Please read these posts if you are not familiar with the V-E-J Tidal Torquing model:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/planetary-spin-orbit-coupling-model-for.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/short-comings-of-planetary-spin-orbit.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/why-does-solar-cycle-keep-re.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/v-e-j-tidal-torquing-model-maunder.html
Figures 1a and 1b show cumulative acceleration that would
occur tangentially to the surface of the Sun, if the gravitational
force of Jupiter were to tug upon the combined tidal bulge
that is induced in the convective layer of the Sun by the
periodic alignments of Venus and the Earth (every 1.599
years). In essence, whenever the cumulative acceleration
is increasing (i.e its slope is positive), the tugging gravitational
force of Jupiter increase the rotation rate of a layer of plasma
in the Sun’s convective layer [assumed to be a dynamically
decoupled layer ~ 0.02 % of the mass of the Sun]. Similarly,
whenever the cumulative acceleration is decreasing (i.e its
slope is negative), the tugging gravitational force of Jupiter
decrease the rotation rate of a layer of plasma in the Sun’s
convective layer.
N.B. It is reasonable to assume that the dynamically
decoupled layer in the Sun’s convection region is likely
to be at the base of the convective zone near the
Tachocline, since this is where most solar scientists
believe that the solar dynamo is formed.
Figure 1a shows this cumulative acceleration between the
years 1880 and 1960, while figure 1b shows the corresponding
plot between the years 1950 and 2030.
Superimposed on each of these figures are the times of solar
maximum for solar sunspot cycles 13 through 23.
Figure 1a
Figure 1b
What these two figures show is that:
Whenever the Sun’s sunspot cycles were weak, as in
the later parts of the 19 th century and the first 40 years
of the 20 th century (i.e. cycles 13 through 17), the
rotation velocity of the layer in the convective region of
the Sun changed direction PRIOR TO the date of solar
sunspot maximum.
Whenever the Sun’s sunspot cycles were strong, as in
the last 60 years of the 20 th century (i.e. cycles 18
through 23), the rotation velocity of the layer in the
convective region of the Sun changed direction AFTER
the date of solar sunspot maximum.
What this suggests is that there could be a correlation
between the relative timing of the change in rotation
velocity of the layer in the convective region that is being
spun up and spun down by Jupiter’s gravitational force.
Figure 2a shows the peak Solar sunspot number for cycles
-4 through 23 [covering the period from 1698 to 2009]
plotted against the number of years that the Jupiter
induced change in direction of the layer in the convective
zone occurs BEHIND the year of solar maximum [i.e.
Solar maximum minus peak cumulative acceleration in
years].
The data in figure 2a clearly shows that there is indeed
a moderately good correlation between these two
variables (R = 0.678).
Figure 2a
One thing that immediately becomes apparent from figure 2a,
is that there are three solar sunspot cycles associated with
the Dalton Minimum (i.e cycles 4, 5 and 6 which are
labelled in the diagram) that are systematically shifted towards
lower left of the figure. This raises the possibility that during
periods of low solar activity like that in the Dalton Minimum,
the Sun may respond differently to the tidal-torquing of Jupiter
than at times of “normal” solar sunspot activity.
Figure 2b below, shows that if these three unusual solar cycles
are excluded from the data set, the quality of the correlation
greatly improves, with the new linear correlation co-efficient
being R = 0.784.
Figure 2b
This is comparable to the level of correlation that exists between
the peak sunspot number for a solar cycle and the time it takes
[in years] for that sunspot cycle to reach maximum.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between the peak solar sunspot
number and the time required for that sunspot cycle to reach its
maximum for solar cycles -4 through 23. As you can see, there
is a very good correlation between these two parameters with
the correlation coefficient being R = 0.810.
Figure 3
Hence, provided we exclude the unusual solar sunspot
cycles associated with grand solar minima, there appears
to be an excellent correlation between peak sunspot
number of a solar-cycle and the timing of the Jupiter induced
change in direction of the rotation rate [of a layer in the
convective zone of the Sun] compared to the timing of
solar maximum.
Peak SSN = -13.485 x (SOL MAX – PEAK of Cumulative Acceleration) + 116.05
Unfortunately, this relationship cannot be used to predict the
peak SN for the next two solar cycles, as there is a strong
possibility that both cycles 24 and 25 will be very similar to
cycles 5 and 6 in the Dalton Minimum. Evidence for this can
be seen in figure 4.
Figure 4 is a reproduction of figure 2a, with a box superimposed
on the figure showing were we expect solar cycle 24 to be
located if it reached a sunspot maximum some time between
2013 and 2014, with a peak sunspot number between 65
and 85. This places cycle 24 in similar part of the diagram as
solar cycles 5 and 6.
N.B. The relation between peak SN and the rise time of a solar
cycle [shown in figure 3] would point to a maximum for cycle 24
that is either at or after 2014, tending to favor a location for cycle
24 that is at the right hand side of the box in figure 4.
Figure 4
Finally, it is important to note that unlike other models that
link the level of solar sunspot activity to planetary motions,
the simple V-E-J Tidal-Torquing model [that has been
presented in this blog] implicitly produces many of the
observed properties of the Solar sunspot cycle without
any need for a “phase-catastrophe” to realign the planetary
motions with the solar dynamo.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Tallbloke,
Thank you again for following my development of the V-E-J Tidal-Torquing model
which are outlined in my blog post. Further support for the fact that the V-E-J Tidal-Torquing
model implicitly produces many of the observed properties of the Solar sunspot cycle can found
in my General Science Journal publication:
http://www.wbabin.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/3812
which was published around about the same time as Hung’s ground-breaking report.
Hung, C−C., 2007, NASA report/TM−2007−214817
The V-E-J Tidal Torquing model is based on the pioneering works of:
Desmoulins, J. P (1989, http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/sunspots/sun.html
and Ulric Lyons, among others, who established the remarkable synchronicity
between V-E-J syzygies and the level of solar activity on the Sun.
This has been further developed by:
Gerry Pease, P.A. Semi, Roy Martin and above all Roger Tallbloke.
The V-E-J Tidal torquing model is a hypothesis that uses the gravitational,
rather than tidal force of Jupiter, to systematically change the rotation rate
of a narrow shell of plasma most likely located near the base of the solar
convective zone (i.e. near the Tachocline) that is influenced by the combined
tidal forces of Venus and the Earth.
Ian, that’s far more than I deserve. I just fooled around with some ideas and encouraged everyone to play nice together. 🙂
That’s a fascinating plot, but worrying if SC24 turns up where it’s predicted.
Tallbloke,
You and others have opened up the possibility of an electromagnetic variant on this basic gravitational model. However, I still believe that the final mechanism involved is still a little far off.
You might have noticed over at WUWT that Miller et al. 2012 has found that:
“LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430-1455 AD.”
so we now have:
Wolf Minimum – LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD.
Sporer Minimum – [there was a] substantial intensification [cold weather between] 1430-1455 AD.
Maunder Minimum – well documented historical accounts of unusually cold weather
Dalton Minimum – again, well documented historical accounts of cold weather
This makes four increases in cosmic ray flux here at the Earth [the last two of which were accompanied by significant decreases in sunspot number] and four distinct cooling periods. Yet, Leif Svalgaard still claims that there is no link.
Adrian Kerton,
If you think solar cycle 24 is scary, solar cycle 25 will be located down near
where cycles 5 and 6 are located.
Hathaway today published his latest SC24 prediction at
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
He has revised his prediction method again:) His Tmax time is well within your Figure 4 box for SC24, but his predicted maximum smoothed International SSN for this cycle is now down to 60.
Ian, everyone including Svalgaard is agreed that the early solar system had a strong plasma solar wind which was coupled to the proto planetary disc. So as the planets formed and became more massive and acquired angular momentum from the solar plasma flow, the Sun lost angular momentum. The coupling is why the linkage came about between the orbital rates of planets such as Jupiter, Saturn and Earth, and the solar spin rate. It’s because originally, the proto-planetary disc was effectively an extension of the Solar surface. As the Sun’s surface rotation slowed, so activity dropped and instead of being pushed out by the solar wind, the planets fell towards the Sun, speeding up in their orbits, speeding up the Solar surface, and raising activity levels again. Like a James Watt planetary Governor.
Hypothesis: This repeated speed-up – slow-down is what sorted the planets into their present orbits, due to differential acceleration toward and away from the Sun, which is why they display the harmonic resonances they do, and although the decay curve now means the inward and outward motion of the planetary governor system is almost unmeasurable, the system is so finely balanced that only very slight forces are needed to maintain the balance as the cybernetic feedback loop between planets and Sun oscillates.
So at one epoch the solar cycles and solar wind are weak and the tidal motions pull the Sun round as the planets fall towards the Sun and speed up, and at other epochs the Sun is more active and leads ahead of the tidal action as its solar wind pushes the planets outward again and they slow down. So part of the time the planets are driving the Sun, and part of the time the Sun is driving the planets. the lag in the system means the solar maxima don’t coincide with tidal peaks, but are one side or the other. Maybe this is what your plots are showing, the alternating pull of planetary tides and push of Sun.
If something as subtle as a few milliseconds of change in the axial rotation rate of the Earth is linked to the activity of the Sun and the consequent pushing out and falling in of its orbit as shown by the correlation of LOD with solar barycentric motion, then this tells me the system is finely tuned and balanced, and not a lot of force is required to gently ease it one way and another.
So my guess is that a combination of tidal and angular momentum gravitational effects, plus some subtle magnetospheric coupling action with NASA’s ‘flux tubes’ and the solar wind, is enough to control the system in a way which maintains stability, within limits of, say, 0.1 – 0.3% of the average solar output.
Tallbloke,
This is probably the best general summary that I have seen of Planetary/Solar Cycle
Hypothesis. If I were you, I would place it somewhere special on your blog site and refer people to it if they ask about the general principles behind the Planetary Model(s).
In 2006/2007, I proposed that the long term [over billions of years] gravitational and tidal influences of Jupiter, Venus and Mars played a key role in determining the slow changes in the shape and tilt of the Lunar orbit. In addition, I proposed that it was these changes in the Lunar orbit that had a long-term impact upon the Earth’s rotation rate, and so indirectly upon the Earth’s climate.
I claimed that this Lunar-intermediary model could be used to explain why there appeared to be some form of amplification factor connecting long-term [decade to millennial] changes level of solar activity and long-term [decade to millennial] changes in the Earth’s climate.
I argued that, while there was a direct link between the level of long-term solar activity and long-term climate, the Lunar tidal processes appear to amplify this connection. The overall argument is based upon the following logic train:
Planetary tides/gravity –> Changes in shape and tilt of Lunar orbit –> Changes in Earth rotation rate + Changes in ocean and atmospheric tides + Changes in ocean up welling –> changes in Earth’s climate.
Planetary tides/gravity –> Changes in rotation rate of the Sun + Changes in the orbital motion of the Sun about the Barycentre –> Changes in long-term level of solar activity.
Ian, Thank you for the vote of confidence. Likewise, I find your lunar amplification ideas compelling, and given Richard Holle’s empirical work in determining the lunar effect by direct observation on weather patterns, I hope it will soon gain independent evidential support via that different method.
I have written a couple of articles previously which develop my idea of feedback loops operating between the Sun and planets. Maybe it’s time to summarise those and the comment I made above into a new post which has more time spent on making it tidy and comprehensible to casual readers.
I’m very encouraged by the way our ideas are developing and moving forward. It’s of immense value to have you and others like Gray Stevens, Ulric Lyons, Roy Martin, Gerry Pease, Vukcevic, P.A. Semi, E.M. Smith, Volker Dormann, Lawrence, Geoff Sharp (when he’s calm) and even on two occasions J.P. Desmoulins contributing on this blog. Apologies to anyone I missed. The positive effect of considering, criticising, and adding to each others proposals and hypotheses has an amplifying and accelerating effect on our thought processes. I feel that together, we are making genuine progress towards uncovering and understanding the secrets of the solar system.
Thank you again for your immensely valuable contributions.
tallbloke says:
May 1, 2012 at 7:30 pm
“If something as subtle as a few milliseconds of change in the axial rotation rate of the Earth is linked to the activity of the Sun and the consequent pushing out and falling in of its orbit as shown by the correlation of LOD with solar barycentric motion, then this tells me the system is finely tuned and balanced, and not a lot of force is required to gently ease it one way and another.
So my guess is that a combination of tidal and angular momentum gravitational effects, plus some subtle magnetospheric coupling action with NASA’s ‘flux tubes’ and the solar wind, is enough to control the system in a way which maintains stability, within limits of, say, 0.1 – 0.3% of the average solar output.”
Roger, you bring up the very relevant question of long term stability of the planetary orbits and of the solar cycles. By long term, I am most interested in just the last 400 years for two reasons. The first is that good direct observations of sunspots have only been obtained since the invention of the telescope in the early 17th century. The second reason is the degradation of accuracy of planetary ephemerides after backwards numerical integration of the equations of mutually perturbed motion for more than 400 years. Not only were there no telescopic observations of planetary positions over 400 years ago, but Uranus had not even been discovered until 1781 and Neptune not until 1846.
From painstaking calculations of deduced perturbations to the orbit of Uranus “Neptune was discovered on September 23, 1846 by the astronomer Johann Galle and his student Heinrich d’Arrest, after only thirty minutes of searching the sky, within a degree of the position predicted by the Urbain Le Verrier. This was the high-water mark of Newtonian physics — to be able, given the laws of physics and the peculiar motion of one object, to reach out into the depths of space and uncover a previously hidden object — and caused an even greater sensation than the discovery of Uranus.” http://cseligman.com/text/history/discoveryneptune.htm
The mutual perturbations of the planets mean, of course, that there is no perfect stability or constant state of equilibrium in the orbits of the planets, but at least the deviations from elliptical orbits over the last four centuries have been calculated very accurately at JPL.
The interesting thing, as you observed, is that the planetary/solar activity system has maintained a remarkable degree of stability in the sense of phase coherence. Most of what is causing system phase jitter and “phase catastrophes” should be calculable to some degree, once all the fundamental system physics and associated devilish details are taken into account.
Hi Tallbloke,
You’re theory is very interesting. It seems to me that Ian’s work could well illustrate the push-me-pull-me effect you are describing.
I would expect there to be a relationship between Ian’s planetary tidal positions and the harmonic/logarithmic intervals of the planets.
If we assume in the early days of your forming solar system the planets would have been subjected to hefty blasts from the Sun whenever a tidal system formed. In a sort of evolutionary fashion the planets would be buffeted to a position where they caused the least solar activity. An ongoing process.
Because the nature of the buffeting is electromagnetic as a result of Ian’s tidal disturbances the result would be to manipulate the planets in their orbits and solar distances within the constraints of the electromagnetic blast and the Parker Spiral to a position where the least solar tidal disturbance would be felt.
This implies a possibility of a mathematical relationship between the tidal positions that stimulate the activity and the spiral positions that the planets adopt around the solar maxima.
Your theory [edit] duh!