Paul Vaughan: Comparing Jupiter-Earth-Venus Alignment Cycles With Variation in the Solar Rotation Period.

Posted: April 18, 2013 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, Cycles, Solar physics, solar system dynamics, Tides

My Thanks to Paul Vaughan, who has sent me a plot he has made of the variation in the rate of solar rotation determined by Russian scientists A. G. Tlatov and V. I. Makarov in their 2005 paper ’22-Year Variations of the Solar Rotation’ and Jupiter-Earth-Venus alignment cycles. The J-E-V cycle and it’s close synchrony with solar activity indicators such as sunspot number and solar rotation has been a subject of investigation on this blog since it started in 2009. Many contributors have offered new insight to this fascinating subject, and there is now a substantial body of peer reviewed literature in this area, as well as many articles on this site from Astrophysicist Ian Wilson, researchers Roy Martin, Ray Tomes, Jean-Pierre Desmoulins, P.A. Semi, and myself. If I missed anyone, shout up and I’ll add your name to this list of J-E-V investigators.

J-E-V cycles compared to solar rotation rate 1910-2000

J-E-V cycles compared to solar rotation rate 1887-2003

I’ve asked Paul to tell us something about the derivation for the alignment cycle, and I’ll update this post with more info soon. In the meantime, here’s the intro to the Russian paper which is available here.

Abstract.

We have studied the rotation of the solar atmosphere on the basis
of  synoptic charts for 117 years (1887 – 2003) and derived the latitude-time
diagrams for variation of the rotation periods in the interval of latitude +/-45 degrees.
We determined the periods within 8 to 12 year “windows”, subsequently shifting
the “window” along the data set, which makes it possible to reveal long-term
variations in the solar rotation. It has been shown, that within the interval of
latitude +/-20 degrees, the basic rotation period of the background magnetic field of the
Sun is 22 years. During odd cycles of solar activity, the rotation rate decelerates
while during even cycles, more rapid rotation is observed. When the sampling
“window” increases to around 17 years, the 55 to 60 year quasi – period of
rotation can be recognized. In this case, the maximum rotation velocity falls
roughly on years 1930 and 1990. We consider possible generation of the solar
cycle by 22-year period torsion waves interacting with relic magnetic field.

[Ian Wilson thinks they have the acceleration and deceleration reversed, see comment below. It appears to be an undecided issue, so I’ve removed his suggested correction from the abstract pending further discussion and data.]

Comments
  1. Ninderthana (aka Ian Wilson) says:

    Rog,

    There is also a post at my site thanks to a private communications by Paul.

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/a-confirmation-of-vej-tidal-torquing.html

    Part of the abstract of the Tlatov & Makarov (2005) is actually incorrect.

    They say:

    “During odd cycles of solar activity, the rotation rate decelerates, while during even cycles, more rapid rotation is observed.”

    If you check at my site, you will find that in fact the opposite is true.

    I believe that Paul’s fantastic discovery provides strong support for the VEJ Tidal torquing model.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Ian, I’ll add a note to the abstract and repost your blog entry here in a couple of days when you’ve supplemented it.

    Exciting times!

  3. nzrobin says:

    Exciting indeed. We live in an amazing universe.

  4. nzrobin says:

    And you guys are an amazing team to watch.

  5. Paul Vaughan says:

    Jupiter-Earth-Venus (JEV) connection
    with terrestrial Length of Day (LOD):

    ________
    TB wrote:
    “’I’ve asked Paul to tell us something about the derivation for the alignment cycle, and I’ll update this post with more info soon.”

    22.1 year JEV cycle
    superposed on Tlatov & Makarov’s (2005) Figure 3:

    Tlatov, A.G.; & Makarov, V.I. (2005). 22-year variations of the solar rotation.
    http://www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_22.pdf

    JEV Data

    HORIZONS Web-Interface — NASA JPL
    http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
    ___
    J:
    Ephemeris Type [change] : VECTORS
    Target Body [change] : Jupiter Barycenter [5]
    Coordinate Origin [change] : Sun (body center) [500@10]
    Time Span [change] : Start=1849-01-01, Stop=2028-06-06, Step=1 d
    Table Settings [change] : quantities code=1; CSV format=YES
    Display/Output [change] : plain text
    ___
    E
    Ephemeris Type [change] : VECTORS
    Target Body [change] : Earth-Moon Barycenter [EMB] [3]
    Coordinate Origin [change] : Sun (body center) [500@10]
    Time Span [change] : Start=1849-01-01, Stop=2028-06-06, Step=1 d
    Table Settings [change] : quantities code=1; CSV format=YES
    Display/Output [change] : plain text
    ___
    V:
    Ephemeris Type [change] : VECTORS
    Target Body [change] : Venus [299]
    Coordinate Origin [change] : Sun (body center) [500@10]
    Time Span [change] : Start=1849-01-01, Stop=2028-06-06, Step=1 d
    Table Settings [change] : quantities code=1; CSV format=YES
    Display/Output [change] : plain text
    ___
    Also see:

    Tlatov, A.G. (2007). 22-year variations of the solar rotation and solar activity cycles. Astronomy Letters 33(11), 771-779.
    http://www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_al33.pdf
    Note particularly figure 3.

    Vasil’eva, V.V.; Makarov, V.I.; & Tlatov, A.G. (2002). Rotation cycles of the sector structure of the solar magnetic field and its activity. Astronomy Letters 28(3), 199-205.
    Note particularly figure 5.
    _____
    Beats

    Based on NASA J2000:
    http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t2.txt

    22
    (11.86630899)*(1.00000027) / (11.86630899 – 1.00000027)
    = 1.092027891
    (11.86630899)*(0.615172098) / (11.86630899 – 0.615172098)
    = 0.648807517

    (1.092027891)*(0.648807517) / (1.092027891 – 0.648807517)
    = 1.598563485
    (1.092027891)*(0.648807517) / (1.092027891 + 0.648807517)
    = 0.406997641

    Harmonic of 1.598563485 nearest 0.406997641:
    1.598563485 / 4 = 0.399640871

    (0.406997641)*(0.399640871) / (0.406997641 – 0.399640871)
    = 22.10928058 years

    11
    (5.933154494)*(0.500000135) / (5.933154494 – 0.500000135)
    = 0.546013945
    (5.933154494)*(0.307586049) / (5.933154494 – 0.307586049)
    = 0.324403759

    (0.546013945)*(0.324403759) / (0.546013945 – 0.324403759)
    = 0.799281743
    (0.546013945)*(0.324403759) / (0.546013945 + 0.324403759)
    = 0.203498821

    Harmonic of 0.799281743 nearest 0.203498821:
    0.799281743 / 4 = 0.199820436

    (0.203498821)*(0.199820436) / (0.203498821 – 0.199820436)
    = 11.05464062 years
    _________
    Ian Wilson’s EV-Tide J-Torque Theory

    Recently Ian Wilson summarized the evolution of his solar-planetary speculation:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/roy-martin-how-do-the-planets-affect-the-sun-updated/comment-page-1/#comment-47511

    Ian has since posted an overview of his EV-tide J-torque theory, which also serves as a hub linking to details he has outlined previously:
    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/thevenus-earth-jupiter-vej-tidal.html

    Regards

  6. This reminds me of the work done by John H, Nelson in the early fifties. http://www.eham.net/articles/8828

  7. lgl says:

    Welcome after
    http://puzzlingthings.blogspot.no/2009/11/solar-cycle-driver_17.html

    but it can’t be tidal because the tide is the same when Ea and Ve are in conjunction as when they are in opposition.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Nicola, I agree.

    lgl, ok, I joined your blog.

    Now, tides on the Sun. Since the surface layers are a plasma and not an incompressible fluid like Earth’s ocean water, tides won’t behave like they do in Earth’s oceans in the Sun’s ‘atmosphere’. Effects will be local, stirring the pot but not sending ripples far and wide. Any tidal effect which raises a bulge at both sides of the Sun would have to be working lower down, where the layers are more of a water-like fluid.

    Agreed so far? Or don’t you think a tidal bulge could be raised at both sides in any case?

  9. tchannon says:

    ellgenmuttrar Lars-Göran Eriksson brings in the important field of ionospheric conditions, which is a gold mine to do with a number of terrestrial mysteries. The connections are still cloudy.

    There two effects I’ve noticed, one regular and equatorial, the other of more interest originates from the polar regions. This latter relates to surface weather so once again polar magnetics are implicated.

    I’ve material here in unpublished blog articles. Maybe eventually. Don’t want to sidetrack the discussion.

  10. Ninderthana (aka Ian Wilson) says:

    lgl,

    About your comments on your blog:

    http://puzzlingthings.blogspot.no/2009/11/solar-cycle-driver_17.html

    What you are describing is the Quadrature Effect. I discussed this effect in
    detail in our 2008 paper:

    Wilson, I.R.G., Carter, B.D., and Waite, I.A., 2008,
    Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the
    Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?,
    Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia,
    2008, 25, 85 – 93.

    http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS06018.htm

    The details are on page 86 – 87 and figures 2 – 3.

    The quadrature effect links the relative positions of Jupiter and Saturn with the “orbital” acceleration of the Sun about the centre-of-mass of the Solar System. In our paper, we found
    that (from direct observation) that this acceleration of the Sun was correlated with changes in the equatorial rotation rate of the Sun from one solar cycle to the next.

    Essentially, this is what you are confirming with your fourth figure on your blog post (see above link).

    This led us to propose that there was a spin-orbit coupling mechanism between the planets and the Sun i.e. the rotation of the Sun on its axis (spin) was linked with the revolution of the Sun about the centre-of-mass of the Solar System (orbit).

    For this to be the case, differential forces between different parts of the Sun would have to arise from the changes in speed of the Sun in its “orbit” about the centre-of-mass of the Sun. Under the currently accepted laws of physics, this is not possible, since the Sun is in free-fall about the centre-of-mass. In order to generate internal forces necessary to affect the rotation rate of the Sun you would have to violate Einstein’s “Equivalence Principle”.

    I know that Roger and others believe that a spin-orbit coupling mechanism is possible, however, as the current laws of physics stand, this cannot be the case. Then again, it is possible that we do not have a complete grasp of the underlying physical principles.

  11. Ninderthana (aka Ian Wilson) says:

    lgl,

    You say that:

    “…but it can’t be tidal because the tide is the same when Ea and Ve are in conjunction as when they are in opposition.”

    I explain in great detail in:

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/v-e-j-tidal-torquing-model.html

    why it is still possible for the VEJ Tidal Torquing model to be correct, even though this is the case.

    The tugging of Jupiter on the VE tidal bulge at VE inferior conjunction does not exactly cancel out the tugging of Jupiter on the VE tidal bulge at VE superior conjunction.

    This primarily due the fact that the effects of the tugging force of Jupiter because of its distance from the Sun is currently synchronized with the size of the VE tidal bulge that is affected by tilt of the orbit of Venus with respect to the Earth_Sun plane.

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    tchannon (April 18, 2013 at 10:48 pm) wrote:
    “I’ve material here in unpublished blog articles. Maybe eventually. Don’t want to sidetrack the discussion.”

    Looking forward to seeing this whenever the time’s right.

    ____
    Ninderthana (aka Ian Wilson) (April 18, 2013 at 8:19 am) asserted: “Part of the abstract of the Tlatov & Makarov (2005) is actually incorrect.”

    That’s a rather substantive assertion that raises a number of serious questions.

    Question # 1:
    Is this assertion based upon careful exploration of the exact same data they used?

  13. Ninderthana (aka Ian Wilson) says:

    Paul,

    No, my assertion is based upon Tlatov & Makarov’s (2005) figure 3 which they have published. Unless they are publishing false information then my assertion stands, given my current understanding of figure 3.

  14. Ulric Lyons says:

    The J-E-V plot falls out of sync a bit with the real alignment centers. It’s partly because the occasional Hale cycle pulls in at 13 rather than 14 E-V synods. JEV syzygies should be peaking at 1905, and at 1992.

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ninderthana (aka Ian Wilson) (April 19, 2013 at 4:26 am)
    “Paul,
    No, my assertion is based upon Tlatov & Makarov’s (2005) figure 3 which they have published. Unless they are publishing false information then my assertion stands, given my current understanding of figure 3.”

    I will need access to the Indian data used by the Russians to assess the validity of your assertion. So far as I’ve been able to tell, the data are not readily available.

  16. Roy Martin says:

    In the Tlatov and Makarov (2005) paper, at 4., Discussion, they say:

    “By now, dynamo models suggested for the solar magnetic cycle still contain essentially unsolved problems (Stix 1981); therefore, using non-dynamo mechanisms for the solution of the problem of solar cycle may be very promising.”, and at the end:
    “A topological model and the estimate for the amplitude of the torsion oscillations under the convective zone were given in the study by Tlatov (2001). In this model, the most controversial was the hypothesis of torsional oscillations with the period of the order of T ~ 22 years. Our present study provides evidence for a distinct manifestation of the 22-year mode in the rotation of the background magnetic field. Thereby, in our opinion, the solar magnetic cycle may be generated due to interaction between torsion waves and the relic field inside the Sun, rather than to the dynamo mechanism.”

    Although the statements are now eight years old, they are another mark of a shift in attitude. I am sure that the denizens of the Talkshop searching for answers to the relationships between planetary motions and the solar cycle are individually confident enough in the relevance of what they are doing to not actually need a pat on the back. However, such statements should provide reassurance that the subject appears to be moving closer to acceptance at the peer-reviewed level.

    h/t to Paul & Ian for presenting the plot and Abstract here.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Ian Wilson: I know that Roger and others believe that a spin-orbit coupling mechanism is possible, however, as the current laws of physics stand, this cannot be the case.

    Well, Wolff and Patrone’s 2010 paper stands unrebutted. Also, Ray Tomes hypothesis concerning relativistic effects on the flow of radiative energy being in the process of conversion from mass has not yet been explored (and the leading experts on relativity Ray consulted disagree with each other). So ‘the current laws of physics’ may be incorrectly or incompletely applied, rather than being wrong. The point is that at the same time as the Sun is ‘orbiting’ the system barycentre, it is also converting mass to energy (fusion) and that energy causes convection above the tachocline. Convection is a messy process, susceptible to effects from comparatively small forces where it is close to boundary conditions.

  18. Roy Martin says:

    As I read the Tlatov & Makarov (2005) paper, what they are reporting is not spin-orbit coupling in the sense that it is usually proposed.

    What is evidenced here is not inconsistent with horizontal tidal effects alternately causing slightly faster or slower velocities of the residual magnetic fields in the surface layers of the Sun.

  19. Ulric Lyons says:

    Looking again, the original plot of rotation rates doesn’t fit the solar cycle maximum dates either. See where SC22 max is at in the pattern, then see where the max at 1907 is:

  20. tallbloke says:

    lgl: I left a comment (3 actually) at your blog. Please rejoin the conversation!

  21. lgl says:

    tallbloke says:
    April 18, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    Thanks TB, but that blog is quite dead. I got tired of the troublesome editing and formating and now I don’t even remember the login.

    Agreed and I do think a tidal bulge could be raised at both sides, and Ians explanation sounds like a miniscule fraction of something miniscule (yes I did learn that m-word from Leif S 🙂

  22. lgl says:

    Thanks Ian, but I do not buy the ‘failure’ of the spin orbit coupling. The Sun is moving in an arc around the BC. When an object moving in an arc is accelerated it’s rotation must change because the outer side (furthest away from the BC) carries a greater momentum than the inner side. I even made a drawing once http://virakkraft.com/Sun-SSB.jpg showing what happens when the Sun is decelerated. The outer side speeds up relative to the inner side. (actually I have verified it in my own kitchen, using a bowl of water on a rotating plate, placing the bowl off center).

  23. tallbloke says:

    lgl, nice sketch, it has a… spaciousness about it. 😉

    It seems to me that the effect you propose is going to be manifested primarily by the tightening (speedup of rotation) or loosening (slowdown of rotation) of the radius of the Sun’s barycentric motion, rather than by speeding up or slowing down as a whole (it’s in freefall). The rate of change of barycentric radius will give us that plot I think. As I recall, the late Carl Smith plotted that for Ray Tomes some years ago, and there was no obvious match with sunspot number or the timing of maxima/minima.

    You are absolutely right that forces will be generated on the spinning Sun by barycentric motion, but I think it is the change in radius which is crucial, rather than change in velocity. The question is, why doesn’t it show up in solar activity indicators.

  24. lgl says:

    TB,
    Disagree, freefall or not the outer side is moving much faster than the inner side and when the orbital velocity changes the outside-inside difference changes, which can not happen (only delayed) so the rotation must change.
    Also remember what Carl plotted was probably the Ju-Sa influence, but that’s not where we see the correlation, we need to look at what Ju is doing to the Suns motion around the Sun-Inner Planets-Ju BC. The IPs are much faster so maybe that’s why we are seeing a Ju-Ea-Ve correlation and not a Ju-Sa correlation.

  25. tallbloke says:

    lgl: Fair enough, I know you’ve thought abut this long and hard as I have. It’s great to have your input on this mechanism neutral thread. Please stick around while we bounce this one back and forth.

    Now, The Sun spins in the same direction as it orbits, so if you are right, we’d expect to see the latitudinal bands slow down as the Sun accelerates in it’s barycentric motion and speed up when the Sun decelerates. Agree or disagree?

  26. lgl says:

    TB
    Agree, if you mean the Sun-IP-Ju barycenter and not the solar system BC.

  27. Paul Vaughan says:

    Last month I found Tlatov & Makarov (2005) while web-searching to check for past awareness (of other researchers) of what I’ve recently illustrated:
    a. multidecadal heliosphere structure, solar cycle deceleration, & terrestrial climate
    b. ~60 Year Cycle of ~27 Day Terracentric Solar Rotation

    Upon seeing Tlatov & Makarov’s (2005) figure’s 3 & 4, I was surprised that I had never seen them pointed out before.

    While Googling “Tlatov Makarov” (maybe with some other key words – I can’t remember) lgl‘s blog-page came up:
    http://puzzlingthings.blogspot.no/2009/11/solar-cycle-driver_17.html

    It did not surprise me to learn that lgl had already been there. lgl has consistently been one of the very best at spotting noteworthy patterns.

    ___
    TB updated: “[Ian Wilson thinks they have the acceleration and deceleration reversed, see comment below. It appears to be an undecided issue, so I’ve removed his suggested correction from the abstract pending further discussion and data.]”

    I have more to share if TB can agree to not make any judgments about – and adjustments to – Tlatov & Makarov’s (2005) interpretations without directly consulting them and extending opportunity to them to comment on charges arising in comments.

    ___
    Regards.

  28. tallbloke says:

    lgl: The IPs are much faster so maybe that’s why we are seeing a Ju-Ea-Ve correlation and not a Ju-Sa correlation.

    I seem to recall that P.A. Semi was starting to think along those lines too.

  29. lgl says:

    Paul, thanks

    Regarding the direction I really don’t understand the uncertainty. Their figure clearly shows “During odd cycles of solar activity, the rotation rate decelerates” (like the one around 1980) so Ian should explain his claim.

  30. tallbloke says:

    Paul V: I have more to share if TB can agree to not make any judgments

    No problem there, I made a hurried assumption that it was an uncontroversial accidental slip-up. Now I know there is more involved, reverting to their original is the right thing to do. We can now thrash it out in comments on a ‘level playing field’.

  31. tallbloke says:

    ACO: I left this comment on the Daily Mail article you linked:

    James Hansen is a worrier isn’t he. 🙂

    Venus has a high surface temperature because it has a thick heavy atmosphere. It’s the mass that counts, not the composition (95%co2).

    Allowing for their different distances from the Sun, the temperatures at equivalent pressures in the Venusian and Earth atmosphere are the same. The lapse rate is also similar.

    Burning all the oil (and with recent discoveries in Alberta there’s plenty of it), wouldn’t change the mass of our atmosphere much, nor its temperature. Even if the co2 greenhouse theory is correct, recent papers show the sensitivity is low, (water vapour has not increased as expected), and since the effect of additional co2 is logarithmic (less effective as concentration rises), temperature won’t rise much. It likely wouldn’t reach the average surface temperature of the Holocene optimum 8000 years ago.

    Colder weather due to a quiet Sun is something to be much more concerned about. Civilisation flourishes in the warm periods.

  32. tchannon says:

    Whoa, jabber, go place cold on head.

    Unruh radiation

    “Inertial mass has not been well understood and has been assumed to be the same as gravitational mass (the Equivalence Principle, EP),” McCulloch explained

    “As a result there may be implications for General Relativity since this assumes the EP is true (and therefore also implications for low-acceleration phenomena like the orbits of stars at the edge of galaxies)”

    “As McCulloch explains, the Tajmar effect is closely related to another odd observation: the unexplained acceleration of some spacecraft. For instance, when interplanetary probes fly by the (spinning) Earth, some of them undergo unexplained jumps in velocity. In a previous paper, McCulloch showed that the MiHsC model agrees fairly well with these flyby anomalies if a spacecraft’s acceleration is determined relative to all the particles of matter in the spinning Earth. He also showed that the model could explain the Pioneer anomaly: as the two Pioneer spacecraft flew out of the Solar System, they slowed down more than predicted, which can be attributed to the spacecrafts’ small decrease of inertial mass, which increased their acceleration toward the Sun.”

    http://phys.org/news/2011-07-gyroscope-unexplained-due-inertia.html

  33. oldbrew says:

    Wasn’t the Pioneer anomaly shown to be an artefact of thermal emissions from the spacecraft themselves?
    http://www.planetary.org/blogs/bruce-betts/3459.html

  34. tallbloke says:

    Place Betts now!

  35. Paul Vaughan says:

    Tlatov & Makarov (2005) and Tlatov (2007) crystallize 22 year solar rotation frequency cycles and Vasil’eva, Makarov, & Tlatov (2002) crystallize 11 year solar rotation amplitude cycles. (Links were shared above.)
    _________
    Hung (2007) and Obridko, Sokoloff, Kuzanyan, Shelting, & Zakharov (2006) highlight 7 year cycles.

    Hung, C.-C. (2007). Apparent relations between solar activity and solar tides caused by the planets. NASA/TM—2007-214817.
    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070025111_2007025207.pdf

    • “A fast Fourier transform (FFT) applied to the data (fig. 2(b)) indicated the data have a 7-year cycle. This cannot resonate with the 11-year solar activity cycle.”
    • “It appears that the tide caused by Mercury, by itself or in alignment with other planets, does not resonant with the 11-year solar cycle. This is to be expected because the number of days of planet alignment involving Mercury would not be large due to the fast movement of Mercury. Without resonance, the tide caused by Mercury cannot affect the 11-year solar cycle.”

    7.2 year JEVMe cycle superposed on Obridko, Sokoloff, Kuzanyan, Shelting, & Zakharov’s (2006) Figure 4b:

    Obridko, V.N.; Sokoloff, D.D.; Kuzanyan, K.M.; Shelting, B.D.; & Zakharov, V.G. (2006). Solar cycle according to mean magnetic field data. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 365, 827-832.
    http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/365/3/827.full.pdf
    Note particularly figure 4.

    • “The nominal 7-yr oscillation yields a butterfly diagram with two domains.”
    • “The nominal 7-yr oscillation demonstrates a clear equatorwards wave at lower latitudes and a polewards wave at higher latitudes.”
    • “We conclude that the shape of the solar cycle inferred from the large-scale magnetic field data differs significantly from that inferred from sunspot data.”
    __
    7

    (5.933154494)*(0.500000135) / (5.933154494 – 0.500000135)
    = 0.546013945
    (5.933154494)*(0.307586049) / (5.933154494 – 0.307586049)
    = 0.324403759
    (5.933154494)*(0.120420969) / (5.933154494 – 0.120420969)
    = 0.122915701

    (0.546013945)*(0.324403759) / (0.546013945 – 0.324403759)
    = 0.799281743

    Harmonic of 0.324403759 nearest 0.122915701:
    0.324403759 / 3 = 0.108134586

    (0.122915701)*(0.108134586) / (0.122915701 – 0.108134586)
    = 0.899217593

    Harmonic of 0.899217593 nearest 0.799281743:
    0.899217593 / 1 = 0.899217593

    (0.899217593)*(0.799281742) / (0.899217593 – 0.799281742)
    = 7.191895598 years
    ____
    http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
    Ephemeris Type : VECTORS
    Target Body : Mercury [199]
    Coordinate Origin : Sun (body center) [500@10]
    Time Span : Start=1849-01-01, Stop=2028-06-06, Step=1 d
    Table Settings : quantities code=1; CSV format=YES
    Display/Output : plain text
    http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

    Regards

  36. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve had a private inquiry about the phasing here:

    Answer:
    3V-5E+2J = 22.10928058 years
    Sin(3V-5E+2J-π/4)
    Cos(3V-5E+2J+π/4)

    The preceding info should be useful for those interested in the event-series approaches applied by Ulric Lyons & Roy Martin.

    For comparison, Roy’s graphs:
    1900-1950:

    1950-2000:

    Careful comparison clarifies that the ~22a pattern illustrated by Tlatov & Makarov (2005) actually shows much better coherence with JEV than with the solar Hale cycle. TB’s philosophy of keeping everything on the table is wise. During the past few days I’ve also paused to consider the possibility that JEV is directly influencing terrestrial LOD (as opposed to, in addition to, and/or in concert with influences via Sun) …
    ___
    A different JEV metric is depicted here with LOD:

    An explanation comes from the “Technical Notes” section of my informal January 2010 article “Sunspots & JEV – collection of graphs using new indices”:

    “The index JEV is based on the maximum of 4 functions that geometrically summarize all possible combinations of weighted heliocentric reflections of J, E, & V. More specifically, JEV is the maximum radius from the set of possible mass- & average-distance- weighted (mr^(-3)) heliocentric spatial averages of heliocentric (J,E,V) reflection states along sun-planet axes {(1,1,1), (1,-1,1), (1,1,-1), (1,-1,-1)}. It achieves highest values when alignments (regardless of whether conjunction or opposition) are strongest.”

    The differences between then (January 2010) and now (March-April 2013) are:

    a) I’ve switched to using daily resolution Horizons output (instead of monthly since I’ve learned from diagnostics on my old work that monthly resolution isn’t enough for Venus) and Gaussian filters (instead of precisely-tuned hierarchical boxcars) to integrate across the higher frequency waves.

    b) I’ve additionally extended the metric to JEVMe. (I knew in 2010 that monthly resolution was nowhere even remotely near enough for Mercury.)

    Many other JEV & JEVMe metrics can easily be constructed.
    ____
    I believe our discussions will benefit from deeper appreciation & understanding of what the Russian authors are saying about local & large-scale solar fields as indicated by different tracers.
    ___
    Sometime in the coming weeks I will probably share new results (currently under revision) on solar asymmetry.

    Best Regards

  37. tallbloke says:

    Paul, many thanks for sharing. To see if I have it right, I’ll summarize what I see in your finding, and you can let me know if I understood your intended meaning correctly.

    The half periods of Jupiter and the inner planets as far as Earth (tidal bulges both sides of Sun) combine to produce more tidal bulges. The Ju-Ea tide combines with the Ve tide and produces a ~0.8 yr pattern. A 1:3 subharmonic of the Ve tide interacts with the Ju-Me tide to produce a ~0.9yr pattern. The beat period of the two produces the ~7yr pattern seen in fig 4b of the paper.

    On the subject of Fig 4b, it is noticeable that the banding patterns in the N and S solar hemispheres are asymmetric. The North shows a ‘bending band’ reversing around 40 degrees of latitude. The South shows a discontinuity around 30 degrees latitude and an antiphase band beyond that latitude. I have no idea how to interpret that.

    I’d also be interested to know why you’ve offset the x axis of the planetary plot relative to the solar equator by a little under 5 degrees.

    Just as a marker for future reference and without any supporting theory at this time I note that:
    Phi^4=6.8541=Phi^3+Phi^2
    1/Phi*11.0901=6.8541
    Phi*4+(1/Phi)=7.0901
    Phi^5=11.0901

  38. lgl says:

    Paul
    How did you arrive at 3V-5E+2J ?

  39. Paul Vaughan says:

    lgl (April 20, 2013 at 11:18 am) asked:
    “Paul
    How did you arrive at 3V-5E+2J ?”

    Frequency = 1 / period, so if I drop the colloquial-style communication for something mathematically formal, then technically 3V-5E+2J = 1 / 22.10928058 years.

    If you go carefully through the “22” calculation in my first comment above (April 18, 2013 at 11:23 am), replacing numbers with symbols, you’ll discover the following algebra:

    {4[(V-J)-(E-J)]}-{(V-J)+(E-J)}
    {4[V-J-E+J]}-{V-J+E-J}
    {4[V-E]}-{V+E-2J}
    {4V-4E}-{V+E-2J}
    4V-4E-V-E+2J
    3V-5E+2J

    Some readers may recall that I showed the symbolic frequency algebra for 11a in the Jan. 2010 article:
    6V-10E+4J

    For the 7.2 year JEVMe = Jupiter-Earth-Venus-Mercury cycle first brought to my attention by Hung (2007):
    2Me-4V-2E+4J (details above @ (April 20, 2013 at 12:55 am))

    …and that’s exactly what Horizons shows for daily resolution output.

  40. Paul Vaughan says:

    @ tallbloke (April 20, 2013 at 8:55 am)

    Rog, Obridko, Sokoloff, Kuzanyan, Shelting, & Zakharov’s (2006) raise a lot of attention-worthy observations about local vs. global solar pattern for different tracers. With an open mind I’m reporting shared patterns that look worthy of further consideration. The offset from the equator is because the observations suggested this.

  41. tallbloke says:

    Then the z axis is worth more consideration than it gets! 🙂

  42. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke (April 20, 2013 at 8:55 am) wrote:
    “Paul, many thanks for sharing.”

    No problem.

    Best Regards

  43. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke (April 20, 2013 at 3:58 pm)
    “Then the z axis is worth more consideration than it gets!”

    0 lag z-axis has always had my attention. I have results from last year that I’ve never shown. If only there were more hours in each day!…

    Looking forward to seeing what Ian’s cooking up…
    Thanks for providing a communications hub Rog.

  44. tallbloke says:

    It’s both an honour and a pleasure.

  45. Ninderthana (aka Ian Wilson) says:

    Just a few preliminary comments on the abstract claim that:

    “During odd cycles of solar activity, the rotation rate decelerates
    while during even cycles, more rapid rotation is observed.”

    From the A. G. Tlatov and V. I. Makarov (2005) paper
    it is clear that these comments are derived from a comparison of the average solar rotation between +/- 10 degrees latitude and the SSN that is given in figure 1.

    Even a cursory look at figure will show you that even cycles 18, 20, 22 correspond very well with the times of maximums in the average solar rotation between +/- 10 degrees latitude, the same can not be said to be true of even cycles 14 and 16. Both of these Solar sunspot cycles are significantly shifted from the velocity peaks.

    It is also true that the odd cycles 13,17, 19, 21 correspond with minimums in the average solar rotation between +/- 10 degrees latitude but odd cycle 15 certainly does not coincide with a minimum.

    My comments about ODD and EVEN cycles does not apply to the abstract [Sorry Roger for leading you up the wrong path] but to the comparison of the deviation of the rotation velocity from its average value at corresponding latitudes with the Solar sunspot number against time.

    We are told that the map in figure 3 is obtained by the following method:

    “..the rotation velocity was averaged over the hemispheres in the corresponding intervals of latitude. Then in each 5 degree latitude interval the [long-term] trend was subtracted.”

    It is not very clear which long term trend in velocity that they subtract, but the most reasonable assumption is that they used the low frequency component of the velocity map for each 5 degree latitude zone shown in figure 2.

    However, the comparison between figure 3 in the A. G. Tlatov and V. I. Makarov (2005) paper and the solar sunspot cycle posted in third figure on my blog clearly shows that for all solar cycles between 13 and 23, the deviation of the rotation velocity of the surface of the Sun from its average value at corresponding latitudes, speeds up during ODD solar cycles and slows down during EVEN solar cycles.

    The figure caption of figure 3 states that:

    “The regions where rotation decelerates painted dark.”

    If you inspect Tlatov & Makarov (2005) figure 3 very carefully you should have no trouble seeing that the figure cation is fully incorrect. What is plotted is angular velocity (omega) which is measured in degrees per day, it is not angular acceleration (alpha) which would be measured in degrees per day per day or degrees per day^2. Hence the dark regions are those areas on the Sun that are moving at a slower velocity than the normal rotation velocity at that particular latitude. Thus they cannot be the regions where the rotation rate decelerates.

  46. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve turned my attention to other things, so I’ll just quickly suggest a few things:
    1) Different variables are different variables. We should be careful about conceptually conflating them.
    2) Maybe Rog can invite Tlatov & Makarov to comment on Ian’s comments. Maybe they will — maybe not.
    3) We need the H-alpha data so that we can bypass the need to rely on the work of others. This is the bottom line IMHO.
    4) Reminder: As I’ve indicated above, T&M’s 22a pattern shows far more coherence with 22a JEV than with Hale. I find this interesting.
    Best Regards

  47. Ulric Lyons says:

    Interesting 7yr signal. Ju-Ur syzygies (1962/69/76/83/90/97).

  48. Paul Vaughan says:

    (42.02559514)*(5.933154494) / (42.02559514 – 5.933154494)
    = 6.90849231

    Like usual, good call Ulric!

  49. Paul Vaughan says:

    Compare Ulric’s dates:

  50. lgl says:

    Thanks Ian, understood
    But then I think you are in trouble. Your torque graph will correlate well with the rotation the first half of the century but towards the end inverting your graph will give better correlation, based on assumptions since I don’t have the torque graph for the 20th century.

  51. Ulric Lyons says:

    Paul, why are your blue and yellow plots on that so irregular and a 7.2yr average?

  52. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ulric Lyons (April 21, 2013 at 1:37 pm) asked:
    “Paul, why are your blue and yellow plots on that so irregular and a 7.2yr average?

    3.6, not 7.2 and it’s a function of Horizons output. It is what it is.

    If you want pure since sine waves:
    Ignore the Horizons output and fit circles.

    If you want the raw event series rather than aggregates:
    Use Horizons specs I gave above — will only take a second.

    ——–
    Sometime during the next week I might respond to some of Ian’s comments. My primary focus the next several days (including today) must be paid work.

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    Correction Ulric: There’s no averaging for that particular metric. It’s a straight function of Horizons phases, which I’m sure you realize don’t maintain a constant rate of change.

    Noteworthy:

    Knaack, R.; Stenflo, J.O.; & Berdyugina, S.V. (2004). Periodic oscillations in the north-south asymmetry of the solar magnetic field. Astronomy & Astrophysics 418, L17-L20.
    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/16/aagb101/aagb101.right.html

    suggests 3.6 & 1.8 year cycles
    (harmonics of 7.2 year JEVMe)


    Exploring Ian’s concerns is actually becoming a minor project of it’s own that may demand its own discussion with new illustrations that could take some time to produce.

    In the meantime I do have time to quickly suggest this much: “decelerates” may have simply been a poor &/or inaccurate choice of words during translation from Russian, as it’s clear from context that “is slower than detrended average” was intended.

    In order to efficiently bring proper clarity to issues raised by lgl & Ian about the phase relations with Schwabe & Hale, new illustrations are needed. We shouldn’t ignore Figure 3 in Tlatov (2007), as it’s a slightly different summary that gives notably shifted phase & edge-effect at the early end of the time series.

    Obviously it would be better to actually have the data, but until we do, we work with what we have.

    I’ll volunteer to do this much more when time permits: I’ll produce some new illustrations, including some wavelet summaries of solar Schwabe &/or Hale phase. This will dramatically simplify interpretation (probably reducing the need for words from many paragraphs to a few sentences).

    After that I’m rotating focus back to healthier pursuits as this unpaid JEV stuff (a passing casual side-interest) is taking way too much of my time — i.e. on more than one level I’m converging towards agreement with Jean-Pierre Desmoulins: “it’s time consuming, doesn’t help me to rent […], and I have other centers of interest”. I’m certain it’s time to lighten the focus on 22.

  54. […] My Thanks to Paul Vaughan, who has sent me a plot he has made of the variation in the rate of solar rotation determined by Russian scientists A. G. Tlatov and V. I. Makarov in their 2005 paper '22-…  […]

  55. Paul Vaughan says:

    Tlatov_Makarov_22a_JEV_R.PNG

    Tlatov_Makarov_22a_JEV_R_Anim.gif

  56. Paul Vaughan says:

    Clyde J. Bollinger (University of Oklahoma, Norman) illustrated the ~22 year JEV cycle ~60 years ago — see the configurations illustrated in Table 1 on p.308:

    Bollinger, C.J. (1952). A 44.77 year Jupiter-Earth-Venus configuration Sun-tide period in solar-climate cycles. Academy of Science for 1952 – Proceedings of the Oklahoma 307-311.
    http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v33/v307_311.pdf

    The new question raised by the 2 images I’ve shared immediately above (April 25, 2013 at 1:37 pm):

    Why does JEV consistently maintain coherence with T&M’s solar rotation summary over the available record while the sunspot cycle concurrently drifts from in-phase to out-of-phase?

    Having found time to share the 2 images (e-mailed to TB), acknowledge Bollinger (1952), and raise this question, I’m probably inclined to simply leave it at that.

  57. Ulric Lyons says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    April 21, 2013 at 4:24 am

    “(42.02559514)*(5.933154494) / (42.02559514 – 5.933154494)
    = 6.90849231

    Like usual, good call Ulric!”

    I couldn’t see that JEVMe would be doing that. 6.9yrs would follow the QBO better too, e.g., 1957.9 to 2010.9: http://1.2.3.10/bmi/www.geo.fu-berlin.de/met/ag/strat/produkte/qbo/qbo_wind.jpg