Ian Wilson: Linking the Orbital Configuration of Jupiter, Venus and the Earth to the Terrestrial Lunar Tides

Posted: June 22, 2013 by tchannon in Cycles, Gravity, solar system dynamics

Talkshop contributor Ian Wilson has put up a post on his own blog

Linking the Orbital Configuration of Jupiter, Venus and the Earth to the Terrestrial Lunar Tides

Cherry picking Ian’s content

This conjecture was based upon the following two observations:
1. Synchronization of the Draconic year with the Jupiter’s orbital period.

The line of nodes of the lunar orbit appears to rotate around the Earth, with respect to the Sun, once every Draconic Year

Remarkably, these time intervals are precise sub-multiples of the sidereal orbital period of Jupiter (TJ) = 4332.82 days = 11.8624 sidereal years, such that:

[N.B. The sidereal orbital period is the time for the planet to complete one orbit of the Sun with respect to the stars.]

Discuss there or here as you wish

h/t to oldbrew

Tim

1. Sparks says:

Ian Wilson writes;

½ × 179 yrs = 89.50 yrs
¼ × 179 yrs = 44.75 yrs
1/8 × 179 yrs = 22.38 yrs
1/16 × 179 yrs = 11.19 yrs

These alignments only change slowly over hundreds of years and they closely match the well known Schwabe (~ 11.1 yrs), Hale (~ 22.2 yrs) and Gleissberg (~ 90 years) solar cycles.]

I’ve checked up on his figures and on the face of it, they are correct.

There are also figures that I can add to this puzzle.

I have found an accurate match between Neptune, Uranus and Jupiter and the solar cycles, Uranus has an unusual orbit around the sun of 84 years, once every 42 years due to its receding 98 degree axis either one of its poles will face the sun as they alternate from the north pole to the south pole.

I’ve produced an animation of how Uranus orbits the sun here; http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/3-0.gif

This means that 1/4 turn of Uranus is 21 years, where either of its poles or the equator faces the sun, 1/8 of a turn of Uranus is 10.5 years. Adding Neptune and Jupiter’s orbital parameters I built a resonance model of three outer planets, I have also created resonance models of the inner planets and I’m currently working on whats called a “higher order” resonance model, It shows the resonance between the outer solar system and the inner solar system, But Its actually been a painstaking arduous task building the data from ephemerids so its almost finished, hopefully when its finished it, I will then write a program that will use the resonance data and begin testing it for predictive ability.

2. oldbrew says:

The figures look convincing, to me at least. Ulric Lyons pointed out in a previous thread that in one third of the grand synodic cycle i.e. 1542.33 years approx. there are 9 Uranus-Neptune conjunctions.

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/a-remarkable-discovery-all-solar-system-periods-fit-the-fibonacci-series-and-the-golden-ratio/comment-page-2/#comment-45251

In this period there are 1625 ‘DY’ periods (see IW’s post) by my reckoning, which is 13/8 x 1000.
8 x Earth 365.25 = 2922 days
13 x Venus 224.701 = 2921.11 days

3. Chaeremon says:

Please don’t harm the messenger: in my understanding there is no lunar (draconic) node which returns to the same inclination (say: zero°) after 346.620075883 days. Many notions on wiki-plagiarism-pedia are occasionally confusing, in the present case they talk about the draconic year within about a month but without any other qualification. Here’s what can be measured with DE421 and numerical integration for the ranges mentioned on the Astro-Climate page:

346.956 days average, from inclination zero to min or max inclination
435.396 days average, from zero to zero inclination
2163.623 days average, from zero to zero inclination
4333.546 days average, from inclination zero to min or max inclination

These are just examples for 40 years up-to 2080, and other combination of (draconic) inclination are of course possible. Yet the cases with zero / min / max inclination are best for prediction and (unaided eye) observation.

The usual disclaimer for non peer-reviewed comments applies.

4. Paul Vaughan says:

I would say that this is all well-known by now and that we need to collectively move on to looking at solar strumming of the terrestrial (including lunisolar) resonance frameworks. That’s where it gets interesting.

As long as we’re only talking stationary cycles, that’s not going very far. Once you start looking at how something more turbulent like solar activity strums a stationary framework — well, then you’ve added creativity to otherwise dreadfully boring music.

Tuned-windowed spectral methods are necessary to explore the solar excitation. Never even mind bothering with temporally-global spectral methods. I’ve found a lot of results I may never have time to share.

The important thing to recognize is that terrestrial circulatory topology changes dramatically with the seasons. Hydrologically this can’t be ignored, as seemingly 85-99% of climate scientists do. They have ridiculously silly notions of separability & error distributions that patently do not hold in spatiotemporally coupled systems, even if the coupling is weak and the system is noisy.

What we’re dealing with is a balanced multi-axial spatiotemporal differential that is simply governed in global aggregate. I already have enough knowledge of this problem to be certain that with sufficient secure lifelong resources I could thoroughly solve this problem (top to bottom including the regional flow details) and communicate the results in a concise digestible format (the only format worth formalizing).

5. Ian Wilson says:

Chaeremon,

You are completely correct in pointing out that the values for orbital means from recent ephemerides should be used in these calculations. I have used the current values from the JPL ephemeris for the planetary sidereal orbital periods – which (of course) do not remain stable over time. Things are even worse for the Moon – which has many small but very complex variations in its orbital parameters.

The purpose of my post is just to point out the zeroth order case. However, that said, I think that you will find that a more detailed analysis will give pretty much the same result.

6. Ian Wilson says:

Paul,

One of the vagaries of science is that you have to occasionally drag yours-self away from the coal-face and explain your findings in such a way that they are understandable by others.

This post is such an attempt. It is only one small part of a story that I will be setting out in a series of posts that tries to explain a scientific phenomenon that I believe needs to be discussed. It is not the complete picture or the grand theory of everything – it is not even close.

The basis of the argument presented in these set of posts is that the most likely way in which tidal extremes can affect climate variables here on Earth is through the beating of the periods of short-term orbital elements of the lunar orbit. This is not a knew idea – see:

Decadal Climate Variability: Is There a Tidal Connection?
RICHARD D. RAY – JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME, 2007, 20, p. 3542

However, I go one step further and argue the point that we also need to look at the beat periods between the lunar forcing terms and the annual seasonal cycle. I argue this because I believe that it is very likely that the lunar tidal forces achieve their greatest impact by acting in resonance with the much-strong solar-driven seasonal changes in the Earth’s climate (rather than acting alone).

This (alternative) perspective does not rule out the possibility that long-term climate changes are driven by changes in forcing from the Sun – which is likely to be the case – but it does tell you that if the Moon’s long-term tidal forcing does have an effect it is one of modulating the solar signal.

7. Ian Wilson says:

Chaeremon,

The Draconic year is just the beat period between the length of the lunar synodic month and the lunar draconic month.

If you want to check my relationships you would have the determine the mean value
of these lunar months on a time scale that is long enough for the mean to have some stability but short enough to track long term changes in this mean. You would then have to substitute the mean sidereal orbital period of the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Earth, and Venus, over this same time epoch, into my relationships to see if they are valid.

My suggestion is to use ~ 100 x the lunar synodic period ~ 8 sidereal Earth years

8. Ian Wilson says:

Chaeremon,

My suggestion is to use ~ 1000 x the lunar synodic period ~ 80 sidereal Earth years

9. Ian Wilson says:

Plagiarizing from Wikipedia – without apologies – here are their quoted lengths for the lunar months and their short-term changes:

anomalistic_27.554549878 – 0.000000010390 × Y
sidereal____27.321661547 + 0.000000001857 × Y
tropical_____27.321582241 + 0.000000001506 × Y
draconic____27.212220817 + 0.000000003833 × Y
synodic_____29.530588853 + 0.000000002162 × Y

80 years would produce errors ~ 0.0000002 days in the mean of the Synodic month
and ~ 0.0000003 days in the mean of the Draconic month

This would produce:

a change in the MEAN for DY from roughly 346.6201 to 346.6208 days over the time period proposed. An change in the MEAN of this amount leads to an error of ~ 0.022 days over the
orbital period of Saturn.

10. Steven Mosher says:

I already have enough knowledge of this problem to be certain that with sufficient secure lifelong resources I could thoroughly solve this problem (top to bottom including the regional flow details) and communicate the results in a concise digestible format (the only format worth formalizing).

#################

Perhaps its too large to fit in the margin of Arithmetica

11. Paul Vaughan says:

Ian, we don’t disagree. I’m simply about 10 (up from previous 2) orders of magnitude short on time & resources. Popular opinion will never change this — only sufficient, secure long term funding.

I look forward to your continuing contributions.

12. Chaeremon says:

Ian Wilson wrote: [t]he purpose of my post is just to point out the zeroth order case.

This is my goal as well, and this makes the luni-solar part (and hopefully more) of you work interesting for me. Other details (and all the human caused rounding errors) may later decorate the big picture (as Paul V. said: get it strumming).

Unfortunately I’m on the leave now, have skimmed the other comments as well, but am out of Internet (hospital) for a week or so. Will catch up when back.

13. Paul Vaughan says:

The basic framework based on NUSJMaEV:
(22.2)*(6.4) / (22.2 – 6.4) = 9
(11.1)*(3.2) / (11.1 – 3.2) = 4.5
(22.2)*(9) / (22.2 + 9) = 6.4
(11.1)*(4.5) / (11.1 + 4.5) = 3.2
(6.4)*(1) / (6.4 – 1) = 1.185
(12.8)*(2) / (12.8 – 2) = 2.37

There’s 2300 year modulation of semi-annual and 1500 year modulation of annual — dovetails in with Steinhilber+ TSI (details sometime during the next 2 years).

A 1997 NASA JPL paper gives the whole thing away. Interesting thing is they only showed the result graphically. They didn’t write interpretations in the text. Very clever (way to avoid paranoid censorship perhaps). It’s easy enough to figure out from the graphs. Pictures worth 1000s of words.

Chaeremon (June 23, 2013 at 8:26 am) suggested:
“[…] the big picture […] get it strumming […]”

I gave a crude outline of the 9-9 & 9-11 stuff here:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/12/sociology-of-the-pause/#comment-332688

Sun is doing everything (at all timescales). Lunisolar just sits there (being strummed).

I plan to extend the work to address (and correct) this:

Johnstone, J.A. (2008). Quasi-biennial synchrony of the extratropical troposphere and the solar magnetic field.

Click to access johnstone_svecse.pdf

Be sure to digest Mursula (2007) section 3. It’s too bad he didn’t illustrate it better. I suspect that’s why people are ignoring that landmark message. I knew as soon as I saw that graph how important it was, but it took a few years of subconscious brewing before my awareness of how to illustrate orders of magnitude better matured. I’m still waiting for others to catch up on this. Please everyone, make the effort. This is crucial. I assure everyone we’re at a collective dead end so long as this remains ignored.

Regards

14. oldbrew says:

IW: ‘what if the source of excitation for the Chandler Wobble had an extra-terrestrial origin?’

Apparently it has had three recorded phase changes of 180 degrees.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/415093/earths-chandler-wobble-changed-dramatically-in-2005/

‘But there is also something mysterious about the Chandler Wobble. In 1920, it underwent a sudden phase change of 180 degrees. Nobody knows why.

Now a new analysis of data on Earth’s rotation going back 160 years indicates that this event was not unique. Zinovy Malkin and Natalia Miller at the Russian Academy of Sciences Central Astronomical Observatory in Pulkovo say the phase has changed by small amounts on many occasions during this time. But the big news is that the wobble underwent 180-degree changes in phase on two other occasions: once in 1850 and the other in 2005.

So why should the Chandler Wobble undergo these changes in phase? An interesting puzzle for anybody with a few brain cycles to spare.’

Wikipedia notes that:
‘Any wave that reflects from a rigid boundary will undergo a 180 degree phase change.’

Whether that could apply to the Chandler wobble I have no idea but maybe someone else does.

15. tchannon says:

I am of the opinion the Chandler data is so bad that little can be drawn about it before 1960.

The data needs a through rework, should never have been published in such a poor state, especially by a primary international body.

There are good reasons why it is so poor, for example, global time synchronisation, technology generally.

I completely agree the wobble driver is highly likely to be orbital periods, the maths work very well.

I spent some time trying various ruses to get a linkage and failed. A clue probably exists in the irregularity of the ~6.4 year, it clearly deviates from a simple signal within the period of reasonably trustworthy data (say the last 20 or so years). At odd times I try a different ideas, lot there given the many physical dimensions involved.

16. Sparks says:

tchannon says:
June 23, 2013 at 2:53 pm

lot there given the many physical dimensions involved.

Oh c’mon Tim, There are only 3 physical dimensions involved, not counting time. /jk

17. tchannon says:

So you want to link a gyroscopic body with sloshy bits in orbit with other orbital bodies… frames of reference are there too. The only way this would be accepted would be via definite computation, correlation will not do.

18. oldbrew says:

268 x 433(CW) days = 116044 = 317.711 years

Quoting again from Ulric Lyons (link above, earlier comment) with that figure in mind:

‘Uranus-Saturn-Jupiter resonance:

Ur-Sa synod divided by Ur-Ju and Sa-Ju synodic periods is 3.2843 and 2.2843. Multiplying by 34*3 gives the number of synods for the whole 4627yr cycle.
3.2843 and 2.2843 times 7 gives 23 and 16, the 7:16:23 ratio is at 317.714yrs, one seventh of the 2224yr period’

Taking 317.711y and 317.714y to be the same thing, there’s a possible orbital linkage i.e.:
7 Ur-Sa = 16 Sa-Ju = 23 Ur-Ju = 268 CW

Could that be a starting point for further investigation?

19. Paul Vaughan says:

9.1 year terrestrial cycle =
beat of semi-annual with nearest QBO harmonic

(2.369717826) / 5 = 0.473943565

(0.5)*(0.473943565) / (0.5 – 0.473943565)
= 9.094558983

Now, let’s see who publishes this without giving credit.

20. Paul Vaughan says:

@ oldbrew (June 23, 2013 at 2:02 pm)

Interesting. Note that 54+27=81. Everything fits 9-9.

21. oldbrew says:

Rhodes Fairbridge also identified the 317 year period, with 45 years as the main period (Ian Wilson’s 44.77y matches) plus 111 years, in the raised beaches of the Hudson Bay area.

The caption to the photo (see link) says:

‘The Hudson Bay “staircase”, a typical series of 184 successively uplifted strandlines, situated in Richmond Gulf on the eastern side of Hudson Bay, Canada. The sand gravel beaches are preserved by permafrost, and recur with great regularity about every 45 years, representing the cycle of storminess. There are longer cycles of 111 years and 317 years evident in the beaches, which are linked with planetary cycles.’

More details here:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen2/Rhodes.html

Re 111 years:

69 Venus – Earth = 110.3y
101 Ju – Earth = 110.3y
170 Ju – Venus = 110.3y
(69+101=170)

55 Saturn – Mars = 110.5y
176 Saturn – Venus = 110.6y
121 Venus – Mars = 110.6y
(55+121=176)

107 Saturn – Earth = 110.75y
(107+69=176)

8 Ju – Ur = 110.5y

~~~~

@ Paul Vaughan

81, yes.

3 Grand Synods = 13881 years
Ur – Ne synods = 81 x 171.39 (13882y)
165 Ur orbits = 13862y
84 Ne orbits = 13842y
(165 – 84 = 81)
56 Pluto = 13871y
25 Eris = 13925y approx.
(56 + 25 = 81)

22. tchannon says:

Richmond Gulf seems to be close to the last glacial ice cap suggesting the varve are recent, to do with the retreat of ice. perhaps more of a terminal moraine.

http://www.erudit.org/revue/gpq/1987/v41/n2/032681ar.html?vue=figtab&origine=integral&imID=im9&formatimg=imPlGr

Long article here http://www.erudit.org/revue/gpq/1987/v41/n2/032681ar.html

23. Paul Vaughan says:

Sun knocks wobble off lunisolar rocker.

2 Markowitz = 1 Kondratiev
81 = 3 Markowitz wobbles

Miller, N.O. (2010). Chandler wobble in variations of the Pulkovo latitude for 170 years. Solar System Research 45(4), 342-353.

Click to access Miller_SSR-2011.pdf

Miller, N.; Malkin, Z. (2013). Analysis of polar motion variations from 170-year observation series.

Click to access 1304.3985.pdf

Malkin, Z.; & Miller, N. (2009). Chandler wobble: two more large phase jumps revealed.

Click to access 0908.3732v1.pdf

24. oldbrew says:

The 2010 Miller paper says the major phase changes for the wobble were in 1846, 1925 and
2005 – about 80 years apart. Just about possible that the gap between each equates to 4 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions: 4 x 19.859y = 79.436y

25. Paul Vaughan says:

Because of the edge effects I won’t draw any final conclusions at this time, but thanks oldbrew for drawing my attention to this important material.

How much trust do I have of “climate experts” who ignore rich climate info encoded in earth orientation parameter data?

Absolute zero. (There’s no sensible alternative.)