Millennial cycle in solar system dynamics

Posted: January 18, 2011 by tallbloke in Solar physics, solar system dynamics

On the recent barycentric orbital periods thread, Roy Martin commented about the apparent rotational symmetry of the solar inertial motion (barycentric radius) about the date 1648.

Roy said:

“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.”

I replied saying he may have found the midpoint date identified by Semi in his paper ‘Orbital resonance and Solar Cycles’.

Here are the two plots:

Roy Martin: Plot of Barycentric radius showing rotational symmetry

Roy Martin: Plot of Barycentric radius showing rotational symmetry

Semi: Scalar vector sum of nine planets vs Moberg climate reconstruction

Semi: Scalar vector sum of nine planets vs Moberg climate reconstruction

We could be looking at a possible link between the motion of the planets, the medieval warm period, little ice age, and modern maximum here. Semi’s plot does show a maximum around 1640-1650. I’m not at home where I can check against other data, but the rotational symmetry noticed by Roy is intriguing. Which planetary cycles does it match? Ulric or Gray should be able to help us here.

  1. Ulric Lyons says:

    That cycle looks about 850yrs long. That is too short, around 1150yrs tracks the history better;
    Every 4th one should be stronger, so there should be a LIA type cluster centered around 3000BC (4627yr cycle).

  2. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Ulric. Damn, we’ll just have to slow a few of those gas giants down. Got a hammer? 🙂

    My memory cell is dodgy, but didn’t someone come up with ~924 years on the Semi thread?

  3. Miklos Zagoni says:

    Hi tallbloke,

    Drop me a mail if you please.

  4. “looks like a short phase change period….”
    About what physical phenomena are we talking about here?.

  5. Tenuc says:

    Good result TB – looks possible another major climate cycle has been spotted.

    The correlation with NH temp doesn’t look good for the Roman warm period and I suspect that the temperature reconstruction is at fault.

    I suspect that temperatures peaked higher than today around 100AD and started to decline rapidly and bottomed out around 500AD. There is some anecdotal evidence for this from Fishbourne Palace which was built in 50AD without the normal Roman underfloor heating being installed. However there is evidence that part of the palace was being modified to put the heating system in sometime during the early third century, with the palace being destroyed in 270AD and the main Roman force leaving England not long after. It is suspected it was the repeated failure of the wheat crop (important for our Roman occupiers) due to colder shorter summers that made England no longer a worthwhile outpost of the Empire.

    Perhaps not wise to use a temperature reconstruction from the ‘scary warmist’ magazine – Nature!

  6. tallbloke says:

    Miklos sent me a better portrait of Ferenc Miskolczi for the Hall of Fame. He says it made Ferenc happy too. 🙂

    Adolfo: It’s Roy’s graph, he can explain.

    Tenuc: It’s Semi’s graph, tell him to use a better reconstruction.

    I have a conference to prepare for. 🙂 🙂

  7. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Nicely done on finding the mid point of shift. To see the whole effect you need a double procession of orbits, 2 times 780 years, or a precession of 1560 years. 780 years each side of that mid point. Then we can talk about climate rather then weather. pg

  8. Tenuc says:

    Here’s another 2000y reconstruction sans tree ring proxies:-

    Original Craig Loehle paper and update available here:-

    Click to access Loehle-2000-year-non-treering-temp-reconstruction-Energy-and-Environment.pdf

    Click to access SupplementaryInfo.pdf

    This again seems to understate the Roman warm period with vineyards being found in York – perhaps older proxies are not too reliable…?

  9. Tenuc says:

    Another interesting link which purports to show Roman Warm Period was hotter than today…

    Shame that there is so much uncertainty regarding quantifying temperature using proxies. Makes life difficult when trying to get correlations between sun and climate.

  10. Ulric Lyons says:

    @tallbloke says:
    January 18, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    854yrs probably, 43 J/S synodic periods. I use 953yrs for some events. based on V/E/J/S/U, three times the King-Hele cycle, every third one harmonises with the V/E synodic, eg 1010AD to 1963.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ulric. Buried somewhere in one of the long threads is a discussion on this. I seem to remember Semi originally thought the period was around that length, but then someone else came up with a figure around 925 years and Semi agreed. I haven’t time to search, so I’ll have to leave it open for now.

  12. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Ulric, I knew it was that thread or the long one on solar planetary theory. This post from Semi is probably the most relevant.

    And this is the one where he recalculates it to be 934 years:

  13. vukcevic says:

    Fig 5 in
    may help identify some of the longer term periodic relationships.

  14. Roy Martin says:

    January 18, 2011 at 3:37 pm:

    Answering points in reverse order.

    Q. About what physical phenomena are we talking about here?
    A. The similar features at 1290, 1468, 1648, 1827 & 2006.5 all occur when the barycentre is at about one solar radius, forming like a mini sine wave with a single period of about seven to eight years each time. Referring to the image of the orbit in the previous post, the loop shown in purple from 2003 to 2011 is typical for all. I recall that Landscheidt somewhere referred to these particular periods of angular momentum perturbation (AMP) as periods of potential instability.

    “looks like a short phase change period….”
    Much of the time the radius fluctuates with a period of about eighteen to twenty years. In these AMP periods the peak to peak period is extended by half the short wave, to about 23 or 24 years, hence my engineer’s interpretation as a phase change.
    Geoff Sharp also highlighted these and adjacent longer periods in his post: January 17, 2011 at 1:46 am on the barycentric orbital period thread.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Vuk,
    This graph on that page look sparticularly relevant to Roy’s ‘rotational symmetry’ observation (Though the central point on Vuk’s graph looks close to 1675 rather than 1648). Could you talk us through the relationship between the equation and planetary motion please Vuk.
    Vuk Mag ang

  16. tallbloke says:
    January 19, 2011 at 11:15 am
    I knew that graph as: MAGNETIC ANOMALIES”

  17. vukcevic says:

    Hi Rog
    Formula has rounded numbers, while up to 3 decimal places are also noted on the graph.
    First number is simple 4 Saturn orbits: 4 x 29.657 = 118.628
    Second number is a bit more complicated – Jupiter / Saturn resonance: (8 Jupiter orbits +5 J/S conjunctions)/2 : (8 x 11.862 + 5 x 19.8588) /2 = 97.0955
    Note: On the graph I linked earlier was the old number before Dr. Svalgaard corrected the J/S synodic period, but it made very little difference (amounts to 12 h over period of 97 years)
    Now graph is updated (Fig.5).

    Good luck in Lisbon

  18. Does our transient sight capabilities make us see big charges as big “pebbles”?

  19. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Vuk, great insight. The 5/8 resonance between Earth and Venus also times well with solar cycles. Along with Gray’s work on some of the subtler periodic resonances I think we are homing in on the orbital interactions that matter.

    Adolfo, According to Einstein, mass and energy are interconvertible. I agree every time I make a fire to keep warm. Energy becomes mass when photons and high speed baryons add to atomic weight.

  20. tallbloke says:
    January 19, 2011 at 1:11 pm
    I agree every time I make a fire to keep warm….but if multiplied by C2 your house would set on fire 🙂

  21. vukcevic says:

    Adolfo Giurfa says:
    January 19, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    I knew that graph as: MAGNETIC ANOMALIES”
    Correct. Sunspots are definitely electro-magnetic. I think gravity and angular momentum are past history, future is electro-magnetic, but you and others are free and welcome to disagree.

  22. [snip]

    This belongs in the electric universe open thread.

  23. “E pur si muove”
    Galileo Galilei

    “Stay cool”

    Arthur Fonzarelli

  24. Ulric Lyons says:

    @tallbloke says:
    January 19, 2011 at 8:13 am
    “And this is the one where he recalculates it to be 934 years:”

    You cannot see the calc`s but at 934yrs you get a harmony of the J/S synod with N but not U, so that is not much use either. The frequency on Vuk`s graph looks better.

  25. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ulric,
    The frequency on Vuk’s graph looks to be around 1070 years to me.

  26. Ivanka Charvatova says:
    The results indicate that `solar dynamo’ that was long sought in the solar interior, operates more likely from the outside, by means of the varying planetary configurations. As has been shown in Charvatova (1995a, b, c, 1997a), the solar motion could aid predictions also for terrestrial phenomena including climate

    Click to access charvatova.pdf

    [Reply] Good timing, I’ve been looking for my copy of that paper. Thanks.

  27. Roy Martin says:

    vukcevic says:
    January 19, 2011 at 1:32 pm
    …..Correct. Sunspots are definitely electro-magnetic. I think gravity and angular momentum are past history, future is electro-magnetic, but you and others are free and welcome to disagree.

    Oddly enough, considering that TB started this discussion because of an observation I made about a phenomenon in the field of angular momentum, I also think that angular momentum is past history. But please leave gravity in there with the rest. Even though we may not yet be able to describe it in a satisfactorily fundamental way, it is still what holds the whole system together, and objects of all sizes are subject to it’s influence.

  28. tallbloke says:

    Well, I don’t think we should write off any of the forces as ‘past history’ myself. Although most people have come to the conclusion that angular momentum satisfactorily sums to zero in the solar system and there is no ‘spin orbit coupling’ I don’t believe that is established beyond doubt.

    As Gerry said yesterday, the JPL ephemeris uses a brute force approach which doesn’t ultimately reduce to an entirely neat set of equations describing the whole system with perfect internal consistency. The question is how much energy could ‘hide’ in the discrepancies, and where it might manifest. Changes in Earth’s length of day are initiated by something, so is the variation in the timing and magnitudes of the solar cycles.

    Also, Wolff and Patrone have proposed a mechanism whereby some of the angular momentum in the system could be releasing the nuclear energy of the Sun in a way that fits with the motions of the planets and the solar cycles. Strictly speaking this isn’t a spin orbit coupling, but it means that the study of planetary motions in relation to solar rotation is still relevant.

    I also agree with Vukcevic that there is an electro-magnetic effect working between the planets and the sun, especially involving Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, and probably the other Jovians as well. Possibly the non-magnetosphere inner planets too, in a passive mode.

    I also agree with Semi that there is a tidal effect too, and the paper he has recently co-authored with Georgieva has a convincing correlation which needs to be taken into account.

    I also agree with Ray Tomes that there s likely an planetary gravitational effect on the relativistic matter moving outwards from the centre of the sun, which is mostly effective in the z-axis of motion, perpendicular to the plane of invariance. This could be introducing a pumping action which might affect the meridional flows which might amplify/diminish the effects of the Wolff-Patrone and tidal mechanisms.

    All these forces are in play, and may well interact in ways which produce the solar cycle timings and amplitudes we see, or at least modulate an internal cycle dynamic the sun operates itself.

    I’ll write up a series of posts in draft form covering each of the potential mechanisms, with links to relevant previous threads and external resources and publish them all at once so we can stay on topic in each of them, and still have a place for everyone to contribute. Feel free to suggest any potential mechanisms I’ve missed on the mechanisms open thread and I’ll add those to the series too. It won’t be ready until after Lisbon though. 🙂

  29. vukcevic says:

    Over on WUWT blog
    Geoff :
    …. There is no evidence of the solar wind returning to the Sun.
    ….deal with real data instead of searching for mystical fantasies.

    I assume he refered to the electro-magnetic feedback I have been pushing forward relentlessly for some years now.
    Here are some additional facts (in a way of a reply):
    Reality is :
    Magnetic flux rope is made of charged particles (field aligned electric currents) circulating within ‘magnetic cloud’. Major characteristics is that it has an enhanced magnetic field, magnitude of which is much higher than the magnetic field of the solar wind in the surrounding areas.
    Total power carried by flux rope could exceed 10^33 Joules, making it the most powerful regularly occurring solar event. This power is contained within close circuit starting and ending at solar surface; this close electro-magnetic circuit can extend way beyond the most distant planets.
    One would assume that US Naval Research Lab knows what they are talking about:
    Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun and that the field lines toward the outer edge of a flux rope are more twisted [Larson et al., 1997]. This property is implied by the model structure and the magnetic field described below.
    there are many other sources of information on the subject.
    In this illustration from NASA you can see more clearly the SOLAR ELECTRO-MAGNETIC CLOSE CIRCUIT.
    When a coronal mass ejection travels into interplanetary space, it can create a huge magnetic cloud containing bidirectional, or counter-streaming, beams of electrons that flow in opposite directions within the magnetic loops that are rooted at both ends in the Sun. The magnetic cloud also drives an upstream shock ahead of it.

  30. vukcevic says:

    Top expert (and most often quoted author) R.P. LEPPING, from Laboratory for Solar and Space Physics NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center, in his paper
    ‘A summary of WIND magnetic clouds for years 1995-2003 : model-fitted parameters, associated errors and classifications’
    states: MCs (magnetic clouds) are just under one day long, are 1/4AU in diameter, have a broad distribution of axial directions with a slight preference for alignment with the Y-axis(GSE), have axial fluxes of 10^21Mx, have axial current densities of about 2μA/km2, and carry a total axial current (IT ) of about a billion amps.

    ….. magnetic field model assumes that the field within the magnetic cloud is force free, i.e., so that the electrical current and the magnetic field are parallel and proportional in strength everywhere within its volume.

    Since magnetic clouds are magnetic loops that are rooted at both ends in the Sun, the above if correct, opens possibility for direct electric current link between the Sun and planets’ magnetospheres at reconnection times (e.g. during geomagnetic storms), and the Sun-major magnetospheres direct electro-magnetic feedback.

  31. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Vuk, those sound like interesting vital stats. What voltage is carried in these clouds? That would help me get an idea of the EMF involved. A billion amps is a big number but what does it mean in comparison to the forces creating and maintaining sunspots or producing flares? Are we thinking in terms of a ‘solenoid trigger’ rather than a main power loop? Could this fit with my idea about the planets acting as passive ‘refocusing attractors’ for solar emanations?

  32. vukcevic says:

    If you look at NASA quotes for the Arctic current (magnetic storms) 650,000A and 30kV or more meaningful 5*10^14 Joules.
    If current is known V=A*R, but this is plasma, L.S. tells us that plasma is infinitive conductivity, so I would go by power, NASA quotes for flares, CMSs 10^24-10^30 Joules.
    Feedback: It may be as simple as this: if magnetic cloud hits large magnetosphere energy is taken out of it ( one billion Amps, 10^24 -10^30 Joules, the Earth’s take is usually 650,000A or 10^14 Joules )
    and shuts down magnetic connection sooner than if it didn’t hit anything, since:
    Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun [Larson et al., 1997].
    ….that the electrical current and the magnetic field are parallel and proportional in strength everywhere within its volume.

    Click to access angeo-24-215-2006.pdf

    Nasa shows loop engulfs major magnetospheres, and goes all the way to heliopause:

    heavier particles move forward
    (orange shading) but ‘the electrical current and the magnetic field are parallel and proportional in strength everywhere within its volume’ ‘of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun’ as quoted above.

  33. Tenuc says:

    Here’s another interesting reconstruction of temperatures for the last 3000y produced by Clegget et al 2010, and this shows a better fit to Semi’s graph than the data-set he originaly used…

  34. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Remember , when you talk about electric currents in space, you need charge carriers, Ions or atoms. Electrons are quanta of charge, not things, they can not travel in free space. Magnetic fields are energy fields that can travel in “empty” space and energize matter that they come in contact with. This transfer of EMF energy can electrify material traveling with the field or matter that the fields travel through or come in contact with. This is why the magnetic eruptions have little effect on our electric grid but mass ejections that hit the earth can blow the grid down with over current surges. pg

  35. P.G. Sharrow says:

    To give you an relative idea of energies, There is a HVDC, high voltage dc, intertie that connects the pacific northwest grid with the pacific southwest grid in the US. This line consists of two – pair of conductors, 2 inch ( 150cm) aluminum cables, that carry 3,400 megawatts,about 500,000 amps at 700,000 volts dc, to contribute to the energy needs of the Los Angles area. pg