))));
w4=2*pi/(2*22.252*(1+ 0.0008719*sin(2*pi/178.8*(t-34.97))));
phi1= -7.089;
phi2= 2.595;
phi3=0.3129;
phi4= 1.2603;
sn=(A*cos(w1*t +phi1)+B*cos(w2*t+phi2)+ C*cos(w3*t+phi3)+D*cos(w4*t+phi4))^2;
Parameter Lower limit Best estimate Upper limit ---------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- F1 3.54965813 3.63914585 3.72863357 F2 8.82006406 8.90141374 8.98276342 F3 0.363564336 0.447465667 0.531366999 F4 -0.37619118 -0.293678719 -0.211166258 J1 0.357301413 0.479348292 0.601395171 J2 3.48524953 3.58112166 3.67699379 J3 1.25796989 1.3654691 1.47296832 J5 0.554502364 0.670483864 0.786465364 J7 -1.21588089 -1.10082498 -0.985769072 V1 -0.277469957 -0.162319702 -0.0471694463 V2 0.905477548 0.9662462 1.02701485 V3 -0.0518673369 0.0514873186 0.154841974 V5 -0.0965692696 0.00992327673 0.116415823 V7 -0.189832406 -0.08215299 0.0255264257 S1 -0.17844797 -0.0561093773 0.066229216 S2 3.13549421 3.26016825 3.38484229 S3 -2.1668501 -2.0454726 -1.92409511 S5 0.606803685 0.721293393 0.835783102 S7 -2.58740804 -2.44982705 -2.31224606 E1 -0.313540679 -0.198412474 -0.0832842689 E2 1.03266939 1.09453157 1.15639375 E3 -0.0890753188 0.0142343307 0.11754398 E5 -0.202797573 -0.0963222629 0.0101530473 E7 -0.197010266 -0.089347426 0.0183154145I have only pulled model 2 together this morning. There is a few tweaks I want to try and then I will pass it on also.
Just a heads up in model 2, I changed the phase factor to come directly off the time so I could more easily understand its magnitude.
Regards RJ
Those temperature deviations from average follow the AO/NAO which is solar driven, and if they didn’t, there’s no way I could hindcast and forecast the short term signal for the UK so well.
Ouch! It did not use my spacing here are the parameters again without the confidence limits
Parameter Best estimate
———- —————-
F1 3.63914585
F2 8.90141374
F3 0.447465667
F4 -0.293678719
J1 0.479348292
J2 3.58112166
J3 1.3654691
J5 0.670483864
J7 -1.10082498
V1 -0.162319702
V2 0.9662462
V3 0.0514873186
V5 0.00992327673
V7 -0.08215299
S1 -0.0561093773
S2 3.26016825
S3 -2.0454726
S5 0.721293393
S7 -2.44982705
E1 -0.198412474
E2 1.09453157
E3 0.0142343307
E5 -0.0963222629
E7 -0.089347426
Rog:
“And when it’s warm/dry in one place, it might well be cool/wet in another.”
Well how many places round the Northern Hemisphere were cold in Summer 1934? I mean I am discussing a peak solar signal here with these examples. One would expect a solar signal to have a global impact.
Next, you need the J*N sq to U*S dates.
Ulric,
Please can we do this on the new thread rather than on this one. Please email me. Thanks.
RJ: Thanks. Please would you try reducing the 178.8 to 166 and see if the correlation improves.
Best source for planetary data is NASA’s factsheets:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
TB, if Roy Martin ever does an article with graphed SEV event series envelopes (like he did for JEV), I suspect that might help break a cross-disciplinary communications log jam…
TB:
Thanks for the website.
The short answer is no 166 did not. As you can imagine with the number of cosines and sines in this model, the optimization surface is covered with many hills and valleys. So a jump requires a search to find out if you are on a local hill or the mountain or if the mountain lies beyond.
Knowing what to change is often hit and miss. The correlation program is good but it can’t tell the hill from the mountain. Even with a multiple trial step in the correlation program It is very time consuming. There maybe a combination where 166 could work but it is not the surface where my model is now.
Regards,
RJ
RJ: Thanks for trying it. I think you’ve done really well so far and I’d like to know what correlation value you get with the 1.05 power raiser. No-one ever said the sun acts linearly and it seems completely reasonable to me that an active cycle will self excite surface activity to become even more active.
By the way, I tidied your parameters list. You can use the html tag pre and /pre before and after your list. Put them inside left and right chevrons
Ian said
“Technically, a complete repetition cycle of the pentagram pattern in VE alignments requires that E-V-S line revolves backwards by two star points (i.e. 144.4824 degrees) on five separate occasions. Hence, it takes 300 EV alignments (= 479.5980 years) to rotate backwards by 144.72 degrees (compared to mean spacing of 144.4824 degrees) and 1500 VE alignments (= 2397.990 years) to move backwards through the full Venus-Earth alignment pentagram pattern.”
299*5 V/E synods = 2390.00188798 sidereal years.
1500 V/E synods = 2397.99520534 sidereal years.
Which is closer?
Also Rog, the one you went for is the tropical year one. 157 V/E synods = 251 tropical or solar years.
tallbloke says:
August 16, 2013 at 9:23 pm
RJ: Thanks. Please would you try reducing the 178.8 to 166 and see if the correlation improves.
Rog and RJ,
The VEJ model would have 22.14 and 19.54 – 19.60 years as the main periods and possibly 178.8 and ~1250 years as the long-term envelopes. The 166 – 170 year value that I suggested is just the beat period of the two main periods. The 166 – 170 year value should not be used as a main period.
R J Salvador,
Can we assume that the original values that gave for the main periods i.e. 19.04 years and 22.252 years are those that produce the optimum fit between the SSN data and your model? If this the case, can you be sure that you have a unique solution?
My understanding is that you are claiming that you can describe the variation in SN over the last 300 years, by using a simple fitting model that is based upon only four parameters.
Paul Vaughan said:
August 16, 2013 at 9:32 pm
“TB, if Roy Martin ever does an article with graphed SEV event series envelopes (like he did for JEV), I suspect that might help break a cross-disciplinary communications log jam…”
The equivalent of the 11.068 year JEV PRO-GRADE period
is the 9.004 year SaEV RETRO-GRADE period
Saturn moves by 15.98 degree in retro-grade direction once every 1.59866 years.
This means that to move 90 degrees takes:
(90 degrees / 15.980 degrees) * 1.59866 years = 9.004 years in a retro-grade direction.
Ian, do you have time to figure out the length of the SEV envelopes analogous to the 111 year ones Roy illustrated for JEV?
Let me elaborate about what I’m thinking …
=
Solar activity governs the equator-pole gradients that dictate terrestrial circulation.
Multidecadal Atlantic hurricane rates are controlled by the changing length of time-streaks during which sunspot numbers persist above & below a threshhold:
(±40 SSN using annual SSN for this illustration)
This is a simple measure of changes in how long the terrestrial northern hemisphere maintains circulatory configurations that vary in central limit with the solar cycle.
I’ve verified that my recent results ( http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3161/zlp.png ) are robust across choice of monthly vs. annual sunspot numbers.
They’re even robust against converting sunspot numbers to binary data — i.e. simple “high” (+1) & “low” (-1) sunspot numbers!
Yes, I get the *same* SCD (solar cycle deceleration) curve.
That’s how good wavelets are as tachometers.
=
There’s one piece of info missing. At this stage I can’t rule out the possibility that it’s related to SEV envelopes…
Ulric, you’ve not read carefully what I wrote. The spatial orientation of north-south solar asymmetry flipped over.
9*9 + 2*13.5 = 81 + 27 = 108 ≠ 110.7 = 10 * 11.07
Solar cycle shape’s independent of neither 9 nor 11 year waves.
Paul wrote
“During high solar activity, solar SEV expression sticks to 9 years, but during low solar activity it can phase-flip spatial expression, thus appearing to extend temporally to 9 + 9/2 = 9 + 4.5 = 13.5 years.”
I read that very carefully. Trying to squish SEV (and SJEV) into 110.7yrs is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen you write.
Paul Vaughan says:
August 3, 2013 at 8:03 pm
“Sorry, Roy Martin’s 111 year event series.”
110.304yrs which is close to 69 Venus synodic periods, which divided by 10 gives 4029.0618 for an average solar cycle length. Obviously too short.
Clue. 110.7017 x 3/2 = 166.05255
Great to read research online and even contribute!!
Sorry to hear you can’t get a hearing on WUWT Ulric
Anthony has become a cyclophobic l think.
Thanks to TB for hosting online research and supporting the revolutionary research into planets and climate..
So many researchers being cut off from mainstream journals.and now WUWT!!
Scandalous manipulation …like climate gate as far as l am concerned
———————————-
UL said
“Well how many places round the Northern Hemisphere were cold in Summer 1934? I mean I am discussing a peak solar signal here with these examples. One would expect a solar signal to have a global impact.”
I agree UL but maybe the impact is meandering Jetstream /strong Neg AO? and extremes of hot and cold
Read on..
——————-
GOOGLE search
a few examples from around the globe
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/1934-record-winter-warmth-in-antarctica/
————————————–
http://archer2000.tripod.com/1934.html
Midwest crops were devastated by record cold weather in February and record heat during the summer.
————————-
What made the winter of 1912 a record-breaker was not the absolute cold – 1934 was worse – but that it settled in quickly and stayed put
TORONTO
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2007/02/08/1912_a_winter_of_record_cold.html
———————-
HIDDEN HISTORY: Batavia’s coldest day, 1934
http://thedailynewsonline.com/blogs/mark_my_words/article_5fa00bac-633d-11e2-a9a4-001a4bcf887a.html
———————
High temperatures tie record set in 1934
DAYTON ( USA)— Saturday’s high temperature of 73 degrees tied the record set in 1934 and 1889.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/high-temperatures-tie-record-set-in-1934/nMzRp/
———————–
MY COMMENT
Extremes of both hot and cold in same year are often associated with a meandering Jetstream.
This has been happening in the NH quite recently …re: neg AO index
Blocking patterns in surface synoptics?
——————
Thanks for help TB and oldbrew
Does the VE alignment pentagram pattern apply to ..all …planetary couples?
———————-
Is the VE alignment pentagram pattern drawn on a 2D plane like ‘oldbrews’ diagram he gave me or is it a 3D pattern?
Further clue: 110.7017 x Phi = 179.1191
Paul said:
“Ian, do you have time to figure out the length of the SEV envelopes analogous to the 111 year ones Roy illustrated for JEV?”
Sorry Paul but I am snowed under with family celebrations right now. Maybe Rog can get in contact with Roy and get him to do the envelope calculations.
crikey says:
“This has been happening in the NH quite recently …re: neg AO index”
April and June 1934 were negative, otherwise largely positive as would be expected with such widespread hot weather.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/historical/north_atlantic/nao_mon.txt
http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/cas_data_files/asphilli/nao_station_monthly_2.txt
Ulric, the OBSERVED pattern in north-south solar asymmetry is 108 years. You’re conflating it with something else (your theory I think) in your interpretation.
You mention that you had a 111 year phase catastrophe “breakthrough”. Tell us how that squares with de Vries & harmonics.
You keep pointing to 99 & 198 but de Vries is 103 or 104 and 207 or 208 and that doesn’t quite line up with a Kondratiev (54) harmonic.
Let’s recap what’s OBSERVED:
The 9 year solar asymmetry phase reversals are NOT randomly distributed in time. They’re systematically clustered according to the level of solar activity.
Will Ulric Lyons be the one to bridge the SJEV / de Vries gap?
A lot hinges on bridging the de Vries gap in the SJEV framework. Maybe it doesn’t work the way people are fond of thinking. Maybe it does work though — just not how people were inclined to assume…
Some problems have been cleanly solved.
Others are under exploration — right here in public at the Talkshop, where brainstorming is welcome.
Real science in real time, with a terrific group of thinkers who have come to appreciate each others strengths and overlook the occasional sideswipe. 😉
Paul, it might well be 108yrs in recent times, but that won’t be the long term average as the nodes wander considerably.
Paul writes:
“You mention that you had a 111 year phase catastrophe “breakthrough”. Tell us how that squares with de Vries & harmonics.”
It does not, it’s not supposed to.
“You keep pointing to 99 & 198 but de Vries is 103 or 104 and 207 or 208 and that doesn’t quite line up with a Kondratiev (54) harmonic.”
Well so sorry Paul but the planets line up when they line up, so I can’t help that. And with JSEV, it’s initially at ~198.6yrs, but suffers a slip, and on occasion has to be 9 JS synods and not 10.
“Will Ulric Lyons be the one to bridge the SJEV / de Vries gap?”
Obviously not as the period is wrong. It looks more like your job 😉
tallbloke (August 17, 2013 at 3:08 pm) hinted:
Further clue: 110.7017 x Phi = 179.1191″
–
0.618033989=1/((1+SQRT(5))/2)
1.618033989=((1+SQRT(5))/2)
2.618033989=((1+SQRT(5))/2)^2
(not so easy to spot if working in radians)
“For positive real numbers a and b, their arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and harmonic mean are the lengths of the sides of a right triangle if and only if that triangle is a Kepler triangle.” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_triangle
–
Reminder: Harmonic mean of U & N = 111 years
@ Ulric,
=
The empirical evidence suggests:
a) when resonant coupling weakens critically, entrainment temporarily breaks.
b) when resonant coupling reengages, it can be with reversed phase.
We only have asymmetry data for just over 1 cycle, so commentary on its long term properties is speculative.
I need to remind everyone of this relationship:
|North – South| ~= (North + South) / 3
where | | denotes absolute value
This isn’t something that can be sensibly ignored and yet much commentary about north-south asymmetry continues to appear thoroughly ignorant of it.
=
How do these observations tie into broader spatiotemporal frameworks that span all scales?
Not for a second do I believe that’s a question we’re going to answer by ignoring observed phase reversals.
Will Ian Wilson be the one who bridges the remaining gaps?
I believe it’s possible.
Ian Wilson
I am saying I can get a fit to 300 years of sunspot data using four basic frequencies. The problem, as you are well aware with fitting sunspot data, is that the solar cycle changes over time. So either the frequencies are changing or the phasing or both. But where to start!
I had no idea where to start a model until I read your Jovian Planets paper of 2008. That turned on the light bulb. When I put the frequencies of 19.859, 22.34 and 178.8 into a model and optimized, it solved the major problem of the changing solar cycle lengths.
That basic model produces a fit of only 55 to 57% depending on the frequencies but solving the cycle length problem opens the way to getting a good fit. I put no value on small differences in R^2. So yes a range of frequencies will work including the ones you have stated 22.14, 178.8 and 19.54 to 19.60. The frequencies I posted were just the last run of the model.
So to improve this model another input is needed. TB pointed out work by BART indicating another signal mixed into the basic signal gave sunspot curves that looked like reality.
I chose the obvious and used basic planetary orbital data to modulate the scaling factors of two solar frequencies and their first harmonics. This raises the fit to between 70 and 75%. These models also produce Maunder minimums in the correct time frame but perhaps of insufficient length.
This hopeful but until a model works at the 85% to 90% level and makes a reasonable reconstruction of the past events, I will not be claiming that the frequencies used are the correct ones.
As your work uses a real life data and a theory I will be using your frequencies to continue to develop the model. I hope you don’t mind.
Regards
RJ
@ crikey (August 17, 2013 at 2:42 pm)
You’re raising some interesting observations & questions.
Suggestion:
Take a look at the NH winter patterns for SOI & CET that I omitted from this summary.
For the decades before & after the Chandler wobble phase reversal, you’ll notice pronounced summer-winter contrasts that did NOT persist after the CW resynchronized with lunar & solar system dynamics.
This leads me to believe there is some truth in the mainstream narrative that the CW is a “free” wobble.
It was at least free to flip with rapidly shifting resonant entrainment forces during escalating solar drive that brought reversing sharp summer-winter / NH-SH (seasonal interhemispheric) contrasts & circulatory switching.
–
Connecting this with Ian Wilson’s work at higher timescales (& cross-scale work more generally):
–
Why was this incident exactly coincident with the center of one of Ivanka Charvatova’s trefoils?
The best answers dig up more questions to explore …
(… and the mainstream gives only “answers” that are inconsistent with observations)
Best Regards
tallbloke says:
“Further clue: 110.7017 x Phi = 179.1191”
But did you spot that the 166.05255 years is only ~4.5 days adrift from 14 Jupiter orbits. And then there was the point about dividing this figure by 12, 13, 14 and 15. You’ll see everything but Saturn.
Brilliant stochastic modelers are a dime a dozen. You can hire one to perfectly model anything you want.
I actually laugh out loud when I read Ben’s (2012) last sentence:
“We demonstrate a simple physical explanation for the cause of the well-known but so-far baffling behavior of the Chandler wobble during ˜1925 […] The seemingly peculiar event was simply fortuitous by chance.”
Do I think he privately believes what he wrote? No.
Would I believe politically & administratively minded (& administratively higher ranking) forces would find it “convenient” to have such a handy “top expert” document on the recent record? Yes.
Paul:
CW = (4043.45*3) / 28.
This is just one class of event, and it shows a huge bias for warming in the last 100yrs, especially the last 60yrs. I can easily class and list all the other events in between to fill in the picture.
Dates for Jupiter opposite Uranus square to Saturn are:
2003-6
1974-6
1947-9
1934-5
1906 (Neptune ~in line wrong direction)
1865-6
1837 (Neptune ~in line wrong direction)
1796 (EV phase problem eg Dalton)
1768 (EV phase problem)
1726-7
Notice the 69yr interval between every second step.
Ulric’s giving you bait Rog: 69φ = ?
In search of the throb of the sunspot cycle, the J-N axial period has quite a few pocket calculator fans. J-S though takes the limelight with its myriad of harmonics that only PhD’s seem to hear. While few get round to inspect Uranus, which is where much of it swings around, and is firmly the seat of these movements. As I will expose and demonstrate.
Ulric’s CW period suggestion:
3 * JEV / 28 = 433 days
During the CW phase reversal, the CW period bottomed out at a stable 418 days.
In the spirit of Ulric’s suggestion, note that:
3 * JEV / 29 = 418 days
Economist Ed Dewey (1970):
“The study of cycles reveals to us our ignorance, and is therefore very disturbing to people whose ideas are crystallized.”
Ulric suggests dividing 166.05 by 12, 13, 14, & 15. Add 16 to this list.
The harmonics are very close to positive (15 & 16) & negative (12 & 13) Uranus (12 & 16) & Neptune (13 & 15) sidebands of Jupiter (14).
Is all of this sensitive to the assumptions programmed into the orrery model upon which Ulric relies?
What?? You mean it isn’t the real world?? (/sarc)
As a bad joke, the orrery master could ever so gently tweak the parameters the day Ulric goes public with master revelations!
[ :
We do need to maintain a sense of humor.
It’s the best defense.
Thanks for sharing your insights Ulric. Genuinely appreciated.
Paul: “Ulric’s giving you bait Rog: 69φ = ?”
When the result is treated with the adjustment factor we’ve discovered it’s 110.86yrs
In fact if you look at my list of J*U square S dates, intervals at every third one are at 97 or 110 yrs.
110+97=207. There you go Paul 🙂
And of course 3*69=207
And 207+110.7 is the 317.7yr U-S-J cycle: 23 J-U, 16 J-S, and 7 S-U. 23-7=16.
Ulric Lyons (August 17, 2013 at 6:20 pm) answering the Q:
” “Will Ulric Lyons be the one to bridge the SJEV / de Vries gap?”
Obviously not as the period is wrong.”
Looks like a fairly quick change from that answer!
Frequency Algebra:
JEV = +6V-10E+4J
SEV = -6V+10E-4S
UEV = -6V+10E-4U
NEV = -6V+10E-4N
Tabulated Periods:
So the 69yr return is essentially 5*J-U, 3.5*J-S, and 1.5*S-U.
This should be the dominant signal that we see in Global temperature since ~1850, not ~60yrs. Though note that there are two strings of 69yr intervals separated by 1.5 and 2.0 J-S.
Paul Vaughan says:
” “Will Ulric Lyons be the one to bridge the SJEV / de Vries gap?”
“Looks like a fairly quick change from that answer!”
It is a J-U-S phenomena.
Paul said:
“Thanks for sharing your insights Ulric. Genuinely appreciated.”
Thank you too, I do some of by best work arguing with you lot 😉
J opposite U square to S gives 111.6423957.
Dividing by φ gives 68.9987951.
Multiplying by 3 gives 206.9963853.
For comparison:
Harmonic mean of U & N is 111.2925446.
(J-U)/5 = 1/69.06452219
(J-S)/3.5 = 1/69.52762553
(S-U)/1.5 = 1/68.00757188
Of course Ulric wants readers to pay tediously close attention to the details of the event series (which vary with slippage).
With time series graphs of the event series, more people would have time to look & see.
So the question is:
Who will make the graphs?
I’ve provided a table above to help people sort out the variations in periods we see due to use of different sources of orbital elements.
That’s all I have time for today.
Other things to do…
Paul Vaughan says:
“So the question is: Who will make the graphs?”
What makes you think it needs graphs? that’s not the way I wish to present my findings. I will present my own figures too.
Paul, if you want to make yourself useful, see if you can find the exact period for V-E conjunctions to line up with Saturn and Neptune syzygies, and progress through square to Sat-Nep syzygies, and through to back to in line with Sat-Nep syzygies.
Paul Vaughan says:
“J opposite U square to S gives 111.6423957.
Dividing by φ gives 68.9987951.”
Paul, you are bastardizing my work mere moments after you have seen it. The 69yr return is at 5 J-U synodic periods, as explained above.
„Ian Wilson says:
August 13, 2013 at 8:05 am
I am proposing that the torques applied by Jupiter to the intermittent tidal bulges created by VE alignments can naturally produce the observed long term periodicities in the level of solar activity (as indicated by Be10 and C14).
The VE Tidal-Torquing model is (currently) the only physically plausible model for producing a planetary influence on solar activity.”
Ian,
I’m working on solar tides since more than three years. My experience is that in general the global temperature frequencies are linked (i.) to the solar tide function of neighbour couples, and (ii,) that their strength is linked to the square root of the tide period. I do not see any reason, why the repetition of fast effects should create strengths of low frequencies as ~2300 year^-1 only by the number of fast periods.
However, the fast tidal periods of Venus, Mercury, Earth and Jupiter are part of the global temperature:
But to explain the global temperature it needs not only the solar tides of lower frequencies as ~900 years from the Quaoar/Pluto couple,
it needs especially for the fast climate frequencies the knowledge of the geometry of the ocean impedances like MEI to separate both effects. Not to forget the drops in temperature from big volcano eruptions.
I have problems with prominent cycles in general, if there is no geometry visible, and I do suspect the time calibration accuracy of the 14C data. Especially for millennia. An other point is that it is a problem to take the proxies as linked to the solar tides, because some major drops may result from local climate from volcano eruption or other terrestrial causes.
I agree with the solar effects from the planets, but my experience is that not only heliocentric conjunctions have effects, but also heliocentric oppositions known from the terrestrial tide functions.
To come to an idea for the physical mechanism I think it needs to include an idea of the strength of the planetary effects on the Sun, and for the cycles a link to the origin of he phases of the cycles. I do not see that this is possible without a real temperature frequency of a period of 2.3 millennia.
V.
R J Salvador (August 16, 2013 at 9:55 pm) wrote:
“TB:
Thanks for the website.
[…] the optimization surface is covered with many hills and valleys. So a jump requires a search to find out if you are on a local hill or the mountain or if the mountain lies beyond.
Knowing what to change is often hit and miss. The correlation program is good but it can’t tell the hill from the mountain.”
Allow me to complicate things further for you RJ:
: ]
The empirical record suggests no reason to assume solar frequency changes are smooth — quite the contrary!
looking forward to witnessing the quantitative evolution of your solar honing skills…
Good fun…
cheers!
No offense intended Ulric. TB likes φ. Indulge a good host!
Now: Overloaded work week starts in a few hours….
Paul, Ulric, I shouldn’t have introduced my Phi hint on this thread, it’s already diverse enough. Stuart Graham, Ian Wilson and I have been working intensively on the ‘Why Phi?’ question, and we have been making some giant strides recently. We’ll be putting an article together in due course which I think will consolidate the planetary theory.
Ulric Lyons said:
August 18, 2013 at 3:39 am
“Paul, if you want to make yourself useful, see if you can find the exact period for V-E conjunctions to line up with Saturn…”
The following is mainly Phd babbling to himself:
Making the crude assumption of circular orbits, a VE alignment period of 1.59866 years, and a Saturn orbital period of 29.4570 years. [Note: decimal places only used for carrying purposes].
[Note: The following is in a fixed reference frame with respect to the stars]
If you plot the position of Saturn every half VE alignment = 0.79933 years, you will find that Saturn moves 9.7687748 degrees, in a pro-grade direction, once per half VE alignment. This means that after:
18 VE aligns – Saturn will be at one orbit minus 8.3241 degrees
18.5 VE aligns – Saturn will be at one orbit plus 1.44467 degrees
19 VE aligns – Saturn will be at one orbit plus 11.21344 degrees
Hence, it takes roughly (9.7687748 / 1.44467) = 6.762 ~ 7 of the 18.5 VE alignments
for Saturn to advance by a multiple of 9.7687748 degrees.
[Note: The advance of Saturn past a full orbit [with respect to the fixed stars] must be a close multiple of 9.7687748 degrees in order for Saturn’s pattern to achieve rotational symmetry]
Since
6 x 1.44467 degrees = 8.66802 degrees
___________________9,7687748 degrees
7 x 1.44467 degrees = 10.11269 degrees
Hence, the symmetry pattern of Saturn’s position every 1/2 VE alignment will achieve rotational re-alignment [in an absolute frame of reference] once every:
7 x 18.5 VE aligns = 129.5 VE aligns = 207.02647 ~ 207 years
after 129.5 VE aligns, the Venus-Sun-Earth axis will at 10.1127 degrees in a fixed reference frame with respect to the stars and Saturn at 9.5292 degrees.
Ian Wilson:
You can do that from every EVS node at every ~9yrs, it’s bit like Spirograph then.
Volker Doormann said: … not only heliocentric conjunctions have effects, but also heliocentric oppositions [have effects] …
There is no linear relation between conjunctions and oppositions 😦 How would you address that in a model?
Example: years 1985-2045 heliocentric conjunctions and oppositions of Jupiter as measured from+to the respective quadrature. Average min/max duration days on the respective side are:
195.04276 194.88769
203.97686 204.14906
The differences are 8.9341 and 9.26137 days, more than a week of relevance …
tallbloke says:
“I shouldn’t have introduced my Phi hint on this thread, it’s already diverse enough. Stuart Graham, Ian Wilson and I have been working intensively on the ‘Why Phi?’ question, and we have been making some giant strides recently.”
Unless you have something that will change my views, I’m kind of allergic to the phe phi pho phum treatment of my figures. It’s because I take a purist Pythagorean stand and will regard harmony as integer ratios of orbital, synodic and syzygy periods. Irrational numbers don’t cut it with me. Though for those with an interest in geometric quantities such as squares, and factorials like triangular and tetrahedral numbers, I have volumes to share as this has always been the focus of my planetary resonance studies.
soz typo… “For those with an interest” (it’s before breakfast lol)
no sorry forget that, it reads fine, my eyes must be tired, delete this and the above comment please 🙂
Volker said:
“I agree with the solar effects from the planets, but my experience is that not only heliocentric conjunctions have effects, but also heliocentric oppositions known from the terrestrial tide functions.”
Well welcome to the new paradigm of planetary polarities and the magnetic quadrature.
@Chaermon
>
Volker Doormann said: … not only heliocentric conjunctions have effects, but also heliocentric oppositions [have effects] …
There is no linear relation between conjunctions and oppositions 😦 How would you address that in a model?
<
OT.
If a tide calendar predict the time and height of a local point for tomorrow, or for a day in the next year, then this is possible, because some people have fitted the functions of tide well in a mathematical simulation. This means – and I think this is an important point – that the tide is not simple to calculate out of Newton’s law, it is a play with geometry. It needed several mathematicians and 19 years to one a model had developed, which can compute the Tide exactly on 10 cm.
“The IUGG (international union for geodesy and geophysics) called an international working group in the year 1965 from mathematicians to assistance, who had come however after 10 years work to no solution contently placing. Their mathematical models provided for example for the Northpacific ebbs-tide ahead although floods were observed and turned around. In the year 1972 U.S. of satellite and/or rocket designs required a forecast of the Tide height on 10 cm exactly. After 6 years modeling time appeared the North pacific in the spring 1978 then in tidal situation true to nature. For this model moon and sun became mathematical because of their elliptical and inclined orbits by a row of fictitious moons and suns replaced. For an accuracy of 10 cm to reach, they needed 6 moons and 5 suns with 4 halv a day’s, 4 complete days and tree longer periods (14 days, month, and halv a year). After further 6 years the model was then extended of the North pacific.”
OT
@Ian Wilson
BTW. I can follow the astronomical alignment of Sun, Venus, Earth and Saturn and its tidal functions,
But I do not understand the idea of multiple tides.
I cannot see any correlation of the basic alignments of Sun, Venus, Earth and Saturn. Especially the alignment in April 1st 1997 shows a drop in the global temperature
V.
PV.
Thanks for your input and interest
I had a look at some of my time series graphs to correlate your Chandler anomlay/flip graph
and
the first correlation that l have come up with is very promising .from some research done by qian and lu 2010
Periodic oscillations in millennial global-mean temperature and their causes
QIAN WeiHong& LU Bo
Monsoon and Environment Research Group, School of
Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
Received May 20, 2010; accepted August 23, 2010
Click to access Qian,%20Lu%20-%202010%20-%20Periodic%20oscillations%20in%20millennial%20global-mean%20temperature%20and%20their%20causes.pdf
http://csb.scichina.com:8080/kxtbe/EN/abstract/abstract501373.shtml
——————————————————————————————-
The 116/118 yr cycle AND the 62.5 yr cycle best fits the CW event.
Actually very well
116 is at minimum and
62.5 is at Maximum
OR
more likely
with a NET ZERO !! anomaly of the 4 major cycles identified by qian et al
————————————————————————-
Probably need to overlay CW time series over all those 4 cycles independentantly and process of elimination..
As the 118 cycle changes phase the CW flips? or as net of 4 cycles = 0?
Example
Qian et al indicate that the maximum peak of the 118 yr cycle occurred in 1994?
Did the CW.. change phase around this time period?
Does the CW exhibit a 118 yr oscillation
Now also from qians graph of frequencies 1930 there was also a peak max of the 62.5 yr cycle
So you would think some destructive interference there.
The cycles cancelling out . 62.5 yr maximum minus 118 yr trough minimum = close to zero
If you look at the finer details of the 4 cycle overlay.
The resultant ‘force/vector’? or what ever it is is likely to be a big fat ZERO anomaly
That would infer a point ..0 Position of phase change for 4 combined frequencies
It would be a process of elimination to find out which of the cycles or more likely ALL of the 4 cycles destructively interfering to caused the CW flip
One of these days someone needs to quantify the forcing index of each of the cycles at any given point in time and calculate the net effect over any point in time time..
————————-
Anyways
I produced a correlation for you to look at with only.. one .of the .4 cycles ( 21.1, 62.5,116, 194.6)
Here tis
The 118 yr cycle
Use zoom
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/TIMESERIESAndTrends#5913447167756030434
another link to same snap
Not sure if this code will work
_____________________________
Thanks for your response and links re: AO/NAO Ulric
I look forward to your post on your findings re : climate and planetary configurations
Volker said:
“I cannot see any correlation of the basic alignments of Sun, Venus, Earth and Saturn. Especially the alignment in April 1st 1997 shows a drop in the global temperature”
I did, over five years ago, I said July 2013 would be well hot, from about the 6/7th July. Then it will be very warm in late November 2013, from around the 20th-21st.
It looks like it might be getting close to releasing Master Key number 2.
Oh ‘Bullocks’ I just spent ages replying to PV re the chandler wobble flip and hit post and lost my post?
I have found something for you PV. Sorry its too late for me to re write my original and more detailed explanation . Its very late here
A brief synopsis
1930 was a likely period when 4 of qian and Lu’s( 2010) 4 frequencies destructively interfere to create a NET ZERO anomaly..
or
This 1930’s time period was the 118 yr minimum trough
and at the same time
this time period was the 62.5 yr maximum peak
NET CANCELLING OF FORCING/VECTORS?
Read their work here
and check out 1930 in their combined frequency analysis
What do you think?
Periodic oscillations in millennial global-mean temperature and their causes
QIAN WeiHong& LU Bo
Monsoon and Environment Research Group, School of
Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
Received May 20, 2010; accepted August 23, 2010
Click to access Qian,%20Lu%20-%202010%20-%20Periodic%20oscillations%20in%20millennial%20global-mean%20temperature%20and%20their%20causes.pdf
http://csb.scichina.com:8080/kxtbe/EN/abstract/abstract501373.shtml
————————————
I graphed one of those cycles tonight
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/TIMESERIESAndTrends#5913447167756030434
[Reply] Recovered your comment from the spam bin. WordPress glitch. Possible thought there were too many links. – Rog
Volker said:
“.. April 1st 1997 shows a drop in the global temperature”
The correct analysis here is that this would be an La Nina response to a positive solar signal, and should show a warmer burst on daily CET from early April:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
The key SEV configurations in 1997 that are “cold” and will likely show below average temperatures on CET, are January, June, and from very late October.
So you may be thinking how SEV stelliums in July and November 2013 can be warm or hot, while those in 1997 are cold. Well that’s all down to the Jovian quadrupole relationships. So much to explain. 🙂
To Paul Vaughan
says,”The empirical record suggests no reason to assume solar frequency changes are smooth — quite the contrary!
looking forward to witnessing the quantitative evolution of your solar honing skills…”
Ha Ha Paul,
I guess that’s the perversity of inanimate objects and it’s a good thing that it is still fun to play around with it.
When and if I get a worthwhile sunspot fit I’ll let you know.
Regards
RJ
Ulric said:
You can do that from every EVS node at every ~9yrs, it’s bit like Spirograph then.
My response:
Not if you understand the physics Ulric. I am calculating the basic repetition cycles for the torque being applied by Jupiter and Saturn to the surface layers of the Sun.
The period of the repetition cycles for these basic torques are those that are applied by the planets in a frame of reference that is rotating with the VE alignment axis. These torques must take into account not only the changing orientation of Jupiter and Saturn with respect to the VE alignments but also the varying distances of the planets at the time of these alignments. The torques are caused by:
1. The changing aspect of Jupiter with respect to the VE tidal alignments – (pro-grade motion):
Jupiter: (2 x 11.07 years =) 22.14 years
During this time the VE tidal bulges are subject to 11.07 year period of acceleration, followed by a 11.07 year period of de-acceleration.
[Note: Superimposed on this is a longer term alignment cycle related to the (4 x 11.06827 year =) 44.2731 year cycle, such that 13 x 44.2731 years = 575.55 year]
2. The changing distance of Jupiter with respect to the VE tidal alignments.
This is roughly set by the beat period between the 11.06827 year VE align cycle and 11.8622 year period of Jupiter’s orbit which is 165.3685 years which is close to the 166.07 years that it takes Jupiter to obit the Sun 14 times.
To much lesser extent, these torques are also affected by the changing gravitational influence of Saturn and how they interact with those of Jupiter.
If we just isolate the effects of the changing aspect of Saturn, while ignoring the secondary effects of Saturn’s changing distance from the Sun, we get:
1. The changing aspect of Saturn with respect to the VE tidal bulges – (retro-grade motion)
Saturn: (2 x 9.0037 years =) 18.0074 years
During this time the VE tidal bulges are subject to 9.00 year period of deacceleration, followed by a 9.00 year period of acceleration.
[Note: Superimposed upon this is a longer term alignment cycle related to the (45 VE aligns =) 71.9397 year cycle which slowly drifts out of alignment with the 575.5176 year Jupiter alignment cycle by about one degree every 72 years.]
Ian:
Obviously I am not concerned with what you think the physics are, as I am showing you bit by bit how it really functions, and what the better periods are too. Which for the case of Venus and Earth alone is simply 299 Venus synodic periods, which at 5*299 it is still closer than your 1500.
Ulric. Send me the info requested to put together a separate post for discussion of your findings please. You might think you know “how it really functions” from your phenomenological examination of old UK weather records. Others use other approaches using gravity/tidal theory. No-one is yet in a position to assert that others approaches are wrong or that they know “how it really functions”, so knock it off.
Ian said:
“This is roughly set by the beat period between the 11.06827 year VE align cycle and 11.8622 year period of Jupiter’s orbit which is 165.3685 years which is close to the 166.07 years that it takes Jupiter to obit the Sun 14 times.”
See you are messing up the periods again. If you use a base of 14 Jupiter orbits 14*4332.589, it is far closer to 12 J-U, 13 J-N, and 15 average JEV.
@all
If there are any common ideas on heliocentric climate science please give me a mail.
Thank you.
I’m off.
V.
Ulric,
Can I suggest that you create your own post and present your ideas so that we can all comment on them. Rog has made this offer to you.
You have made no physically plausible case for why the periods of Uranus and Neptune are involved in determining solar activity other than weak assertions that has something to with magnetic quadrapoles. This is not science in even its most basic form so it is difficult to hold a rational discussion with you.
Most of us know that we are dealing with something which may end up having an un-expected explanation – that is why we try to get an open mind – but that does not necessarily mean that we have to accept everything that is put forward by those that shout the loudest.
Currently, I am having trouble dealing with your complete lack of knowledge of many of the basic physical principles of science. I am trying to use those principles to solve this very difficult problem. If you are not willing to use these principles then there is little point continuing with the discussion.
J2000 3000BC-3000AD
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t2.txt
Seidelmann (1992)
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par
J2000 1800AD-2050AD
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t1.txt
Horizons ( http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi ) outputs osculating elements, so we can easily trace modeled JEV & JEV-J as a function of time.
Caution (based on first hand diagnostic experience):
Monthly resolution isn’t enough to avoid fatally corrupting Venus aliasing. Use daily output.
~Neptune-timescale variations of JEV (and related quantities) are obvious to the naked eye.
Politely-intended mixture of logical assertion & observation-based deliberately-provocative speculation:
The Jovian frequency symmetry tightest to Jupiter (fastest Jovian) frequency is necessarily determined by Neptune (slowest Jovian). For example, when looking at Earth-Moon or Venus angular momentum & derivatives one sees J-N or J+N depending on whether one is looking at AM relative to the solar system barycenter or the Sun. E & V orbits are NOT independent of Jovian constraints. EV frequency canNOT be independent of J-N and JEV frequency canNOT be independent of J+N. I do hope Ian will think carefully about these hierarchically organized long-run prograde & retrograde constraints. JEV may be a proximate driver, but J+N is the distal governor upstream in the hierarchy. This is analogous to lunisolar tidal effects we see on Earth that are by inheritance synchronized to long-run upstream solar system governance. Ian has emphasized that. A holistic approach to long-run coupling & synchronization is the sensible option, as the Terrestrials as a group are not independent of the Jovians as a group.
Regards
Ulric L says: ‘Irrational numbers don’t cut it with me.’
No irrational numbers in Fibonacci, many examples in nature.
http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/numbers/interest/golden.htm
Paul said:
“A holistic approach to long-run coupling & synchronization is the sensible option, as the Terrestrials as a group are not independent of the Jovians as a group.”
Couldn’t agree more with this statement, however, in science you have to slowly work your way up the hierarchy of causes to show the links.
I [and many others] have long claimed that Jovian planets essential set the orbital configurations of the Terrestrial planets. Hence, it would come as no surprise to us if the signs of the Jovian influence were evident within the Terrestrial data.
If we make the assumption that it is the gravity of Jupiter acting upon the tidal distortions induced in the Sun by Venus and Earth that are primarily responsible for long-term changes in the level of solar activity, then one important thing follows from that.
i.e. there does not have to be a direct causal link between the outer Jovian planets (Uranus and Neptune) and the immediate levels of solar activity.
There may be an in-direct link via the past influence that Uranus and Neptune had upon setting up [and possibly maintaining] the orbital periods and spacings of the Terrestrial planets – but is just that, an indirect link.
It is quite possible that the orbital periods and spacings of the Terrestrial planets are a fossil record of past interactions between the Jovian and Terrestrial planets that were mostly confined to interactions in the first 500 million years after the Solar System’s formation. If this was the case, you would still get an APPARENT link between the orbital periods and configurations of Uranus and Neptune and the level of solar activity – however the link would only be APPARENT in the current epoch i.e. there would be no on-going physical link.
To be honest, the best possible explanation of the 2300 Hallstatt cycle is likely to be related to the 2224 year and 2403 year repetition cycle of the Jovian planets proposed by Ulric. However, it is up to us to rule-in or rule-out the possibility that it might be a result of the Jovian –> Terrestrial –> Solar activity link as this the most physically plausible explanation that we have available.
Ian, thank you for this clear and dispassionate exposition of your scientific approach to this most fascinating puzzle. As Paul has also frequently reminded us, there is an ever-present danger of confounding numerically co-incidental phenomena and moving to a premature judgement of cause and effect. Your methodologically impeccable and patient exploration of the various possibilities is the hallmark and exemplification of the scientific method.
I am pleased to see your parethetical acknowledgement “[and possibly maintaining] the orbital periods and spacings”. To me, this speaks of the possibility that the ongoing close to orderly arrangement of the solar system is due to the ongoing, non-fossilized interaction of forces. As I see it, this would have to be the interaction of at least two forces, which scale differently with distance. But we’ll leave further investigation of that possibility to another thread.
Ian Wilson says: ‘it would come as no surprise to us if the signs of the Jovian influence were evident within the Terrestrial data.’
Comparing the synodic periods of J-E, J-V and V-E gives these results:
1300 J-E = 2188 J-V = 888 V-E = 1419.68 years.
Taking one Grand Synod (233 J-S) as 4627.11 years:
27 G.S. = 124931.97y
88 x 1419.68y = 124932.13y
So: 27 x 233 J-S = 88 x (1300 J-E or 2188 J-V or 888 V-E).
Could that be evidence of Jovian influence?
oldbrew,
If I came across a man covered in blood, holding a knife, with a crazy-deranged look on his face, standing over the body of a dead man with dozens of stab wounds, I say that there is a better than even chance that he was the murderer.
The evidence you and the others have presented is even more compelling than that in the above murder case. That’s why I work under the assumption that the Jovian influence is a given.
The only question is, is this influence on-going and is it direct or indirect?
Ian said:
“To be honest, the best possible explanation of the 2300 Hallstatt cycle is likely to be related to the 2224 year and 2403 year repetition cycle of the Jovian planets proposed by Ulric”
I am neither the first to identify the 4627yr JSUN grand synod and its modes at 2224yrs 2403yrs, or suggest its possible climatic implications. What I did propose, based on my observations of the importance of E-V phase relative to JSUN, is that nodes at ~1542yrs should dominate over the 2224yr and 2403yr nodes because they maintain the same phase. Meaning that on an inter-millennial scale, the strongest event cluster periodicity should be nearer 1500yrs than 2200-2400yrs. © 2013 Ulric Alexander Lyons
I find palatable neither dryly administrative nor unduly romanticized notions of “science”. And frankly, fundamentally flawed statistical inference — lazily based on patently untenable assumptions (to keep the math tractable) — has become a deeply misguided gatekeeping standard of mainstream “scientific” culture.
As far as I can see from my involvement in exploring solar & climate puzzles during recent years, “science” is somehow evolving to become synonymous with politics — another reason to find it strictly unpalatable as an ideal. By far the most corrupt force at work is the darkly ignorant &/or deceptive notion that today’s physical modeling paradigms don’t suffer from omitted unknown unknowns. I reject this corruption flatly. Models don’t take precedence over observation (except in political coercion).
When we were kids growing up in the rural countryside, we used to explore the forest, the fields, the brooks, the swamps, the river, the shore, the ponds, the trails, the lakes, islands & whatever. That exploration was voluntary, unhindered, & natural. We didn’t call it science, but we made a stream of neverending discoveries — some very practical, like shortcuts…
– – –
We each have a different role to play.
May we do so in harmony.
Looking forward to Ulric Lyons’ exploratory insights, which are sure to catalyze…
~1500 yr ‘Bond events’ and their corollary glacial period Dansgaard–Oeschger events probably are more noticeable than Halstatt cycles in the paleo record. This is probably why Fred S. Singer wrote a book entitled ‘Unstoppable global warming – every 1500 years’. The last 8 events are thought to average out around 1470yrs, but there can be significant wander according to Bond.
IAN said
“Note: Superimposed upon this is a longer term alignment cycle related to the (45 VE aligns =) 71.9397 year cycle which slowly drifts out of alignment with the 575.5176 year Jupiter alignment cycle by about one degree every 72 years.]”
575.5176 Jupiter alignment cycle / divided by 71.9397 = exactly 8..
Fits quite nicely
————————-
Thanks IAN for all your work. I have come in late on discussions and this is my first experience of your work.. I have some reading to catch up on…
I have learnt a lot and taken away some information useful to my own studies.
I was interested that if you extrapolate your 1/16 of JOSE cycle = 11.17 years
to 1/32
you get 0.03125 * 178.72 yrs ( jose cycle)= 5.585yrs
and
1/64 of JOSE cycle = 2.79 yrs
and
1/128 of JOSE cycle = 1.39 yrs
and
360 deg of circle/cycle / divided by 178.72 years of JOSE cycle = 2.014 degrees per year
the sun moves about 2 deg of the barycentre cycle per year through one barycentre cycle
——————————————–
The following calculations are of interest to me to try to link the AMO cyle with the JOSE cycle.
This is a lead from your work that l will be investigating further
The AMO length is aligned with solar cycle triplets. The length of phase of AMO is governed by the length of the solar cycle ( 3 * ~11 yr)
One phase of the AMO = 3 * solar cycle or 1.5 Hale cycles
A phase shift occurs at the termination of the triplet
JOSE CYCLE connections
1/2 of AMO cycle = 3/16 of JOSE CYCLE
= 0.1875 * 178.72 yrs = 33.51 yrs for one phase of AMO
If the solar cycle length changes then so does the length of phase of the AMO ( quasi)
ONE AMO ( thermohaline circulation cycle) = 6/16 of JOSE cycle
0.375 * 178.72 = 67 .02 yrs
This l think would be the mean length of the AMO and would vary according to solar cycle length
Short SSN cycles would give shorter AMO phase length
—————————————————-
Also of interest is if you divide a circle into 16th’s and then section off the SSN triplets around the cycle/circle
you get the following AMO sequence in one cycle of the JOSE
positive phase of AMO (3/16)/ negative(3/16), positive(3/16), negative( 3/16) positive (3/16)
= 15/16
That is 5 phases of the AMO in one JOSE cycle and one SSN remaining
or
2 cycles and one phase of the AMO and one SSN remaining
There is 1/16 remaining in the JOSE cycle which is equivalent to 11.17 years or one SSN cycle
tallbloke says:
“..but there can be significant wander according to Bond.”
Start from the 26th July 1306 and inspect them (~563387days). The first ~1542yr step is fairly clean if you advance 1400-1500 days to bring J into line, but the second step has J well out of sync, it’s a very different type of event cluster. If every third D-O was not on time, that could be why. He’s possibly picking up on the nearest 2224/2043 event instead.
I’m not saying that 1306 was a D-O event, it is just a sensible start point to examine a potential return period from.
Thanks Ulric. My ephemeris covers 6000 years so not enough to really look carefully. at phasing drift. There must be a longer term ephemeris for ‘near enough’ calcs of the Jovian positions though. Anyone know a good one?
Exploration:
J harmonic nearest JEV is J
JEV – J = 6V-10E+3J = 1/165.5999728
By analogy:
S harmonic nearest SEV is 3S
SEV – 3S = -6V+10E-7S = 1/109.3435116
This is not inconsistent with Kondratiev and observed sunspot area asymmetry patterns.
Piers Corbyn often talks about a 132 year period he finds useful in his weather lookbacks & forecasts. Note that the harmonic mean & axial period are 131.7163968 & 65.8581984.
Paul:
132.84204 * 1.25 = 166.0717
(lunar 19*7=133)
There is no heliocentric justification for using 132 or 133 yrs, which is why it does not work as an analogue for weekly/monthly temperatures, which is the kind of scales that it’s used at.
So who did discover the 4627 yr JSUN Grand Synod?
tallbloke said: My ephemeris covers 6000 years so not enough to really look carefully. at phasing drift. There must be a longer term ephemeris for ‘near enough’ calcs of the Jovian positions though. Anyone know a good one?
Always at service of curiosity: can I have your specs *) I send you a .csv with J,S,N, (and U?) in heliocentric coordinates for the years -9,999 to +9,999.
*) do you need “just” Jovian conjunctions, or does phase refer to ecliptic latitude (a.k.a. at zero is the node)? Both is possible, just tell it.
Thanks Chaeremon. Both would be nice.
Between the two versions of the Hallstatt cycle (2300 & 2200), the 2200 seems to produce the stronger signal. Only when we consider alignment alone does the 2300 cycle seem to emerge. The 2200 year version shows up when we use the strongest J/S beat frequencies.
S/2 * J / (S/2 – J) = ~60.948
60.948 * (J * 5) / (60.948 – (J * 5)) = ~2208.5
I hope my math is good I’m doing this by memory.
Essential take home points from my comments:
1) U*J square to S, according to my “KEY NUMBER 1” is two times hot: U opp J, and S square U.
2) U*J square to S being the dominant hot signal, maps clusters of very hot years, and its occurrence dictates the frequency of warming periods that we see in recent centuries, as well as in solar data e.g. de Vries.
Geoff: I don’t know who was first, but I think 4627yrs was mentioned in Jose’s 1965 paper.
It was mentioned by Edward Dewey in his review of the Jose paper in 1970.
14 years ago to the day, whilst daydreaming, a curious image arose in my minds eye. A large set of weighing scales, in the left pan, a right angle, in the right pan, the symbol 1/n. At the time I interpreted the left symbol to represent an electromagnetic function, as in Flemming’s left hand rule, and the right symbol to represent polarity. This exactly what I am observing in Jovian relationships.
How curious you remember the exact date of decade old daydreams. Even more curious if you have just found it in a written log. 😉
Rog, I saw that entry in a google book link but could not find a reference in Jose’s paper…maybe I missed it. But I did find some old references that look to date back before 2000 where those researching the Mayan Calendar were very aware of the 4267 repeat.
One problem I see is that nearly all astronomical cycles are non repeating (even the 4267 cycle). They only exist in small windows before eventually going out of sync. So if they go out of sync, is there any point applying mathematics to extrapolate some result to a point in time?
Paul Vaughan says:
August 19, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Good point about observation, but I don’t believe the problem is gate-keeping. Most of the great advances in astronomy been made by amateurs. The professionals would have loved to have made some of those breakthrough’s.
Geoff, it’s possible Ray Tomes might have a copy of the 1970 Dewey article on file.
As for how quickly the 4627 cycle goes out of flunter, that should be calculable without too much trouble, given we know the Jovian orbits well enough. It’s twice the median Halstatt value of ~2313yrs. At that sort of length, you’re only going to get a couple per interglacial, and the underlying trends of Earth’s orbital mechanics would come into play anyway. Maybe it coincides roughly with the Post younger Dryas warming, the Start of widespread farming and the end of the Egyptian old kingdom?
Geoff Sharp says:
August 19, 2013 at 8:05 pm
“But I did find some old references that look to date back before 2000 where those researching the Mayan Calendar were very aware of the 4267 repeat.”
And from the climatic boundary (very cold)) from 3031BC to just before the start of the long count, they could have predicted the LIA spot on with a 1690000 day count. But they would have had to have known about Uranus and Neptune to figure that one out. At 1872000 days, they were clearly going for 6 times the 43 grand synod cycle of Jupiter and Saturn.
The Jovian slip on the 4627 return, and the relative EV phase, should have a lot to do with inter-glacial frequency.
I think the interglacial frequencies may have something to do with the Jovians and Venus changing the shape of Earth’s orbit.
That too Rog, though the response to insolation changes are highly variable, which suggest solar variations are modulating it. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Insulation-Cycles.png
That may be so Ulric. I speculate that heat stored in the ocean under the north Polar ice-cap may get released by the beginning of the melt brought about by Insolation changes, bringing about the characteristic rapid transition from glacial to interglacial conditions. It’s not dissimilar to an el Nino event
“Maybe it coincides roughly with the Post younger Dryas warming, the Start of widespread farming and the end of the Egyptian old kingdom?”
I have not looked from post YD, but backwards and forwards from the 8.2Kyr event is interesting. The next node would be around 3000AD, and ~1500yrs back from that is the LIA. The nearest analogue back from now is at the end of Maximum 12:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/holobib.html
Something to think about.
Any “cycle” involving the gas giants has to be a multiple of the slowest conjunction (U/N) and because the J/S orbits do not fit exactly into 171.4 years no true cycle can ever prevail. This is why the Jose cycle Has to be paired back to 171.4 and the 4267 cycle is actually 4268 (27 x 171.4).
The 208 yr De Vries “cycle” is non repeating and is just an average period that occurs most often between grand minima.
The JEV periods that Ian is researching are different and can be seen as a repeating pattern. The revealing 1.5 year tidal action on the EV solar bulge is very close to the 1.3 year internal solar oscillation or pulse found by Rachel Howe.
Critical events for the 8.2Kyr event are going to be much like at 1507BC and 1527BC (and analogues at +/- 179yrs).
Assuming Jupiter is applying torques to the EV induced tidal bulges in the convective layers of the Sun, it is reasonable to ask when you would get peaks in the applied torques, on a centennial to millennial time scale.
[Note: Obviously there is a peak in Jupiter’s positive net torque once every 22.14 years – but what about longer times scales?]
Starting with Venus, the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn aligned on the same side of the Sun.
[At this point, the tangential torques applied by Jupiter and Saturn to the VE tidal bulges are both zero.]
Once every 45 VE aligns (= 71.9396(8649) years), Saturn aligns (at the opposing position) with the Sun-Venus-Earth axis, with a slow advance of about ~ 0.9 degrees per alignment. After 45 aligns, Jupiter advances (in a pro-grade direction) by 44.972 ~ 45 degrees per (71.9397 year) alignment.
At 45 VE aligns, the tangential torque applied by Jupiter to the VE tidal bulges is at a local positive maximum, since Jupiter is at ~ 45 degrees to the Sun-Venus-Earth line, while the tangential torque applied by Saturn is almost zero, since it is at ~ 0.9 degrees.
YEARS______Jupiter’s Torque_______Saturn’s Torque________Saturn’s_Alignment
__0.0_____________zero_align____________zero (0.0 deg)__________align
_71.9397__________max+________________zero(~0.9 deg)_____opposing
143.8794__________zero_90_deg__________zero(~1.8 deg)_________align
215.8190__________max-_________________zero(~2.7 deg) ____opposing
287.7587__________zero_opposing_________zero(~3.6 deg)_________align
359.6984__________max+________________zero(~4.5 deg)_____opposing
431.6381__________zero_90_deg__________zero(~5.4 deg)_________align
503.5788__________max-_________________zero(~6.3 deg)_____opposing
575.5175__________zero_align____________zero(~7.2 deg)_________align
Hence, when it comes to torques applied by Jupiter to the VE tidal bulge, the natural cycle is 360 VE aligns (= 575.5176 years) long.
Thanks Ian, that’s very interesting. Perhaps the indistinct nature of the De Vries cycle at some epochs is due to a drifting phase cancellation effect between 208 and 215 yr signals? Fairbridge noted maxima in the Hudson bay beach ridges at 360yrs, where the 45 year repeat is perhaps amplified by that torque maximum. And same again at ~556yrs.
Paraphrased: “It is curious that the 178 and 356yr cycles are prevalent since ~3000BC but prior to that the 556(50 x Schwabe) and 558yr (28 x Lunar nodal cycle) periods dominated.
Could there be a reinforcement/cancelling going on with long term lunar tides at similar frequencies here?
Either way, 360yr and ~560yr beach ridge maxima relating to your torque theory looks good.
My last post above, is a classic example of how logic can sometimes lead you astray.
If you actually calculate the NET torque that Jupiter applies to the VE tidal bulges, you find that it varies with a pronounce 22.14 year cycle that is modulated by an ~ 170 year envelope. The
170 year envelope is caused by the varying distance of Jupiter from the Sun at the times of VE alignments. A factor that is not taken into account in the calculations above.
Most likely, the 170 modulation to Jupiter’s torque caused by that planet’s elliptical orbit overwhelms the smaller changes associated with the 575.5176 year orientation cycle.
Ian Wilson (August 14, 2013 at 4:37 am): “165.76 years”
Ian Wilson (August 20, 2013 at 11:08 am): “~ 170 year”
161.6149984 NASA J2000 3000BC-3000AD
165.5999728 Seidelmann (1992)
169.5420445 NASA J2000 1800AD-2050AD
More generally:
JEV – J = +6V-10E+3J
Plainly visible to the naked eye in Horizons output.
4627.33 – 179.05 = 4448.28.
4448.28 / 8 = 556.035
4448.28 / 14 = 317.734
The Hudson Bay beach ridges were at 317.7 years not 360.
‘ An interesting link with planetary cycles exists at a triple ratio figure : 317.749 years (7 Uranus-Saturn laps/ 16 Saturn-Jupiter laps/ 17 lunar declination cycles). A storminess record in geomorphic (that is, physical) form is preserved in a “staircase” of 184 isostatically uplifted beach lines on Hudson Bay (Fairbridge and Hillaire-Marcel” 1977, Nature. Vol. 268), which date back to more than 8,000 years.’
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/Fairbridge-ClimateandKeplerianPlanetaryDynamics.htm
Ulric Lyons (August 19, 2013 at 8:07 pm) wrote:
“Good point about observation, but I don’t believe the problem is gate-keeping. Most of the great advances in astronomy been made by amateurs. The professionals would have loved to have made some of those breakthrough’s.”
___
The comment was specifically about journal editorial standards in many fields requiring statistical inference, which fatally damages collective integrity by driving a culture of collegial acceptance of inference based on patently untenable assumptions. It isn’t sensible putting abstract theory ahead of observation.
In contexts where there are generally-unknown unknowns fundamentally corrupting “scientific” modeling culture, the sensible option is to pursue with tedious care the arduous exploratory process of exposing hidden paradoxes.
What appears to be lacking is a higher class of journals spotlighting and celebrating raw observation and raw exploration.
The powerful aim would be to simply capture and share beautiful images of what is. People recognize the power of natural beauty even when they know nothing about the meaning of symbols appearing in images of natural beauty.
Such a higher class of journals would by existence facilitate a system of due checks & balances on the dark ignorance &/or deception that fatally plagues modeling cultures.
Classy appreciation & exploration of nature will expose the flawed assumptions of the modeling underworld.
This would have to come with big funding to be done right.
Solar-Terrestrial-Climate 101 (.pdf)
Click to access Vaughan%20130804%20Solar%20Terrestrial%20Climate%20101.PDF
“Well, you can explain it on the thread of your own I offered you,”
There is no point as you cannot keep up with the facts and get distracted by garbage.
[Reply] You won’t substantiate your own claims with supporting theory, so I won’t permit you to continue hijacking Ian’s thread. End of.
Ian.
May l ask if the EV alignment of 1.59866 yrs is a constant or can it vary?
l have seen the figure 1.5993 mutedand a drift of 0.288
What causes the drift?
I have been searching through some of your figures as l am looking for key cyclic figures divisable by 3 and 6
As 3 SSN cycles = one phase of the AMO and 6 SSN cycles one cycle of the AMO
Your tidal bulge theory is important as the AMO is an ocean heat index correlated with sea level anomalies in the basin
Now l was very interested in a post you made above
where you have 360 VE alignments = 575.5176 yrs
Now is that an appproximate given the drift?
should that read aproximately equal to??
As a good lead between the AMO quasi cycle and your VE alignments and jupiter torque
I am happy with these findings
7 VE alignments = 11.19 yrs ( mean ? of one SSC)
21 VE alignments = 33.57 years ( 3 SSC’s = one phase of AMO)
42 VE alignments = 67.14 yrs (6 SSC’s = 2 phases of AMO or one’ sine wave’ cycle)
Now as there are 360 alignments of VE in one Jupiter /VE torque cycle
(Convenient that there are 360 deg in a circle!)
THe AMO or 67 .14 yr cycle mean fits into the 360 alignments in the cycle unevenly?
Hence l ask about drift?
360 alignments of the Jupiter /VE torque cycle divided by one phase of the AMO = 360/67.14= 5.362
Now re: the AMO
I was looking for something that would change phase and change the’ torque’ on the ocean as the AMO goes positive and negative anomlay and this is realtedto sea level and consequently the temperature pattern in the Atlantic bowl/basin
Now you have provided that
You can see from my ratios above for VE alignbments that l need ratios of the number 7
( 7, 21, 42) and l also need a phase change mechanism that you have provided and that is the cycle of zero to max torque at intervals that are factors of 7
Now your figures are close and have a strong multiple factor of 7 which l am looking for?
J/EVTorque cycle…………Factors of 7 plus drift?………..difference/drift?
71.9………………………………….7. …70 ………………………71.9 – 70 = 1.9
143.88………………………………14…..140…………………….143.88 – 140 = 3.88( ?)
215…………………………………….21…..210………………….215 – 210 = 5
287……………………………………28…..280………………… 287 – 280 = 7
359………………………………………35…….350…………….359 – 350 = 9
431……………………………………..42……..420……………..431 – 420 = 11
503……………………………………….49…….490…………….503 – 490 = 13
575.52…………………………………..56……..560…………….575.52 – 560 = 15.52
Notice the difference or drift shifts 2 yrs eavery pahse of the torque cycle
I am not sure why l hadto divide the factorsby 10?
Whatthink l am proposing here Ian is that the AMO terrestrial cycle is in phase with your Jupiter /VE torque cycle some how by factor of 7?
There is a phasechange in the AMO change 21 alignments of VE
21 alignments = 21 * 1.6 = 33.6
Now in order for the connection to be set in concrete
THe torque must switch every 21 alignments..
and the value of the VE alignment cycle must change in conjunction with the length of the SSC?
So the alignment period of VE is not a constant but varies?
I nam trying to figure out why the torque from max to zero is 70 yrs
THe AMO changes phase at half of that.. ..
Should go max /zero in ~33.5 year not 70 yrs
Something l don’t understand about torque ?
Hope my notes make sense..I have to log off before proof read
anyway I am happy with the connection although not watertight as yet
Crikey: The average length of the solar (Schwabe) cycle is around 11.07 yrs. But it tends to cluster around 10.38, which is a VEJ sub-cycle resonance, or 11.86, the period of the Jupiter orbit. It rarely is actually around 11.07, which is also harmonic of
UranusNeptune and Jupiter as well as JEV.The length of the AMO varies too, and you were onto the right idea with two lots of 3 solar cycles. The full magnetic cycle is the Hale cycle around 22.14yrs. The odd numbered cycles tend to be more geo-effective in terms of energy transfer and North Atlantic warming. This may be due to the way the heliomagnetic field transfers energy from the Sun into the North polar area.
So magnetically in one half of the AMO you get 2 x ‘south’ Schwabe cycles and one ‘north’. In the other half you get 2 x ‘north’ and one ‘south’. I think this may help explain the AMO.
But the AMO is also modulated by longer term Lunar cycles around 75yrs, especially further north, and the 45 year period of the inner planet return, which leaves the curious ridges on the calm northern shores of Siberia and around Hudson bay I linked above.
oldbrew says:
August 20, 2013 at 1:22 pm
The Hudson Bay beach ridges were at 317.7 years not 360.
Read the right hand column of the link I gave
The 356 figure comes from the same Hillaire Marcel – Rhodes Fairbridge 1977 paper!
The continuing debate between barycentric/magnetic Jose cycles and tidal possibilities will run a while yet it seems. We may have to wait a while before Ulric’s magnum opus appears, since he’s rejected the offer of a separate thread here, for the time being at least. Meantime we can work on it ourselves, along with the other viable possibilities such as Ian’s.
Ian Wilson says:
August 20, 2013 at 11:08 am
If you actually calculate the NET torque that Jupiter applies to the VE tidal bulges, you find that it varies with a pronounce 22.14 year cycle that is modulated by an ~ 170 year envelope. The
170 year envelope is caused by the varying distance of Jupiter from the Sun at the times of VE alignments. A factor that is not taken into account in the calculations above.
22.14yr – Hale magnetic cycle on the Sun
170yr – Easily conflated with U-N synodic period. Perhaps also effective magnetically, but tidally, Jupiter, Venus and Earth are the big kids on the block.
Rog,
The following post by Paul is a bit of an eye-opener!
Remember- in terms of periods, the first equation is:
(1/JEV) = (6/V) – (10/E) + (4/J)
A re-post of one of Paul’s earlier comments:
Frequency Algebra:
JEV = +6V-10E+4J
SEV = -6V+10E-4S
UEV = -6V+10E-4U
NEV = -6V+10E-4N
Tabulated Periods:
JEV 11.06964992__11.05464062__11.09132402
SEV 9.007246722__9.016173003__9.003453721
UEV 5.018891421__5.024140527__5.017483942
NEV 4.492694707__4.497005011__4.491750532
Me 0.2408467____0.240841939_0.240842723
V 0.61519726___0.615172098_0.615190775
E 1.0000174____1.00000027__1.000003915
Ma 1.8808476____1.880851534_1.880847664
J 11.862615___11.86630899__11.86770085
S 29.447498___29.47303787__29.45069432
U 84.016846___84.05119028__84.05897763
N 164.79132__164.888325___164.891576
P 247.92065__248.1297887__248.0850779
J2000 3000BC-3000AD
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t2.txt
Seidelmann (1992)
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par
J2000 1800AD-2050AD
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t1.txt
Absolutely remarkable!
This may or may not be significant to you theoreticians. When I try to model the sunspot cycle, the 22.14 yr cycle appears to be rock solid but under goes a phase shift on a 178.8 year cycle. The other 19.57 year cycle under goes a phase shift on a 1250 year cycle but also requires modelling in a small frequency shift on the same 1250 year cycle. To me that means either this frequency shift is happening or there are maybe two cycles very close together around 19 years undergoing a phase shift.
See a sample of the oscillators here and the resulting sunspot correlation when the two oscillators are added and squared.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/209/09xv.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/849/s8ko.jpg/
So in terms of periods, Paul is claiming that:
the ~ 166 – 170 year envelope that modulates the (pro-grade) 22.14 year VEJ torque cycle is given by:
(11.8626 – 11.070) / (11.8626 x 11.070) = (6/V) – (10/E) + (3/J) = 1/165.6813
the ~ 107 year envelope that modulates the (retro-grade) 18.01 year VESa torque cycle is given by:
(9.8158 – 9.0072) / (9.8158 x 9.0072) = – (6/V) + (10/E) – (7/Sa) = 1/106.8040
Have I got that right Paul?
Rog and Paul,
Note that not surprisingly, the (positive) beat period between the 22.14 JEV and the 18.01 year SaVE cycles gives half of the expected JS cycle.
22.14 x 18.01 / (22.14 + 18.01) = 9.93129 years (2 x 9.93129 years = 19.8626 years)
This compares to JS = 19.8650 years for the first column figures that Paul uses.
Rog and Paul,
Also note that the (negative) beat period between the 22.14 JEV and the 18.01 year SaVE cycles
22.14 x 18.01 / (22.14 – 18.01) = 96.5476 ~ 96 year
which is the period that Saturn weakly adds on top of the torque of Jupiter upon the VE tidal bulge.
[Note; This does not factor in the variation in Saturn’s distance from the Sun]
R.J Salvador: Well done, very impressive. Others may have different ideas but if you want a relevant frequency close to 19.57, the Jupiter-Saturn synodic period at around 19.865 years isn’t far away, or possibly the new value 19.8626 years for the double of “the (positive) beat period between the 22.14 JEV and the 18.01 year SaVE cycles”. Ian may be able to help pin down an exact way of modelling it’s variation.
Ian, with R.J. Salvador’s success in modelling solar activity history using your periods, this really looks like it’s going somewhere!
R J Salvador says:
August 20, 2013 at 5:13 pm
The 178.8 year period looks like the Jose cycle (178.73). 1250 could be 7 Jose? (1251.11)
OB: Good suggestion. 7 Jose cycles bring J and S round about 180 degrees, which kind of fits the tidal paradigm. So we have planetary rationale for all the major periods in RJ’s model. Now for the minor ones… 🙂
Abreu et al. show that there is a 104 year and 208 year signal in the planetary torques being applied to the Sun. The real question then becomes, can anyone come up plausible explanation for this?
According to the Abreu et al. group, the 208/104 year de Vries period appears roughly every 2300 years in the Be10 and C14 data. This must be a clue.
Heh, I’d been wondering whether to repost Tim Channon’s Feb 2011 analysis of the Steinhilber Beer and Frohlich 10Be TSI proxy
Here it is. Right click, open in new tab and click for the full size image.
Ian Wilson says:
August 21, 2013 at 12:13 am
Abreu et al. show that there is a 104 year and 208 year signal in the planetary torques being applied to the Sun. The real question then becomes, can anyone come up plausible explanation for this?
According to the Abreu et al. group, the 208/104 year de Vries period appears roughly every 2300 years in the Be10 and C14 data. This must be a clue.
There is another clue here Ian:
Understanding how the 208 year “most common gap” between grand minima is the key, with the mechanics displayed in the above diagram. At least one of the Abreu team understand the fundamental of the above diagram.
Ulric Lyons says: August 20, 2013 at 12:50 pm
4627.33 – 179.05 = 4448.28.
4448.28 / 8 = 556.035
4448.28 / 14 = 317.734
————————————-
Note that 4448.28 = 375 Jupiter orbits and 224 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions.
OB: Yes, which is 28 and 16 J-S for the 556yr and 317.73yr respectively. 18 J-S gives 357.53yrs, close to the beach ridge maxima
A tentative attempt to relate some of the relevant periods discussed:
4627 = 2*average Halstatt cycle
208 = De Vries cycle
4627/208 = 22.245 = Hale cycle
4627*208/(4627-208)=217.79
217.79/2=108.895 = Sunspot asymmetry period (Paul Vaughan)
108.895*9=980.057 = SSAM? cycle (P.A. Semi & Tim Channon)
178.72 = Jose cycle
4627.11-178.73=4448.38 (Fairbridge)
4448.38*980.057/(4448.38-980.057)=1257 = phase shift of 19.57yr torque cycle (Ian Wilson & R.J. Salvador)
let J = 11.862242 S = 29.457784 JS = S * J / (S – J) = 19.85931224
S/2 * J / (S2 – J) = 60.94838271
60.94838271 * (J * 5) / (60.94838271 – (J * 5) = 2208.027476
JS/2 * (J * 5/6) / (JS/2 – (J * 5/6)) = 2208.027476
J/3 * S/10 / (J/3 – S/10) = 11.55193815
(J * 5) * (11.55193815 * 5) / ((J * 5) – (11.55193815 * 5)) = 2208.027476
S/2 * J/3 / (S/2 – J/3) = 5.405127319
5.405127319 * (J * 5/11) / (5.405127319 – (J * 5/11)) = 2208.027476
4416.054952 / 2 = 2208.027476 ‘ 2200 year Hallstatt cycle
4416.054952 / 3 = 1472.018317 ‘ 1470 year Bond cycle
4416.054952 / 5 = 883.2109902 ‘ Pierre Bretagnon’s “great inequality”
Yeah!! We have entered the realm of the top ten posts at Tallbloke’s Workshop!!
For what its worth here are my paltry attempts to “explain” the 208 year de Vries Cycle.
26 x PVE = 26 x 7.9933 yrs = 207.8258 yrs
10 1/2 JS ______________= 208.5195 yrs
3 1/2 TJS ______________= 208.5195 yrs
PVE = Penta-Synodic periods of Venus and the Earth
JS = Synodic period of Jupiter/Saturn = 19.859 years
TJS = Tri-Synodic period of Jupiter/Saturn = 59.5770 yrs
Currently, I have no physical basis to explain the 26x and 10 1/2 x multiplicative factors.
However, I am putting up a new post at my blog site that will show that the 208 period is naturally found in the periodicities of the Earth-Moon system with respect to the fixed stars.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
And here is the rational that I give to connect the Inner Terrestrial planets
to the outer Jovian planets:
Predictions of the VEJ Tidal Torquing model:
All together there will be four periods of 11.07 years, with
the gravitational force of Jupiter, increasing the Sun’s rotation
rate over the first and third periods of 11.07 years, and
decreasing the Sun’s rotation rate over the second and fourth
periods of 11.07 years.
Hence, the basic unit of change in the Sun’s rotation rate (i.e.
and increase followed by a decrease) is 2 x 11.07 years =
22.14 years. This is essentially equal to the mean length of the
Hale magnetic sunspot cycle of the Sun which is 22.1 +/- 2.0 yrs)
However, the complete planetary tidal cycle is actually
(4 x 11.07 years =) 44.28 years.
Synchronization with the Jovian planets
The outer Jovian planets act like a large washing
machine, stirring the inner terrestrial planets with a
gravitational force that varies with a frequency that is the
beat period between two main competing Jovian planetary
alignments.
The first is that produced by the the retrograde tri-synodic
period of Jupiter/Saturn ( = 59.577 yrs) and the second is
the pro-grade synodic period of Uranus/Neptune (171.41 yrs):
(59.577 x 171.41) / (171.41 + 59.577) = 44.21 yrs
[N.B. This calculation assumes the following sidereal
orbital period for the Jovian planets: Jupiter = 11.862 yrs;
Saturn = 29.457 yrs; Uranus = 84.011 yrs; Neptune
= 164.79 yrs.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/%5D
De Vries Cycle:
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/Fairbridge-ClimateandKeplerianPlanetaryDynamics.htm
“With increasing complexity, these periods and their harmonics interact with those of the solar emissions. The most prominent effects are the El Nino and related ENSO (El Nino/Southern Oscillation), probably forced by atmospheric feedbacks from the Indonesian/New Guinea “choke” region. ENSO occurs irregularly, at 2 to 9 years intervals, and discloses both lunar and solar potential forcings. The forcings are mostly fractions of the planetary quadrature series of 4,448 years. These appear at 154th of the quadrature, 69.50575 years, and three times that at 208.522-year forcings which are prominent in the carbon-14 flux of tree rings.”
The “154th” is in error, probably from optical character recognition software. It should be 1/64th : 64*69.50575 = 4448.368
Ian says: 208 period is naturally found in the periodicities of the Earth-Moon system with respect to the fixed stars.
Much closer to home. 🙂
What is the exact period you have found Ian?
One possibility for the multiple of 26 x (penta-VE aligns) is my earlier argument about the re-alignment of Saturn’s orbital pattern with respect to the stars. It went something like this:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The symmetry pattern of Saturn’s position as seen every 1/2 VE alignment, will achieve rotational re-alignment [in an absolute frame of reference] once every:
7 x 18.5 VE aligns = 129.5 VE aligns = 207.02647 ~ 207 years
after 129.5 VE aligns, the Venus-Sun-Earth axis will at 10.1127 degrees in a fixed reference frame with respect to the stars and Saturn at 9.5292 degrees.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26 x 5 VE aligns = 130 VE aligns = 207.826 years
Ian,
I really like your analogy of the solar system being like a washing machine. The eccentric orbits of the planets expand and contract in cycles. Your analogy fits well as a physical mechanism. The solar system seems to breathe. This is the foundation for the Milankovic theory.
Have you given some thought to the indirect planetary influence theory? That the Sun acts like a recording device. That the resonant frequencies of the planets are projected onto the Sun and the Sun recycles these frequencies back to the planets.
This is where I am stopping with the Sunspot cycle model for now. The latest run makes a very reasonable reconstruction of the Maunder Minimum. (see below) I changed the second signal that I use to modulate the scaling factor of each of the four solar oscillators to 9 times the orbital frequencies of Jupiter and Saturn. The correlation was pointing for this change.
A=F1+J1*cos(2*pi/106.74*(t+J2))+S1*cos(2*pi/265.14*(t+S2));
B=F2+J3*cos(2*pi/106.74*(t+J2))+S3*cos(2*pi/265.14*(t+S2));
C=F3+J5*cos(2*pi/106.74*(t+J2))+S5*cos(2*pi/265.14*(t+S2));
D=F4+J7*cos(2*pi/106.74*(t+J2))+S7*cos(2*pi/265.14*(t+S2));
The frequencies for phase changes stay the same at 1253 and 178.8.
phi1=p1*(1+n1*cos(2*pi/1253*(t+L1)));
phi2= p2*(1+ n2*sin(2*pi/178.8*(t+L2)));
phi3=p3*(1+n1*cos(2*pi/1253*(t+L1)));
phi4= p4*(1+ n2*sin(2*pi/178.8*(t+L2)));
The solar base frequencies stay the same at 19.57 and 22.14 modulated by 1253 and 178.8 respectively.
w1=2*pi/(19.57*(1+n3*cos(2*pi/1253*(t+L1))));
w2=2*pi/(22.14*(1+ N4*sin(2*pi/178.8*(t+L2))));
w3=2*pi/(2*19.57*(1+n3*cos(2*pi/1253*(t+L1))));
w4=2*pi/(2*22.14*(1+N4*sin(2*pi/178.8*(t+L2))));
The Sunspot cycle equation is:
SNC=(A*cos(w1*(t+phi1))+B*cos(w2*(t+phi2))+C*cos(w3*(t+phi3))+D*cos(w4*(t+ph4)))^2;
where t is the date in years or a fraction of.
Here is the Maunder reconstruction from the model:
Here is the Sunspot cycle Correlation:
Here is the Sunspot cycle forecast from the model:
Some comments on what the model is doing.
Primarily the model is changing the phasing of both the 19.57 and the 22.14 cycle.
The phasing of the 19.57 year cycle is changing through a range of 21.9 years over a full 1253 year cycle. The phasing of the 22.14 year cycle is changing through a range of 14.8 years over 178.8 year cycle.
The model is also oscillating the frequency of the 19.57 year cycle from 19.12 to 20.16 over the 1253 year cycle. And it is oscillating the frequency of the 22.14 year cycle from 22.07 to 22.20 over 178.8 years.
The 9 times the Jupiter and Saturn orbital frequencies, I believe is modeling in three complete rotational cycle of these two planets synodic meetings and this beats with the 178.8 year cycle. These inputs modulate the peaks of the base solar cycle interactions.
This model has an r^2 of 0.73. I don’t believe it can get any higher in modeling the cycle. The next step would be in modeling the actual sunspot formation better within the cycle to get a higher R^2. That is a lot of work for another day.
In summary the TB-Bart idea of a base signal modified by another signal using Ian Wilson and Paul Jose frequencies to model solar oscillations produce a reasonable approximation of the Sunspot cycle.
I will post the parameters for this model in a follow up below.
This was fun thanks for your help.
RJ
Here are the Parameters for the Sunspot cycle model.
F1= 0.069074543
F2= 9.285557102
F3= -1.817281518
F4= 2.152997097
J1= -2.037744627
J2= 9.747299318
J3= -1.600996916
J5= -3.563513116
J7= 0.102917111
S1= -5.653528536
S2= 42.59613052
S3= 2.480646439
S5= -1.54050476
S7= -0.219699707
L1= 16.4910394
L2= -64.57914906
P1= 6.207996591
P2= 10.94764435
P3= 39.82173738
P4= -6.62088669
N1= 1.765080942
N2= -0.678126232
N3= 0.022810926
N4= -0.003037108
RJ: Thanks to you for the work you have done modelling the sunspot series. I hope you’ll maintain an interest in refining it as our understanding of the periods and their oscillations improves. If you don’t mind sharing, I’d like a monthly output as a numerical series of synthetic SSN from 1749 to the end of your prediction period if you could provide it easily. I’ll drop you my email address. Thanks again.
TB: I can do that. I will be checking in for updates from your contributors. I made an error in my post and chart the R^2 is 0.714 not 0.73. (Not a significant difference in this type of work)
Regards RJ
Ian said: The outer Jovian planets act like a large washing machine, stirring the inner terrestrial planets with a gravitational force that varies with a frequency that is the beat period between two main competing Jovian planetary alignments.
Ian, if there are only 2 main signals like in this your washing machine model the dates of S/J and N/U, then there is a simple subtraction rule between pairs of data points in the time-sequenced (S/J, N/U) raw data. I use the rule, for example, between dates of draconic and anomalistic moons. Subtracted are pairs of adjacent dates (next – current), and plotted are n% selections (spreadsheet rows filter) of max/min difference in days.
I’ve braided the S/J tri-synodic as you suggested, added N/U data in sequence and run the subtraction rule (for years 1111 to 2999). The 22% cases of smallest temporal distance and also the 22% cases of largest make a plain (top-level) diagram which shows:
– the recent peak was 1993
– the next bottom is in 2040
– next peak not before 2164
Fascinating (!) coincidence? 🙂
RJ: 0.71 is a great achievement, when considering that the record itself is by no means perfect, with changes in observers, techniques and instruments over the course of 260 years. Your longer Maunder minimum is an exciting development too. This has been the problem point for most previous modelling attempts. I’ve emailed you, and will again in the future when we make further progress worth testing.
A shadow appears. Seemed good manners to stay away.
What’s been done here, I don’t follow well enough.
There is a square term. Has the effect of frequency doubling. Implies 19.57 becomes 9.785 and 22.14 becomes 11.07
“SNC=(A*cos(w1*(t+phi1))+B*cos(w2*(t+phi2))+C*cos(w3*(t+phi3))+D*cos(w4*(t+ph4)))^2;”
As a reminder
At the left a sine centred on zero and the effect of squaring producing a perfect 2nd harmonic, to the right the effect of an offset from zero. This is why great care is needed in signal work, a mistake which has been all to often in hardware and software out there.
The above is elliptical, the square is not the point, it’s the product (the multiply) which is the problem. This is why very often things have to be offset to zero then put back afterwards. (stats people will recognise this from normalisation)
Am I spouting way off topic? No. The implication is there are interactions going on within the sun and there are non-linearities present, the only way interaction to produce new items can happen.
The solar magnetic cycle runs half speed anyway.
Treating the sunspot data as power law related does seem to produce results which look chaotic which begs the question of whether the sun is a chaotic oscillator.
I don’t know the answers.
tallbloke said:
August 21, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Ian says: 208 period is naturally found in the periodicities of the Earth-Moon system with respect to the fixed stars.
Much closer to home. 🙂
What is the exact period you have found Ian?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Rog,
Its a little technical but you can see my blog post at:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/connecting-208-year-de-vries-cycle-with.html
TChannon Says,
“A shadow appears. Seemed good manners to stay away.”
I wish you had spoken up sooner. I have removed the shadow of the square and there is now an 85% correlation with the same equation without the squaring to sunspot data multiplied by the sunspot cycle polarity. I consider this as close to success as it gets.
The fit is remarkable. More to come.
RJ
Wow! RJ; Send me an update when you are happy with the result please.
TB
The equations may now simplify to something that is more readily understandable.
I will send you an update after I explore what the interactions are.
RJ
Nothing wrong with complementary data processing, does a domain change to something more apt.
data ->transform-> process ->.back transform -> result
Key is that this has no effect on the result but might put data into a better state for processing.
Looks a good fit.
One further step, actual polar magnetic is 90 degree phase shift, polarity flips around sunspot maximum. http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
But that is another issue. I don’t think we know the law, relationship of phase, is it actually 90 or some other function or wandering…
Tchannon:
I very much appreciated your comment. I was ready to leave the square and would have missed something much more exciting.
I have simplified the model giving up the two higher harmonics of the 19 and 22 year frequencies.
The model is very easy to understand now. It describes a tuner amplifier. If the two base solar frequencies are tuned to re-enforce each other the amount (eg magnitude of the sunspot number) depends additionally on the how high 19 and 22 year frequency volume has been set by the planets orbital pattern. The reverse is also true if the base solar frequencies are in opposition and a minimum results. Interestingly the 19 frequency has it’s volume almost totally turned off for long periods of time on a cyclical bases.
Check this out. There are only two terms in the sunspot cycle equation now:
snc=(A*cos(w1*(t +phi1))+B*cos(w2*(t+phi2))
Here is a graph of the two terms before they are summed to the sunspot cycle value.
I will need help getting the correct planetary input into terms A and B.
Other duties call so catch you later.
RJ
RJ: Is the new simplified model still capturing the Maunder Minimum? Planetary frequencies around the two periods are Ian’s torque value (19.57) the J-S synodic (19.858), 1/4 U (21.005), 2 x VEJ cycle (22.14 with variation). You seem to be heading back towards Bart’s model. Email me for a chat if you need to.
I’m at a loss here yet I of all people ought to “get it”
Changing all parameters seems pretty way out and some discussion is needed on validity.
I don’t really follow all you have done, guessing.
For the hell of it since it is essentially turnkey
(used jpg in this case to minimise download size, be a bit fuzzy, click for larger)
Data driven, I can’t match although it is kind of the same. Probably disagreeing slightly on the ssn data as well. I have locked the periods the same though. If I unlock I expect it would collapse in a heap (unless it is very close).
Doing involved things like this is part of a major software change I suspect I am too old to ever get around to doing, unless there is a solid reason. Part of that would allow injection of arbitrary, matrix switching connecting most things as wanted.
Bold, daring, burning desire accepts dark risk and shines directly on pursued truth: “I push it to the limits… trying to get to you… I’m driving fast. Flash!”
Bright, penetrating lights find answers, raising more questions. Ascending good questions darken awareness, reinforcing need for light.
Nous sommes prêts.
Sapere Aude.
(English Translations from French & Latin: We’re ready. Dare to know.)
– – –
I will comment on RJ’s model in the days ahead…
Best Regards…
[…] Paul Vaughan on Ian Wilson: The VEJ Tidal Torq… […]
Comment # 1:
I’ve confirmed Ian’s suggestion:
_
(also ties in very nicely with one of TB’s favorites — more details forthcoming incrementally as time permits …)
Paul: sounds exciting, look forward to it.
Tim: Nice work near replicating RJS result.
To TB
Thank you for those Ian Wilson torque frequencies. I believe they have put an end to the Bart model.
My first results indicate that a gravitational tidal torquing model with no second signal will work. (r^2=84.5%)
Yes the Maunder Minimum is still there but it moves around depending on my changes. It’s a good reality check on how this model is working.
Lots of checking to do. It will take some time depending on my other commitments.
Regards
RJ
RJ: That’s an impressive correlation from a simplified model. Please can you confirm which periods you are now using and which you have dropped.
Using 19.57 and 22.14
Dropped: 179 and 1253
Is that correct?
Paul Vaughan seems to be saying the correct period for Ian’s torque model is somewhere between 19.448662 and 19.616104 so you are within range.
I am using six frequencies. 19.57, 22.14, 19.858, 21.005 are the tidal torque frequencies. When added the last two I got rid of that second signal which was kind of bugging me. By themselves I can get the four frequencies to produce a 70 to 75% fit to the sunspot data but so far no Maunder minimum. That’s not to say it can’t be done with just those numbers. However using the 178.8 and 1253 frequencies to alter the four above base tidal torque frequencies over time and the fit goes up to the 83 to 85% range and the Maunder minimum appears.
My thinking is this: Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus orbit the barycenter so their torque frequencies respond to a 178.8 frequency over time. Earth and Venus orbit the sun which orbits the barycenter so the change in 19.57 frequency responds to this 1253. Anyone have any ideas on how a frequency like 1253 arises. It would be nice to nail it down to something physical.
So this model is in the range of Paul Vaughan’ frequencies.
RJ: 1253 is a long term beat resonance between 19.858 and 19.5481931
19.5481931*19.858/(19.858-19.5481931)=1253
peripheral comment
TB, those numbers mix different sources — better do calculations like that in parallel for each source — for example Seidelmann (1992) gives:
(19.86503587)*(19.52850568) / (19.86503587 – 19.52850568) = 1152.747903
But that number is extremely sensitive. Using the J2000s you’ll get ~930 & ~1490.
– –
Ian, what do you have to say about inclusion of 4U = 1/21.005?
Comment # 2
Paul, yes, I noticed the sensitivity, thanks for the correction on the J-S period. With that the value would be 19.55501113 to get 1253
Uranus is a tidal tiddler, I mentioned it as a possible electro-magnetic player in the game, bearing in mind Ulric’s quadratures.
Your JEV should be x2 rather than /2 perhaps?
for fun, here’s what i figured TB might like in connection with bart (if I recall that model correctly):
(166)*(11.07) / (166 + 11.07) = 10.4 = 1/(12V-20E+7J)
(166)*(11.07) / (166 – 11.07) = 11.86 = 1/J
RJ’s taking things to a higher level by unlocking — very refreshing
for comparison:
(166)*(22.14) / (166 + 22.14) = 19.5 = 1/(9V-15E+5J)
(166)*(22.14) / (166 – 22.14) = 25.5 = 1/(-3V+5E-J) ~= 2/(J+N)
so schwabe vs. hale matters — that’s what Ian’s saying by referring to 19.5
also fun to note that 20 * 10.4 = 208
tallbloke (August 23, 2013 at 9:54 pm)
“Your JEV should be x2 rather than /2 perhaps?”
no — elaboration:
I usually write the frequency algebra, not the period algebra, but when I give numbers I give periods. Period algebra is messier to write. The algebra is cleaner in frequencies. Then just:
frequency = 1 / period
I’ve often written of frequencies & periods as if they’re interchangeable — that’s just (extremely) informal shorthand. Doing the beat calculations & algebraic derivations independently always clarifies where informal shorthand has been used casually — sorry for any confusion. I’m quite averse to formality when doing volunteer work. (That all changes when there are paychecks being written.)
One of the things I particularly like about 10.4 and 11.86 is that those are the lengths the Schwabe cycle actually clusters around.
But lets remember what Bart actually said:
“I observed four significant peaks in the PSD of the SSN process at 10 years, 11.8 years, 10.8 years, and 131 years ”
“Preliminary PSD analysis informs me that the solar cycle is governed by two quasi-periodic processes with periods of roughly T1 = 20 and T2 = 23.6 years.”
Now, when I asked, Bart said 9.93(J-s/2) and 23.72 (2J)/2 were just as reasonable an interpretation.
22.14 is 2x average JEV, but the Hale cycle averages 22.3 according to Ian. However, JEV hangs with the solar cycle across at least centennial periods, and never goes completely out of phase so far as we know.
RJ’s model uses Ian’s tidal/torque figure of ~19.57 (why has WordPress turned tilde into minus?), along with J-S and Hale/JEV and Jose and 1253
tallbloke (August 23, 2013 at 11:14 pm)
“One of the things I particularly like about 10.4 and 11.86 is that those are the lengths the Schwabe cycle actually clusters around.”
The problem with using these modes for modeling is that they fail advanced diagnostics. Specifically, they are not randomly distributed in time (see SCL(t) & derivatives).
That doesn’t mean there isn’t some insight to be gained. It’s never wise to close doors like that. It’s just that the insight to be gained may be something other than what has been traditionally thought. Fortunately that keeps things interesting.
I included the calculations for fun to suggest consideration of how the modes could be arising — & potentially – not necessarily – misleading.
I mention them because awareness is better than unawareness, because who knows when such awareness might be of crucial diagnostic utility to explorers like Ian & RJ? Eyes wide open…
– –
I’m glad Ian managed to get me to stop to think carefully about N vs. JEV-J. That had the further effect of getting me to look beyond the J2000 period sources and that brought some welcome new clarity.
– –
Without a full specification of RJ’s 85% model, there might be little more I can do to help out. It would also be helpful to know if 166 works as well as 179. And I’d like to hear from Ian on 4U and his sources of periods.
If I have all that info, I’ll dig hard with refinements. Otherwise the easy gains have probably already passed here and since I operate on the Pareto Principle I suspect my attention will drift elsewhere.
– –
What I most like about RJ’s approach is that he doesn’t lock the frequency & phase. That indicates a level of respect for diagnostics that’s quite rare in the solar/climate discussion IHMO.
RJ, also – if you have time/interest – what’s the best you can do if you drop 19.858 & 21.005 (keeping ~19.5 & 22.14) and switch 179 to 166? cheers
[…] very long free thinking discussion (paged comments) on Tallbloke’s Talkshop evolved into trying to create a model of […]
An immediately obvious difference between RJ’s model and Tim’s is how they deal with de Vries:
RJ:
Unlocks frequency:
(1253)*(178.8) / (1253 – 178.8) = 208.5611618
Tim:
Let’s software pull locked frequencies away from Ian’s specs — i.e. away from (22.13929985)*(19.86503587) / (22.13929985 – 19.86503587) = 193.3803593 towards (22.030288)*(19.884901) / (22.030288 – 19.884901) = 204.1916428
An insight that arises out of this comparison is that if RJ tries to use 166 instead of 178.8 as TB & I have suggested, he’s going to run into the same issue that pulled TC’s model off IW’s specs: (1152.747903)*(165.5999728) / (1152.747903 – 165.5999728) = 193.3803593.
The workaround might be to try to replace 1152.747903 with 2*(22.13929985)*(21.0042115) / (22.13929985 – 21.0042115) = 2*409.6760735 = 819.3521469 such that (819.3521469)*(165.5999728) / (819.3521469 – 165.5999728) = 207.5475977 and see if Ian has a physical reason for U being as important to solar activity as Ulric Lyons has suggested.
The plot thickens.
Tim also pointed to useful sunspot data exploration tips from Bracewell (1988).
Tim wrote: “do not take this work too literally. the intent is food for thought”. Mission accomplished Tim.
I’m sure Paul is aware of this but for RJ’s benefit it needs to be reiterated: Tim’s software looks at the data it is fed and makes its own decisions about periods, amplitudes and phasing. However he is able to ‘break in’ to the process and ‘lock’ frequencies to test them. In his new post it seems he allowed the software to have its head and the periods it comes up with are close to, but not exact planetary frequencies. Assuming we really are onto something with the planetary theory this is because the input data isn’t perfect.
Tim’s post: I have his permission to repost it here at the talkshop for discussion, so it’s here:
[…] tallbloke on Ian Wilson: The VEJ Tidal Torq… […]
tallbloke (August 24, 2013 at 10:34 am)
“Assuming we really are onto something with the planetary theory this is because the input data isn’t perfect.”
Careful. Take a careful look at the 2 calculations I compared to show how Tim’s software dealt with de Vries.
There’s no way to get de Vries with software periods locked to 22.13929985 & 19.86503587. In order to lengthen 193.3803593, the software squeezes 22.13929985 & 19.86503587 towards one another. That’s not specific to the software. That’s how to get a longer beat period in general.
So that’s not related to data quality ….unless:
Perhaps you’re suggesting de Vries periodicity in solar data is out by 14 years because of (extremely severe) data quality issues? If that’s the case, then that leads to a (very messy) discussion of TSI reconstruction dating methods.
Interesting if that’s where you’re aiming.
I think it could be very interesting if Tim did the software overhaul that would facilitate more realistic unlocking (which is where diagnostics point). Tim made it sound like a monumental amount of work, but I wonder: How else can the job get done? Locked periods are a dead end and it’s certainly an important job. A lifetime doesn’t always afford the luxuries necessary to get such jobs done, so if Tim decides to pursue it, I wish him graceful efficiency. I certainly wish I had more time & resources.
Paul and TB just catching up with you.
Paul I used the the frequencies you suggested and the 166 does not give a good fit. With this model it has to be very near 178.
I am dropping the Uranus 21.005. It adds nothing and gives the model too many degrees of freedom.
Some general comments about the model I am working on now compared to the two signal model.
The square in the two signal model gave the sunspot cycle a Gaussian look. That is gone in the present model.
The two signal model gave peaks that had an aesthetic appeal and looked more like the sunspot cycle. The present model has a smooth peak profile.
The two signal model was hard to understand in terms of fundamentals. The present model is just pure tidal waves.
Both models have open phasing and the base solar frequencies are allowed to change. Why not when the data is telling us that the phasing and or frequencies are changing?
For now I am using 19.548 VEJ, 19.858 and 22.14 with 1253 and 178.8.
RJ: Thanks for the update. Take a read of Tim’s new post for additional cross fertilising ideas when you get the time. His complex signal analysis software decides the values for itself after it is fed the input data. Tim told it to work with just two fundamentals and it settled on periods near J-S (19.88) and 2xJEV (22.03).
Shorthand convention used here:
All algebra is in frequencies.
All numbers given are periods.
(So use reciprocation to realize equality.)
Using periods from Seidelmann (1992):
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par
J = 11.862615
E = 1.0000174
V = 0.61519726
A few years ago I derived the following frequency algebra:
JEV = 6V-10E+4J = 11.06964992
Above Ian showed the following:
(11.862615)*(11.06964992) / (11.862615 – 11.06964992) = 165.5999728
I clarifed the frequency algebra:
165.5999728 = JEV-J = (6V-10E+4J)-(J) = 6V-10E+3J
JEV-J = 165.5999728 is a pronounced feature of NASA Horizons JEV output:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
Ian’s theory differentiates between Schwabe (~11.07) & Hale (~22.14) cycles. The tidal torquing in Ian’s theory has Hale frequency:
JEV/2 = (6V-10E+4J) = 3V-5E+2J = 2*(11.06964992) = 22.13929985
Combined with the longer JEV-J = 165.5999728 wave, this gives:
(165.5999728)*(22.13929985) / (165.5999728 + 22.13929985) = 19.52850568
Algebraically:
19.52850568
= (JEV-J)+(JEV/2)
= (6V-10E+3J)+((6V-10E+4J)/2)
= (6V-10E+3J)+((6V-10E+4J)/2)
= (6V-10E+3J)+(3V-5E+2J)
= 9V-15E+5J
Including 19.52850568 in a model with 22.13929985 acknowledges the clear JEV-J = 165.5999728 wave in NASA Horizons JEV output:
(22.13929985)*(19.52850568) / (22.13929985 – 19.52850568) = 165.5999728
= ((JEV-J)+(JEV/2))-(JEV/2) = JEV-J = 6V-10E+3J
Supplementary:
• (29.447498)*(11.862615) / (29.447498 – 11.862615)
= 19.86503587 = J-S
• (165.5999728)*(11.06964992) / (165.5999728 – 11.06964992)
= 11.862615 = J = (JEV)-(JEV-J)
• (19.86503587)*(19.52850568) / (19.86503587 – 19.52850568)
= 1152.747903 = 9V-15E+4J+S = (9V-15E+5J)-(J-S)
• (22.13929985)*(19.86503587) / (22.13929985 – 19.86503587)
= 193.3803593 = -3V+5E-J-S = (J-S)-(3V-5E+2J)
A key diagnostic by which sunspot models should be judged is ability to reproduce observed evolution (over time) of solar cycle frequency (solar cycle length = SCL if you prefer) & its derivatives (including the first derivative, SCD = solar cycle deceleration).
RJ’s approach looks like a promising beginning.
I sincerely look forward to further developments.
I don’t have time to redevelop RJ’s methods, but if RJ ever decides to release all of the model specs, I am willing to do tedious diagnostics and suggest refinements based on those diagnostics.
I will watch for any follow-up comments from Ian.
Best Regards
2 last questions:
• Ian: How important is the appearance of the 19.5 year term from the physical perspective of your torquing model?
• RJ: How well does it work if you replace 1253 with 1153?
Regards
I suppose I’ve pulled back toward more of a watch from a distance position in the hope this is a better viewpoint.
Intuitively there must be a connection between a timed system and the sun, yet what we have as data is not proving helpful in deriving laws, implying there is more, something else is involved.
The sun has the attributes of an intense noise system, boiling pot. This suggests a chaotic system.
The two together might have configured over time to some kind of chaotic oscillator with modes, where modes are different but related conditions, modal switch can occur.
Lets add something further. A novel technique used in the real world is exploitation of marginal process stability where a system is deliberately put into the state of the edge of exploding into unstable. This is done because this region is exquisitely sensitive to tiny variation. This is also the edge of a chaos regime.
Two examples.
1. Bubble chamber
Good enough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_chamber
2. Superregerative receiver
I’ll leave this as an item for an interested reader to go find.
Not particularly well explained here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_circuit
Related in the early days of NMR and MRI
The idea and method is very simple but exceeding the capability by other “more proper” means is very hard.
The sun might be a chaotic boiling pot which is self organised into a structure which is loosely controlled by tiny external effects acting as loose timing.
Paul.
Maybe I am misunderstanding here. Where it does work and the fit improves is replacing the 1253 and Uranus 21.005 then stays in. And some of the saw tooth pattern of the sunspot peaks are restored.
TChannon,
I like your model. Any reasonable fit to past events seem to indicate that we are in for a quiet sun probably for the rest of our lives.
We are searching and the answer is not clear. Too bad we don’t have a thousand years of data.
Your comment about the boiling system is along the lines of Ian Wilson’s tidal torque and Hung’s mouse trap that just a little additional energy and the sun takes off.
It’s fun to speculate and play with.
RJ
R.J.: When you are ready, we’ll do a separate post for your model too. It’s instructive to compare and consider how different approaches have developed. I’m still of the opinion that there is an electromagnetic component to be developed and integrated into the gravitational approaches. It may help add in some essential wrinkles which aren’t captured by the gravito-tidal frequencies.
I confess I’ve been wondering:
Is the J-S model term really needed & justified?
Some may counter-wonder:
Why pause to even reconsider this??
I’ll try to explain, eventually ending up at a very simple suggestion that shouldn’t be too hard to swallow.
Pause for Sober Second Thought About Framing
The way J-S has been introduced seems consistent with neither Ian’s tidal torquing theory nor Ulric Lyons’ insights about EV_JSUN relations. I’m not comfortable with the way its introduction has been framed, so I’ve reconsidered and ended up back at my original observation-based instinct from the middle of last week (when I was too busy to explain). Here’s the way I envision the Bridge to Jose:
EV Bridge to Jose’s J-S
Not too long ago I outlined the J-S connection:
JEV / 2 + SEV / 2
= (3V-5E+2J)+(-3V+5E-2S)
= 2(J-S)
Harmonic mean of JEV/2 & SEV/2 = J-S
Rectified 18-22 = 9-11 (see exploratory graphs to which I linked above)
___
Sunspot Modeling Diagnostic Refinement Keys:
_
1) Hard, Clear Constraint for multidecadal solar-terrestrial-climate modeling:
Observed SCD = solar cycle deceleration = frequency shift
We know with certainty that the darkly aggressive, excessively hubristic solar & climate public thought police were absolutely wrong (in the sense of suggesting 1+1≠2) to relentlessly & rudely assert that there were no major attractors to find in the data.
Even if frequency shift was just quasicyclic chaotic drift about an astronomical attractor, it would remain an essential input for terrestrial multidecadal climate modeling.
At this juncture in time it may be challenging to model frequency shift, but the sensible option for patient, careful explorers is to keep relentlessly trying (as time & resources permit) to identify more attractors.
_
2) Blurry Exploratory Constraint that demands more data &/or exploration:
During interdecadally lowering solar activity, spatial asymmetry stats are observed to stretch temporally from 18/2 to 27/2 (blurring the temporally-global average). (See graphs & comments above.)
This suggests trying to figure out how to incorporate spatially reversible SEV/2 = 18.01449344 temporal influence into models. Better interpretations of what it should suggest may be possible (but ignorance doesn’t look sensible).
Elaboration & cautionary notes follow.
___
Using periods from Seidelmann (1992):
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par
J = 11.06964992 [Mod note] This should be 11.862615 – Rog
S = 29.447498
JEV = 11.06964992 = +6V-10E+4J
JEV/2 = 22.13929985 = +3V-5E+2J
SEV = 9.007246722 = -6V+10E-4S
SEV/2 = 18.01449344 = -3V+5E-2S
Drop this into Excel:
+harmean(22.13929985,18.01449344)
You’ll get 19.86503587.
2*(22.13929985)*(18.01449344) / (22.13929985 + 18.01449344) = 19.86503587
That makes more intuitive sense physically.
Framing the discussion and modeling around JSUN_EV is more consistent with sunspot number & sunspot area observations.
My biggest pet peeve in the solar-climate discussion is pervasive stubborn patently false implicit assumption of symmetry & uniformity.
Whatever effect SEV has, north & south sunspot number & sunspot area observations suggest its impact on solar activity can reverse north-south spatial orientation.
The record shows a pattern at ~108 years, but the record is not long enough to clarify whether that’s a cycle or part of a pattern of spatial orientation instability that can persist over a number of Schwabe cycles as a part of a longer stability/instability cycle.
Either way, framing in terms of JEV & SEV dovetails better with
(a) Ian Wilson’s tidal torquing model and
(b) sunspot number & area records
than does abstract reference to J-S.
Suggestion
• The EV Bridge to Jose’s J-S is via JEV & SEV.
• We should at least consider emphasizing this when giving J-S model specs:
2*(22.13929985)*(18.01449344) / (22.13929985 + 18.01449344) = 19.86503587 (harmonic mean)
This suggestion is based on observations & key statistical properties of those observations (that are quite clear).
I hope it hasn’t been too painful considering this suggestion.
Regards
Exploration Update:
Ulric Lyons’ comments have instrumentally expedited finalization of a generalized formulation of a framework incorporating de Vries, ~900, ~1500, & ~2300 year cycles. I connected the final dot using key insights from my earliest de Vries explorations of 2008, which I admit I had forgotten. A formidable obstacle to efficient communication about such things is that we don’t know for sure what other people do and do not know. Thank you sincerely Ulric for stirring a sequence of thoughts that eventually triggered a crucial memory and for stoking a relentless obsession to finish solving the puzzle. It’s easy to see that most people would not finish solving the puzzle because of fatally hardening belief that it’s impossible.
Paul: “We should at least consider emphasizing this when giving J-S model specs”:
I couldn’t agree more. Your JSEV observations support Ian Wilson’s tidal theory. J-S synodic is more in line with Wolff and Patrone 2010 and Jose 1965, relating to angular momentum theory and possibly electromagnetic concepts (Landscheidt 1981). Conflation or complimentarity? We don’t know yet. I found gas giant signatures in the sunspot asymmetry data too. To some extent what you’ll find in the data depends on what tools/expectations you bring to the job.
TB, a little clarification:
What I’ve shown about JSEV algebraically is an identity. We’re talking neither close nor near. We’re talking exact — and by definition. It’s not conjecture. Rather, it’s a geometric proof.
– –
btw I’ve quickly figured out how to graph the event series Ulric goes on about. It’s a breeze to make them recognizable to a general audience. I just isolated D-O.
With funding & time I could engineer customized software to detect the event series and summarize them in forms that would dramatically ease human recognition. It’s actually incredibly simple conceptually, but it would be a lot of work programming and communicating methods.
This work has given me some ideas about the sawtooth shape aesthetics RJ mentioned. I hope he picks a model with a more natural look (instead of the unnaturally rounded-peaked look). Alternatively, a comparison might be the more illuminating route. There might be more to learn that way. But it’s RJ’s decision. Looking forward to the evolution of his contributions whichever way. I’m eager to independently develop new windowing methods based on what RJ has shown (but where will I find the time?…)
Hi Paul, I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Are you saying that because JEV&SEV tie in with solar variation the J-S synodic motion at virtually the same periodicity can’t also be involved? Can anybody’s model differentiate between them? I think your discovery is a brilliant example of the way the solar system is tied together, but I don’t think it enables us to prefer one hypothesis of planetary-solar relations over another yet. I’m always ready to be convinced though, so please show us your asymmetry work when you find the time.
I’ve been thinking about how to represent Ulric’s ideas too, but have been requested by him not to include anything he has told me in private.
tallbloke mentioned: … wrinkles which aren’t captured by the gravito-tidal frequencies.
This an interesting idea tallbloke 😎 Let’s define planetary meetings in absence of a 3rd party, by this I mean the pairs Mercury/Earth, Venus/Mars, Earth/Jupiter, Mars/Saturn, and the 3rd party is the planet between them. To measure the time of meeting we take the time when minimal spatial distance happens between pairs: there the Newtonian force is mathematically greatest. By same laws we should expect the 3rd party to tug the meeting point a little bit away (advance the phase in time) – it is slower than the inner and faster than the outer – the phase should show an impact by law.
Will there be a rather constant or else a varying phase shift (of above meeting points) during a handful of centuries? In case this phase shift can be found above noise, how many millennia should be taken into account?
TB: Apologies.
We appear to have arrived at a minor misunderstanding.
The identity comment is about the geometry of J, S, E, & V and about nothing else. Specifically:
JEV / 2 + SEV / 2
= (3V-5E+2J)+(-3V+5E-2S)
= 2(J-S)
Harmonic mean of JEV/2 & SEV/2 = J-S
This shows that the term J-S can arise via JEV & SEV. It doesn’t prove or disprove any model, but it might help crucially with interpretation of modeling summaries.
Hi Paul, many thanks for the further clarification. Glad you’re still with me on the RULE NOTHING OUT principle. 🙂
I think your discovery is truly remarkable. The synchronisation of these four bodies surely cannot occur by chance.
This recent invited paper might be food for thought about the existence of a 1500y entity.
Stephen P. Obrochta, Hiroko Miyahara, Yusuke Yokoyama, Thomas J. Crowley, A re-examination of evidence for the North Atlantic “1500-year cycle†at Site 609, Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 55, 8 November 2012, Pages 23-33, ISSN 0277-3791, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.08.008.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112003095)
To Paul Vaughan,
Thanks for the offer of help. The model now has more than sufficient frequency accuracy. Given the nature of the sunspot data, I think we have reached the limit for the effort.
I have confidence that the model will make a reasonable representation of sunspot cycles within certain time constraints. The wave form is dictated by a tidal model. I have ideas on how to get back to skewed Gaussian but that is for another day.
TB
I will put something together on this. I am travelling for a few weeks so I will be going silent for awhile.
RJ
Ian Wilson (August 20, 2013 at 5:45 pm)
“Also note that the (negative) beat period between the 22.14 JEV and the 18.01 year SaVE cycles
22.14 x 18.01 / (22.14 – 18.01) = 96.5476 ~ 96 year
which is the period that Saturn weakly adds on top of the torque of Jupiter upon the VE tidal bulge.
[Note; This does not factor in the variation in Saturn’s distance from the Sun]”
Ian, Ulric has warned us before that this math is wrong. Another comment of yours clarifies why:
Ian Wilson (August 17, 2013 at 3:53 am)
“The equivalent of the 11.068 year JEV PRO-GRADE period is the 9.004 year SaEV RETRO-GRADE period
Saturn moves by 15.98 degree in retro-grade direction once every 1.59866 years. This means that to move 90 degrees takes: (90 degrees / 15.980 degrees) * 1.59866 years = 9.004 years in a retro-grade direction.”
Spatially JEV cycles in the opposite direction to SEV, UEV, & NEV, so we add (not subtract) for JEV&SEV, JEV&UEV, & JEV&NEV and we subtract (not add) for SEV&UEV, SEV&NEV, & UEV&NEV.
This also means everyone should disregard the 193 figure I explored above (which is just twice Ian’s 96 figure after accounting for different sources of orbital elements).
The first caution I noticed about this from Ulric was on a Talkshop Scafetta thread.
TB: What falls out of this is all of the Jovian synodic periods — i.e. the geometric proof I showed above for JEV, SEV, & J-S is generalizable after accounting for prograde vs. retrograde. This all makes more sense if you inspect the pattern of “+” signs & “-” signs in the frequency algebra I showed above for JEV, SEV, UEV, & NEV.
Ian: I’ve cut corners explaining to save time, but if the message isn’t clear enough I’ll elaborate.
Hindsight’s 20/20 here. It’s such a no-brainer that pairs of jovians need to be aligned in order for pairs of jovians to be aligned with EV. We ALL should have spotted the error Ulric noticed. I accept my share of the responsibility.
R J Salvador (August 25, 2013 at 10:27 pm)
“I will put something together on this.”
Excellent.
Paul: Hindsight’s 20/20 here. It’s such a no-brainer that pairs of jovians need to be aligned in order for pairs of jovians to be aligned with EV. We ALL should have spotted the error Ulric noticed.
The question is, does it matter?
It probably does for an electro-magnetic theory (though the alignment is more likely to be along the Parker spiral than in straight lines IMO). For Ian’s tidal/torque hypothesis, the forces applied by Sa Ur Ne are very small. However their orbit motions do exhibit related timings in a coherent system which I don’t believe can be explained by gravity alone. We need the E/M repulsive force too, in order to explain the Phi relationships which lead to the observed inter-relationships. How important the motion of the outer Jovians are in terms of mechanical effectiveness relating to solar variation and Earth climate variation is what I hope to discover by systematic study. Ulric believes he can sufficiently intuit them from anecdotal historical weather reports to be able to dispense with physics and declare the triumph of his heuristics. That’ll never be accepted as sufficient by the community however. The Jovian alignments don’t look so tightly bound to the solar cycles as JEV is, but who knows, maybe I was right when I said the JEV pipers may be supplying the tight melody while the Jovians bang the big bass drums whose reverberations resonate across broader temporal spans.
@ tchannon (August 25, 2013 at 8:55 pm)
It’s paywalled.
@ tallbloke (August 26, 2013 at 2:43 pm)
J+N = 11.06602004
JEV = 11.06964992
&
average Schwabe cycle length
=
Indistinguishable
Re JSEV…
34 J-S = 1267 / 3 V-E
V-E = 1266 x 8 / (1267 / 5)
or
V-E = 8 / 5 x (1266 / 1267)
Paul said:
J+N = 11.06602004
JEV = 11.06964992
&
average Schwabe cycle length
=
Indistinguishable
For Ian’s tidal/torque hypothesis, the forces applied by Sa Ur Ne are very small. However their orbit motions do exhibit related timings in a coherent system. I’ll add that as Ian has already said, it is likely the bigger Jovians, which carry more angular momentum, are responsible for keeping the inner planets aligned with the synchrony, via effects on inner planet orbital eccentricity etc. So, if Ian’s tidal hypothesis is mechanically effective, the Jovians are *indirectly* responsible for the solar cycle timing via their gravitational effect. If Ulric is right, then *additionally* they have an effect directly on Earth’s weather, possibly via an electromagnetic effect concerning their interaction with the Heliospheric Current Sheet.
Consistent with theory, the observed SEV-timescale 9 year signal in asymmetry is weak. It’s a background signal. It’s not the dominant signal. It’s so weak that during low solar activity the phase is difficult to measure.
(Caution: Temporally-global methods can’t handle this job. Use tuned windowing.)
This dominates. Then there’s a tiny little (very clear) 9 year asymmetry wave sitting on that. There’s an EV Bridge to Jose’s J-S for anyone who bothers to look deeper: 19.86 via 18 & 22.1.
Via statistical paradox, the asymmetry info is disguised in sunspot numbers that aren’t sorted hemispherically. A model of unsorted sunspot numbers won’t reflect the 9-18 geometry.
This doesn’t mean models of unsorted sunspot numbers are useless or “wrong”. It just suggests avenues for careful interpretation and deeper exploration, further underscoring that the best answers come with more, interesting questions.
After exhausting ourselves solving a hard puzzle we don’t rest on our laurels. Quite the contrary, instinct drives and we’re off without pause to explore new puzzles gripping us harder than solved puzzles already left behind…
– –
This thread brought some worthwhile twists.
Contributors: Thanks.
“1500 is likely an artifact of arithmetic averaging with little statistical justification.” …asserts propaganda hidden in the shadow of a dark paywall (Not buying it…)
The paywall is unfortunate yet the abstract is pretty extreme and for an invited paper?
I think a lot is made of proxy without any clear knowledge of what caused it, so I am pointing more at a destruction job than details. A minor side path led me to the paper from a group who are doing the detail work, cleaning up a mess.
For a long time a mysterious 1470, 1500 or whatever year has been a currency but without any causal.
Paul Vaughan said:
August 26, 2013 at 1:30 pm
Ian Wilson (August 20, 2013 at 5:45 pm)
“Also note that the (negative) beat period between the 22.14 JEV and the 18.01 year SaVE cycles
22.14 x 18.01 / (22.14 – 18.01) = 96.5476 ~ 96 year
which is the period that Saturn weakly adds on top of the torque of Jupiter upon the VE tidal bulge.
[Note; This does not factor in the variation in Saturn’s distance from the Sun]“
Ian, Ulric has warned us before that this math is wrong. Another comment of yours clarifies why:
Hindsight’s 20/20 here. It’s such a no-brainer that pairs of jovians need to be aligned in order for pairs of jovians to be aligned with EV. We ALL should have spotted the error Ulric noticed. I accept my share of the responsibility.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul,
Ulric is correct. I sometimes fail to see the forest because of the trees. Thank you for pointing out my blunder – of course we need to take into account the signs in this case.