Gerry Pease: Barycentric Orbital Periods

Posted: January 14, 2011 by tallbloke in Solar physics, solar system dynamics

Gerry posted a comment with the barycentric orbital periods and said plotting a bar graph would reveal interesting patterns. So I did. I also marked on the solar grand minima Gerry added to the data.

Barycentric Orbital PeriodsThese time periods relate to the motion of the Sun around the centre of mass of the solar system. Here’s a plot of the motion so you can get an idea of what this is about.

Barycentric motion

Image Courtesey of Carsten Anholm and Geoff Sharp

This is caused by the changing positions of the planets as they orbit, pulling the Sun around the centre of mass or solar system barycentre.

So, as Gerry said, interesting patterns. I’ve coloured alternate orbits in orange and yellow to make it easier to see the two waves. There is obviously a tendency for long orbits to be followed by shorter ones. This is primarily due to the synod conjunctions and oppositions of Jupiter and Saturn. Those curves are further modified by the dispositions of Uranus and Neptune. The inner planets don’t make much difference, this is the dance of the gas giants, the Jovian planets.

Update: Gerry has Kindly sent a plot which shows how the start and end points of the orbits are defined in his bar chart data. He says:

“I define the orbit period as the time between the lowest points on a barycentric range vector plot. I’ll send you one of those plots for posting. The retrograde bumps (“mini-pariapsis” points, if you will) on this plot are also apparent. These are points where the range vector plot suddenly turns up briefly, then turns down. Geoff has referred to them as “camel humps.” The range vector plots look very similar to the angular momentum plots you have seen, but there are subtle differences in the shape because angular momentum is the solar mass times the cross product of the Sun’s position and velocity at a given time.”

Solar range vector plot (red) with the sunspot cycles (blue) overlaid

Solar range vector plot (red) with the sunspot cycles (blue) overlaid

Update 2. Gerry has set another plot to aid visualisation.

'Radar' plot showig distance between Sun cetre and barycentre 1774-1851


Update 3 Gerry says:

“A question of great current importance to resolve is which grand minimum the current one will ultimately most resemble – Wolf, Sporer, Maunder, or Dalton? The triplet barycentric solar loop periodicities that they all exhibit seem to display a greater similarity between the current and the Maunder. Also, the long term periodicity between the start years of the first of each grand minimum triplet periods is exactly 179 years – except for the Dalton, which was 39 years early. The current minimum, however, is 358 years (2×179 years) past the Maunder.

An angular momentum comparison I have made with the Maunder Minimum shows a near-perfect synchronization using the 179 year periodicity, and the angular momentum signatures themselves are strikingly similar.”

Solar orbital angular momentum

Solar orbital angular momentum

What else can we see in these plots? Post your observations below.

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    I interpolated an extra orbit where Gerry had a jump from 1712 to 1752 in his data. Hopefully he’ll let me know if I’ve done anything wrong there so I can correct it if need be. It does seem to create an odd step in the curve.

  2. Many thanks to Gerry and tallbloke for drawing attention to barycentric orbital motion/period due to the motion of the Sun around the centre of mass of the solar system, mainly caused by Jovian and extra jovian planets.
    Being marine geologist I accept my ignorance of this periodic motion in a very interesting
    alternation of longer, followed by a shorter perodic changes, which is reflected well in wolf, sporer, maunder dalton and present solar activity.

    Thanks a lot for sharing it.
    regards.
    shyam

  3. tallbloke says:

    Greetings Shyam and welcome. Please take the time to look at other posts on this site which deal with this fascinating subject. The archives for nov 2009 contain two ocean related posts you may find interesting to begin with.

  4. P.G. Sharrow says:

    If I read the Image Carsten Anholm and Geoff Sharp plot right I see that our star will be strongly stirred in the 2003 to 2017 period. and shaken before and after.

    On your bar graph it appears to me that the high points usher in cooling and the low bars usher in heating. In the Dalton to Now, more heating and less cooling. Now to future, less heating and more cooling. Appearant cause then effect. What the heck does time have to do with it ? ……. Short time = stronger stirring? long time = weaker stirring? pg

  5. P.G. Sharrow says:
    January 14, 2011 at 1:13 pm
    Frequency.

  6. tallbloke says:

    P.G. There are several ways of looking at the data. We could say that the grand minima coincide with periods when the successive orbits are very different in length. That’s what creates the ‘high points’. i.e. when there are low points too. Wrong sort of stirring, a fast stir then a slow one . The Sun seems to get more active when the stirring is more even paced. There does seem to be a lag though before the effect kicks in. Geoff and I discussed it on the Wolf & Patrone thread yesterday in relation to the 50 year periods of ‘harmonious trefoil motion’ (like my Avatar) the Sun enters into once per 180 year period. Again, it takes a couple of cycles before the cycle amplitudes rise and shorten in length.

  7. Gerry says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2011 at 8:57 am:
    “I interpolated an extra orbit where Gerry had a jump from 1712 to 1752 in his data. Hopefully he’ll let me know if I’ve done anything wrong there so I can correct it if need be. It does seem to create an odd step in the curve.”

    Thanks for noticing my error. I believe your interpolated extra orbit on your graph is right, but I’ll check the ephemeris to make sure that first orbit has a 19 year period and the second one has a 21 year period.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Gerry, it’s a pleasure to be of assistance. I often make errors, and it always helps to have extra friendly eyes on the data. I’d never thought of doing a simple bar graph like this, and it really brings out some detail. Let me know the dates of the ‘mini periapses’ and I’ll put markers in. Those are the times where Landscheidt observed that the AM effectivley goes ‘retrograde’ I think. Maybe it’s a bit like when you reverse the direction of the spoon you’re stirring the coffee with. 🙂

    All part of the mix we need to consider.

  9. Gerry says:

    To all:
    One of the things that really impresses me in examining the periapsis times at the end of each first long orbit period heralding the beginning of every grand minimum is the repetition of the 179 year cycle, with one exception – the Dalton Minimum. Here’s what I mean:

    Sporer minus Wolf: 1477-1298 = 179 years,
    Maunder minus Sporer: 1656-1477 = 179 years,
    Dalton minus Maunder: 1798-1656 = 142 years! EARLY!
    Current minus Maunder: 2014-1658 = 178 years (but if you account for the month-of-year for each, that is also 179 years, I believe).

    Notice too that from an orbit period point of view, the current minimum more closely resembles the Maunder than it does any of the other grand minima.

  10. Gerry says:

    Correction: Make that 1796 for the Dalton, 140 years early.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Gerry, should that last subtraction be 2014-178=1836?

    As you say, Dalton came early, but equally, 2014 seems to be running late, given the Uranus-Neptune conjunction in 1993.

    1993-178=1815

    Geoff has some thoughts on the preceding cycle phase when that conjunction occurs I think.

  12. Gerry says:

    Also, make that 1656 for the Maunder, current minus Maunder = 358 years = 2×179! I need to check my numbers more carefully before posting them, but I think this is the final correction (hopefully). All’s well that ends well?

  13. tallbloke says:

    Right, with you now. So Dalton is the odd one out. When I was looking closely at the z-axis motion, found a bit of a wierd flip around 1804. Maybe that precipitated the early arrival of the Dalton Minimum.

    As Leif Svalgaard keeps saying, the Sun is a messy place. We shouldn’t expect the relationships to tie up neatly. I think there are several forces affecting it, and they’re not always in phase with each other. Uranus-Neptune looks dominant in the long term though.

  14. Gerry says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2011 at 8:37 pm:
    “As you say, Dalton came early, but equally, 2014 seems to be running late, given the Uranus-Neptune conjunction in 1993.”

    That’s why periapsis times should be used for timing instead of conjunctions. It’s the perturbation lag time again. The actual start of the current minimum was 2007 – only seven years before 2014. As astronomical time goes, the 14 years between the exact U-J conjunction time and the perturbed start of solar minimum is not really very much at all, bearing in mind that the giant planets move slowly through conjunction, fuzzing out the gravitational (and/or EM?) effects on the Sun.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Agree. U+N is the flywheel, but J&S are the timing pinions in the shorter term.

  16. Geoff Sharp says:

    By combining parts of both loops to create the bar graph, (i think this is what Gerry is doing) some of the data is lost. It would be interesting to see each loop (inner and outer) plotted separately. The AMP event only affects one loop at a time, the inner loop on type A and the outer on the weaker type B.

    The amount and timing of the AMP events per 172 year cycle determines the timing in between.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Perhaps Gerry could clarify how he defines the orbit. Full 360 degree rotation from arbitrary start point?

    I agree it would be an interesting exercise to try different ways of doing this. How would you define where ‘loops’ begin and end Geoff?

  18. Geoff Sharp says:

    The crossover point would serve as a start and end point for both loops. The current affected loop is going roughly from 2006 to 2016. To find the crossover point it might be difficult to locate in the data, but once plotted in excel, a mouse over on the junction point would be accurate.

  19. Gerry says:

    Rog and Geoff,

    I define the orbit period as the time between the lowest points on a barycentric range vector plot. I’ll send you one of those plots for posting. The retrograde bumps (“mini-pariapsis” points, if you will) on this plot are also apparent. These are points where the range vector plot suddenly turns up briefly, then turns down. Geoff has referred to them as “camel humps.” The range vector plots look very similar to the angular momentum plots you have seen, but there are subtle differences in the shape because angular momentum is the solar mass times the cross product of the Sun’s position and velocity at a given time.

  20. tallbloke says:

    Many thanks Gerry, received and posted.

    Geoff: So one of the smaller loops is visible in your plot with the crossing point around 2006-2017 correct? But if that is taken as the start point for the following ‘bigger diameter’ loop, where is the end point? 2025 where the next small loop starts? That makes the ‘smaller diameter loop’ longer to traverse than the ‘bigger diameter loop’ which seems counterintuitive.

  21. Geoff Sharp says:

    Thats the point, the smaller loops are shorter in distance but the velocity is twice as slow. Knowing the length of each loop will be a good resource.

  22. tallbloke says:

    OK, so rather than ‘orbit’ which is a word which implies a complete revolution, we are looking at periods where the rate of curvature of the path of the sun is relatively stable, and noting the dates where that changes fairly abruptly to a tighter or looser arc. Seems reasonable. Both your method and Gerry’s will yield valuable insight I think. I’ll take the job on if you want to supply the dataset.

  23. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    Sort of like throwing a frizzbee with some mud attached? 🙂

  24. tallbloke says:

    Joe, the effect looks similar, but the cause is different. More like a magnetic frisbee hovering between steel orbs gyrating at different rates.

  25. Joe Lalonde says:

    Thanks Tallbloke.

    And slowly moving out.

  26. P.G. Sharrow says:

    I SEE! The rotation of the sun supplies the energy for the mixing and the solar system barycenter causes the displacement. More like a cement mixer on a truck, the cement sloshes side to side, back and forth as the drum turns, while the truck drives down the twisty road. “If the turning drum was in free fall there would be no mixing!” pg

  27. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Long periods of least displacement would the produce greater energy output. Long periods of large displacement would cause the most mixing and the least power output.
    Calm stratification is needed for fusion. Neutron creation needs calm steady pressure.

  28. Gerry says:

    Tallbloke and Geoff,
    I have some plots that make it easier to visualize what is happening. I’ll send them to you shortly. You may want to post them with the other graphics.

  29. tallbloke says:

    P.G. The Sun is close to being in freefall, just not quite ‘perfect’ freefall. The Wolff and Patrone thread has more detail if you can wade through the pdf. Were trying to model it in Matlab. Could take a while though…

    Thanks Gerry update in the works.

  30. Geoff Sharp says:

    Rog & Gerry.

    Thanks Gerry for your email, I had a look at the cycle length of the perturbed inner loop paths of SC24, SC20 and the central AMP event of the Maunder. I used C. Arnholms Sim 1 program to determine the approx lengths of each loop. SC24 loop = 3757 days, SC20 loop = 3773 days and the central Maunder loop = 3667 days. The overall length in days is around 10 years which is not out of the ordinary but the size of the loop compared with non perturbed inner loops is greater, suggesting a faster solar velocity.

    I really don’t think much can be drawn from the actual loops themselves other than to identify an AMP event. The timing and strength of the perturbation during the inner loop being the key to solar downturn. This can only be seen on Carl’s graph.

  31. tallbloke says:

    I’ll plot up a close up of the z-axis motions for the periods so we can see if they shed any further light.

  32. Update 2. Gerry has set another plot to aid visualisation.
    Remarkable!. If regular (without interference) the angles between axis would be 90°, the well known “phase angle” in the equation for power= Sin + Cos three dimensional curves as seen from its axis of movement.

  33. tallbloke says:

    I’d be wary about reading too much into that Adolfo, the angles are depending on the timeframe chosen for representation over the 360 degrees of the plot. Gerry might tell us more about the thinking behind his choice of time period.

  34. Gerry says:

    Adolfo Giurfa says:
    January 16, 2011 at 2:33 pm
    Update 2. Gerry has set another plot to aid visualisation.
    Remarkable!. If regular (without interference) the angles between axis would be 90°, the well known “phase angle” in the equation for power= Sin + Cos three dimensional curves as seen from its axis of movement.

    Yes, Adolpho! For this particular case, I chose the three main loops associated with the Dalton. You are correct in your observation that the 3D power function phase angles are irregular (not 90 degrees) here. The source of the “interference” is logically the unusually large perturbations from conjunctions of the giant outer planets associated with a grand minimum.

  35. Gerry says:

    A question of great current importance to resolve is which grand minimum the current one will ultimately most resemble – Wolf, Sporer, Maunder, or Dalton? The triplet barycentric solar loop periodicities that they all exhibit seem to display a greater similarity between the current and the Maunder. Also, the long term periodicity between the start years of the first of each grand minimum triplet periods is exactly 179 years – except for the Dalton, which was 39 years early. The current minimum, however, is 358 years (2×179 years) past the Maunder.

    An angular momentum comparison I have made with the Maunder Minimum shows a near-perfect synchronization using the 179 year periodicity, and the angular momentum signatures themselves are strikingly similar.

  36. tallbloke says:

    Post updated with Gerry’s graph accompanying the comment above.

  37. Gerry says:

    Tallbloke,

    Thanks! I know you must be busy preparing for the Lisbon Conference, so I do really appreciate all the updates you have posted.

  38. tallbloke says:

    Gerry, no worries. As well as Lisbon I’m readying my land for the growing season and rebuilding a sports car. Always plenty to do at Tallbloke Towers. 🙂

    I agree about the similarity with Maunder too, longer reply tomorrow.

  39. Tim Channon says:

    The data plotted would be useful for input to the software I developed in recent years. No idea what the result would be, if any.

  40. Geoff Sharp says:

    A great question raised by Gerry,

    Gerry is predicting a repeat of the Maunder, I am predicting a repeat of the Dalton but slightly shorter. The reasons for my predictions as follows.

    Gerry is comparing the middle AMP event of the Maunder and SC24 which is also in the central position (but is there another angular momentum perturbation (AMP) event after SC24?). The strength of each central AMP event is similar but they are not the same, the planets are in different positions. The Maunder event has the N/U angle at 5 deg apart with J/S at 25 deg apart. SC24 has an N/U angle of 40 deg and a J/S angle of 25 deg. The J/S angles are the same which gives a similar “camels hump” shape on the solar AM chart but the N/U angles are quite different which will have ramifications. With the N/U in a different position the following AMP event is significantly changed.

    I have added a circle on Gerry’s graph highlighting the differences in the following AMP events. The Maunder had a double hit of AM disturbance (1650 & 1685) which explains the length of the Maunder. Because of the different N/U angle there does not appear to be a following AMP event after SC24. Because of this I am predicting a recovery at SC26.


    Gerry - Geoff
    There is also another way of viewing solar AM. If we subtract the Jupiter/Sun distance from the Jupiter/SSB distance we get the amount of solar movement away from Jupiter caused by the remaining planets. When graphed these values are very close to Carl’s solar AM graph BUT there is extra detail during some time frames that shows some extra AMP events not shown on Carl’s graph.


    Geoff - SSB-J Sun-J diff plot
    I have numbered the AMP events from 1600. Number 4 & 8 not really showing on Carl’s graph with number 7 showing more disturbance which does correlate with a weak cycle at 1880. These weaker disturbances are probably not capable of generating a solar minimum but perhaps strong enough to weaken a solar cycle. AMP event 11 is where we would need a strong perturbation if we are going to have a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, as we can see there is barely a perturbation. I think we will need two strong AMP events in succession to experience a grand minimum like the Maunder.

  41. Gerry says:

    Thanks Geoff,

    As we have discussed by email, I agree that the absence of an AMP event in 2045 will have ramifications, and quite possibly may put an early end to the current minimum. However, the Dalton Minimum was also at least ten years shorter than the Maunder Minimum and was not as deep for two whole solar cycles, making it difficult to predict now exactly how the current minimum will compare with either of the recent historic minima by 2045.

    Theodor Landscheidt’s solar ephemeris data was not as good as the latest JPL ephemeris but I seem to remember that it was good enough to show the major disturbances, yet he predicted a very deep solar minimum after 2030. He largely based his prediction on a perturbative torque analysis that did take into account the Neptune and Uranus positions. Unfortunately, he never published many of the details of his calculations.

    The current minimum is still deeper and flatter than most people realize, as is evidenced by Svalgaard’s 10 cm solar flux comparison with the extended solar minimum of 1954:

    Leif-F10.7 flux
    Sunspot numbers are also quite low, and runs of consecutive spotless days are still occasionally observed, much to the surprise of NOAA’s solar scientists.

  42. Geoff Sharp says:

    Gerry,

    I agree with your analysis on the depth of this grand minimum, the AMP event now is much stronger than experienced in the Dalton at 1805. The Dalton began with a relativity weak AMP event, it was the first in a series of 3 AMP events. The 2nd AMP event of the series although a strong perturbation had limited affect because of the timing of SC7 solar max, this problem will not occur during SC24.

    The SC5/SC24 comparison graph is currently suggesting SC24 will be lower than SC5 as hopefully my prediction will show.

    My predictions show that SC24 will be similar to SC5. The same Solar system forces are in play at similar timings and strength (SC24 perhaps showing a stronger disruption strength, which indicates that SC24 should be a smaller cycle than SC5).

  43. Geoff Sharp says:

    Landscheidt does use a very different method to predict grand minima. I dont think his torque graph can be relied on to predict grand minima as it does not deal with the AMP events. This is evident with his failed 1990 forecast for a grand minimum.


    Landscheidt prediction
    I think his method is based on the zero crossings of the rate of change in the solar torque curve which will be found to be incorrect, although in the ballpark. Landscheidt was a pioneer but missed the vital component in my opinion.

  44. Geoff Sharp says:

    Rog, could you fix a typo in my earlier comment at 1:46am

    The SC24 N/U angle should read 40 deg.

    [done]

  45. Gerry says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    January 17, 2011 at 4:31 am
    Landscheidt does use a very different method to predict grand minima. I dont think his torque graph can be relied on to predict grand minima as it does not deal with the AMP events. This is evident with his failed 1990 forecast for a grand minimum.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I should reread what Theodor wrote about 1990. Note, however, that the current minimum did start about seven years before the end of the 1990-2014 solar loop period. At JPL, Fairbridge and Shirley also predicted that a grand solar minimum would start during the 1990-2014 loop, and included a good explanation of the role of retrograde loops. Their 1987 paper is well worth reading:
    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987SoPh..110..191F/0000202.000.html

  46. Geoff Sharp says:

    Thanks Gerry, I have not read that paper. But it does show why planetary theory up to now has not been taken seriously. Fairbridge and Shirley completely miss the power of Uranus & Neptune as they are more concerned with historic patterns and returns of the incorrect Jose period of 179 years. I cant quite work out why they predicted a very low SC22 as the barycentric phase shows no divergence from the regular pattern that promotes larger solar cycles.

    Angular Momentum disturbance created by Uranus & Neptune is a new planetary theory that explains the missing links observed in the pioneering planetary theory papers. SC24/25 will prove the new theory that has been largely ignored by most. It has occurred to me today that even Rog has not covered this topic in detail.

  47. G. Glenn says:

    Here are some observations I made two years ago when comparing barycentric orbital radii, sunspot counts and global temperature charts (provided by Gerry):

    1. The Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum and Current Minimum temperature declines started after several periods of very high sunspot activity.

    2. The Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum and Current Minimum temperature declines started approximately a half sunspot cycle after the last high sunspot activity.

    3. All Minimums were preceded by anomalous stretched Rbary cycles.

    4. The Maunder Minimum started after the second anomalous Rbary cycle and continued through a third.

    5. The Dalton Minimum started after the first Rbary cycle and continued through a second.

    6. The Current Minimum, like the Maunder Minimum, started during the second anomalous Rbary.

    7. The Maunder Minimum had a long delay of approximately 33 years (3 cycles) between the peaks of sunspot periods. The cold temperature lasted about 2 times that period (shy of 70 years).

    8. The Dalton Minimum had a shorter delay of only about 11 years between sunspot peaks (1 cycle) and the cold temperature period lasted just 35 years, or half that of the Maunder.

    9. The Current Minimum, like the Maunder Minimum, started approximately 3 cycles after the first high peak in sunspot activity and approximately a half cycle after the last peak in high sunspot activity.

    10. The Current Minimum thus appears to be more like the Maunder Minimum than the Dalton Minimum.

  48. tallbloke says:

    Geoff says:
    It has occurred to me today that even Rog has not covered this topic in detail.

    Only because you have! And in more depth than I’ve had time for. Plus I didn’t want you to feel I was treading on your toes. I’m really pleased you and Gerry have taken the time to flesh out the ideas over here on my blog. And it’s getting the word out too, well over a thousand visits to planetary theory pages in what has been a record week for the talkshop.

    I’m expecting we’ll find that the AM effect largely controls solar cycle amplitudes, while the EM and Tidal effects affect solar cycle timing. Up until now, all mechanisms have been dismissed as too small to have a significant effect. I think we’ll discover those several small effects add up to a big effect when acting in concert, creating solar grand maxima and causing grand minima when the phasing goes awry.

    And this is good, because it means we are all working on relevant and important aspects of the problem, and can all contribute to the solution.

  49. tallbloke says:

    Tim Channon says:
    January 17, 2011 at 1:35 am
    The data plotted would be useful for input to the software I developed in recent years. No idea what the result would be, if any.

    Let us know which plot you’d like data for Tim, over what timescale, and we’ll try to help.

  50. Geoff Sharp says:

    Geoff says:
    It has occurred to me today that even Rog has not covered this topic in detail.
    —————————–
    tallbloke says
    Only because you have! And in more depth than I’ve had time for.

    I can provide detail like anyone researching a line of inquiry, when a theory is discussed by others is when it starts to gain traction. I am in no hurry, the data will eventually rise to the top. But perhaps this is not the place where that will occur.

  51. tallbloke says:

    Not sure how to take that. 🙂

    I’m just doing my own research and trying to find easily digestible ways to explain the theory to the casually interested, and encourage and assist those who want to get into studying the field themselves.

    Do you mean the Journals are where the data will rise to the top?

  52. Geoff Sharp says:

    Do you mean the Journals are where the data will rise to the top?

    smartarse. I can sense your non PhD bias.

  53. tallbloke says:

    OK, you’ve lost me now. You and I don’t have PHD’s, so what? It won’t prevent us publishing once the case is solid. If we can find the money. If I’m right then there should be at least six names at the top of the paper, including ours. So we can all divvy in for the costs.

  54. tallbloke says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    January 17, 2011 at 1:46 am

    I have added a circle on Gerry’s graph highlighting the differences in the following AMP events. The Maunder had a double hit of AM disturbance (1650 & 1685) which explains the length of the Maunder. Because of the different N/U angle there does not appear to be a following AMP event after SC24

    Looking at the plot is instructive. Although we don’t get the second ‘hump’ after sc24, we did get one back in the sixties, followed by the low solar cycle in the seventies. Maybe this minimum is split into two halves, divided by three high cycles. If that is so, then Geoff may well be right about a recovery after SC25. I can see Gerry’s line of thought too, it’ll be a while before we know though… 🙂

  55. Geoff Sharp says:

    Data is data, I am not sure why you would invoke the “Journals”?

    There are many theories on this blog promoted by yourself that fall into the planetary theory. My theory has not been a subject of discussion so far, so I am also unsure or lost?

  56. Geoff Sharp says:

    Looking at the plot is instructive. Although we don’t get the second ‘hump’ after sc24, we did get one back in the sixties, followed by the low solar cycle in the seventies. Maybe this minimum is split into two halves, divided by three high cycles. If that is so, then Geoff may well be right about a recovery after SC25. I can see Gerry’s line of thought too, it’ll be a while before we know though… 🙂

    SC20 is the first hump, it was super weak because of solar system evolution. SC24 is strong as displayed in the middle AMP event of the Maunder and the Dalton (1830 had the timing wrong) there are no halves, it is just a matter of understanding the evolution of the gas giants.

  57. Geoff Sharp says:

    If I’m right then there should be at least six names at the top of the paper, including ours.

    I am not sure I follow….

  58. tallbloke says:

    Data doesn’t get peoples attention unless it is presented as part of a hypothesis. Hypotheses are written and read by by people. Hypotheses which get taken seriously by the mainstream have been published in Learned Journals.

    Whether we take the mainstream seriously on our subject any more is another matter. 😉

    Please do a guest post here outlining your theory. Although I wouldn’t ever try to speak for you I’ve referred to you and http://landscheidt.info many times on here, and it would be great to have a summary from you, with links to specific articles on your site.

  59. Geoff Sharp says:

    Not good enough Rog…this will be my last post on your blog.

  60. tallbloke says:

    Geoff,
    Some serious grappling with wrong end of stick methinks. No offence intended, and no need to take the hump. Get some kip and chill out.

  61. tallbloke says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    January 17, 2011 at 7:55 am
    Angular Momentum disturbance created by Uranus & Neptune is a new planetary theory that explains the missing links observed in the pioneering planetary theory papers.

    “The ‘bottoms’ of prolonged minima probably reoccur with a 171 year spacing reflecting the synodic period of Uranus and Neptune…The results show that the solar variability could be caused by inertial motion of the Sun.”
    -Ivanka Charvatova- 1992 [my bold]

    For those interested, moment of inertia and angular momentum (AM) are two sides of the same coin. Although Miles Mathis has a thing or two to say about it as usual. 🙂

    Where Geoff has extended this idea (and I hope he’ll rejoin us to explain further), is in looking at the phase of the solar cycle when the Uranus – Neptune conjunction occurs, which helps determine whether the conjunction will have a larger or smaller effect on solar activity in the following cycles. Be sure to visit his site for more info on that and the other observations he has made.

  62. Gerry says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    January 17, 2011 at 7:55 am
    Thanks Gerry, I have not read that paper. But it does show why planetary theory up to now has not been taken seriously. Fairbridge and Shirley completely miss the power of Uranus & Neptune as they are more concerned with historic patterns and returns of the incorrect Jose period of 179 years. I cant quite work out why they predicted a very low SC22 as the barycentric phase shows no divergence from the regular pattern that promotes larger solar cycles.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    As you know, there are cycles of many periods. While the Jose 179 year cycle is clearly one of them, you have uncovered evidence of an apparently hitherto-unnoticed one that is slightly shorter period. We are all eager to learn more about it on
    http://www.landscheidt.info/,
    in your paper at
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1005/1005.5303,
    and on this blog.

    One thing I’ve learned during the course of my part-time research in this area is that, while there may be nothing new under the sun, uncovering old knowledge and piecing it all together can be a time-consuming process in this busy world!

  63. Roy Martin says:

    Back in 2008, I was perusing a plot of the barycentric radius from 1200 to 2100, as a starting point for other things. In part I was asking myself the same question as Gerry: essentially, could we see anything that identified when grand minima would occur? At the time I decided that there was nothing conclusive but one detail piqued my curiosity, which may or may not be of significance.

    If we put a target point on the line at ~1648, the interesting thing is that the whole pattern is very close indeed to displaying rotational symmetry about that point, for the full 450 years before and after, i.e., rotate 180deg.. 1648 is in the middle of what looks like a short phase change period, similar to that at 1290,1468,1827 & 2006.5, temporally separated by the Jose period. None of those other points display the same degree of symmetry.

    In view of the current low sunspot activity, that small phase change period may in fact be of some significance irrespective of the lack of close rotational symmetry in the pattern.

  64. tallbloke says:

    Roy, welcome back.
    That’s very interesting. I wonder if you’ve found the mid point of the ~900 year cycle identified by Semi in his paper we discussed a year ago on this blog.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/meet-the-new-kepler-p-a-semi/

    Click to access Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf


    See figure 81

  65. tallbloke says:

    Back in 2008 I was doing battle with Leif on climateaudit:
    (different screen name, same avatar)

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/01/svalgaard-6/#comment-146141
    Stroller
    Posted May 22, 2008 at 1:57 AM | Permalink
    472(Leif)The page I linked doesn’t contain any barycentric nonsense…

    I would however be interested to know your a priori reasons for rejecting the

    possibility that the more massive elements of the solar system might in

    concert, move the sun around enough to cause changes in earths orbit and

    affect the sun’s angular momentum sufficiently to cause ripples in the motion

    of the plasma and the ‘solar conveyor belts’ where most sunspot activity seems

    to occur.

    If I understand relativity well enough (!), gravity is a notional construct

    which belongs to a Newtonian universe. Nobody looks for gravity particles

    anymore. If we consider the solar system as being within the rather squishy

    Einsteinian ‘mollusc of reference’ we are unable to determine it’s internal

    ‘many body problem’.

    It seems to me that the complexity of the ‘many overlapping cycles and

    oscillations’ of the climatic system isn’t going to be resolved solely by

    looking at the ripples in the oceans which are confused by reflected waves,

    crosswinds and topography. These ripples are pale reflections of externally

    applied forces, the shadows on the platonic cave wall.

  66. Roy Martin says:

    Correction: 1418 should be 1468

    [Fixed]

  67. @Roy Martin says:
    January 18, 2011 at 7:43 am
    It would be very interesting to see your graph displaying that “rotational symmetry”.

  68. tallbloke says:

    Adolfo:
    Roy has provided the graph for me and I will be putting up a fresh post to discuss it, along with Semi’s plot.

  69. Tim Channon says:

    1. which data?
    Barycentric distance plot data and I always want best resolution. Alternatively how to compute it.

    The plot update 2 is spooky field strength polar plot. Q: what radiative element configuration would produce that.
    I wonder what a radio veteran would make of it. It might give a clue on phasing but how that could be translated between domains, no idea and sounds tough, run away stuff.

  70. @Tim Channon says:
    January 18, 2011 at 5:25 pm
    run away stuff ????
    What if it is the same domain?

  71. Gerry says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 18, 2011 at 9:01 am
    “If we consider the solar system as being within the rather squishy Einsteinian ‘mollusc of reference’ we are unable to determine it’s internal
    ‘many body problem’.”

    Well put, Tallbloke! There is no analytic solution to the many-body problem, and only very restricted solutions to the three-body problem. The extraordinarily high accuracy of the JPL ephemerides is achieved by means of brute force numerical integration of the equations of motion, combined with precise planetary ephemerides obtained from a long history to date of spacecraft planetary flyby and orbiter radio tracking (both range and doppler range rate). The ephemerides also employ precision optical astrometric measurements through the last couple of centuries, and maintain high accuracy back 1500 years, forward 1000 years.

    The JPL HORIZONS planetary and barycentric solar ephemerides are available online for anyone to use at:
    http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

  72. Gerry says:

    Gerry says:
    January 17, 2011 at 5:25 pm
    “…in your paper at
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1005/1005.5303“…

    For those who would like to read Geoff Sharp’s paper,
    the correct link is

    Click to access 1005.5303.pdf

  73. Brian H says:

    I’m sure all the many-body problems will be neatly resolved as soon as we get the Quantum Computers on our desktops.

    😀 😉

  74. Brian H says:

    About the Quantum Computers: I intend to purchase the IBM model (that’s Intergalactic Busyness Machinations, of course).

  75. Bill Henthorn says:

    I believe in the end the gas giants are important physical contributers (gravity and angular momentum) to the activity on the sun and perturbations. I also believe that only when we understand the additional effects of the electrical side of the science, will we properly decide and define the model of how the sun behaves. Magnetic currents, fields and energy transfer are going on in and on the sun and the planets (all of them) could provide a boosting effect or damping effect via magnetic fields or electrical energy transfer based on their locations. What I see happening on the sun is electrical and magnetic and changes of these require changes of the same kind via energy transfer or lack thereof. If you increase the current, you increase the magnetic fields or the reverse. Think of the sun as like a great big motor….just moving it around on it’s spin axis alone wouldn’t change how it works, but change energy in and you would see a physical change in rotation etc. Bill