Empirical confirmation of solar-planetary theory: Solar polar field evolution matches 2011 prediction

Posted: March 29, 2015 by tallbloke in Analysis, Astronomy, Solar physics, solar system dynamics
Tags: ,

Back in 2011. Tim Channon used his cycles analysis software to predict the evolution of the solar polar fields. The basis of the curve he produced is the motion of the gas giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. As they orbit the Sun, they force the Sun to move relative to the centre of mass of the entire solar system. We see this motion when astronomers look out into the near cosmos and observe other stars ‘wobbling’. By measuring the wobble with respect to time, they are able to deduce the mass and distance of planets orbiting those stars, even though they are too small and dim to see directly.

Tim found that our Sun’s wobble due to the gas giant planets matched the observational data of the evolution of the Solar polar magnetic fields mentioned in the post put up by Stuart ‘Oldbrew‘ yesterday.

Here’s the plot Tim put up in 2011

Evolution of combined solar polar fields (red) vs motion of Sun relative to barycentre caused by planetary motion

At the time, it looked like the data was going to diverge from the prediction, but read on below the break to see the outcome.

Four years later we can see how well Tim’s model is panning out. The match is excellent, and this is yet another confirmation of our solar planetary theory.

Updated Solar polar field data from Solen.de confirms the solar-barycentric model.

Updated Solar polar field data from Solen.de confirms the solar-barycentric model.

Currently, the world’s leading expert solar physicists are only able to make guesses about the next solar cycle from the polar field observational data. But here at the talkshop, we can predict the evolution far into the future, because the motion of the planets is itself predictable.

This result also lends weight to Rick Salvador’s model, which uses Earth Venus, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus to hindcast and predict sunspot activity levels. His model also shows sunspot ‘minimum’ coming up soon, though with the current anomalously behaving Sun, it may ‘merge’ into a longer cycle with SC25.

Update Model calculated Solar Sunspot activity

Talkshop contributor Vukevic has also been running an updated polar field plot against his own formula, which is simpler than that used in Tim’s model. Vuk’s just uses the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, but still does quite well.

PF-latest-vuk-15

His model predicts the field reaching a maximum this year, whereas ours peaks in 2017. Time will tell. Interpretation of our model might indicate an imminent ‘rush to the poles’ for the magnetic fields, as the oscillation apparent in the observational data swings upwards. We should get confirmation of that within months.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    According to the solar simulator the path of the Sun is way off the solar system barycentre around 2020, matching the dip in the Channon model as this graphic shows.

    Solar simulator January 2015 – April 2024 (white line = motion of Sun, red crosshairs = solar system barycentre, red circle = 1 Sun width)

    http://www.arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/

  2. tallbloke says:

    Yep, those massive gas giants know how to throw their weight around.🙂

  3. rishrac says:

    Excellent site..

  4. vukcevic says:

    Hi
    His (vukcevic’s) model predicts the field reaching a maximum this year
    If you look at higher resolution graph at the front page of my website
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MVfiles.htm
    the peak is projected a bit later, sometimes during 2016, but that is a bit academic, since in the past peaks have lasted 2-3 or more years..

  5. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Vuk. Here’s the spectral analysis of the Sun’s barycentric motion Tim Channon plotted. I’ve annotated it with some planetary periods which fit the peaks. These aren’t all directly causative of the peaks, but give an idea of how the solar system harmoniously fits together.

    That peak at 9.41 has me puzzled at the moment.

  6. David Blake says:

    Well done chaps. Excellent work.

    Have a look at the movement (in miles) of Earth’s magnetic N. pole and correlation with temperature:

    Studies show that Earth’s magnetic field may be as “important as CO2”, another study by Joan Feynman (yes, sister of Richard) suggests N-mag-pole changes can change the oval where GCRs may effect the troposphere

    Am I correct in thinking that this may be a path for Earth’s climate:

                                   |--> Sun's Magnetic cycle --> Earth's Magnetic Field |
    Planetary cycles  -->|                                                                             |--> Earth's climate
                                   |--> Next solar cycle  --> Solar forcing (TSI & UV)    |
    

    ?

  7. Sparks says:

    Don’t forget the other ‘inconvenient’ facts that Uranus is denser than Jupiter and it therefore is composed of heavier minerals and that its strong polar field rotates facing the sun on average every 22 years, about the same time it takes for the suns polar field to rotate 360 degrees (two solar cycles)… And when Uranus’ orbit changes due to orbital perturbations caused by Neptune the Sun’s activity has also been observed to change in solar cycle length and sunspot intensity.

  8. tallbloke says:

    sparks: I’m sure E-M is part of this story as well as the angular momentum changes. Is the quarter orbital of U not 21 rather than 22 yrs though?

  9. Sparks says:

    Rog yes, that is closer I understand where you’re coming from..

  10. tchannon says:

    Roger telephoned to ask what I did. In 2011?
    I’ve found the files. Doesn’t entirely make sense. Labels differ. The post-process spreadsheet is dated 4 days later.

    The polar data using the further developed software more or less agrees with the first plot. A “flat” on zero crossing occurred at previous crossings. The Wilcox processing has changed so how comparable old and recent might be is unknown. Been discussions about this in the past.

    2011 I put effort into calculating and exploring the barycentre idea eventually concluding here be dragons, my time is better spent elsewhere.

    Guessing, my thoughts were that a brief data such as the polar data is too short to get a good period so use periods from barycentre calculation.

    As a reminder, the polar data is distorted by instrumentation problems, so far as I know unresolved. The view of the solar pole from the Wilcox Observatory varies in azimuth as the earth bobs up and down during it’s annual orbit. This affects the telescope effective aperture, the view. Clear evidence that this is the case is the spectral pair (doublet) centred on 1 year. The wiggle on north only and south only is this effect. The sum of the two mostly cancels the problem but not well. Modulation seems to occur on signal deviation. I suspect a non-linearity, perhaps around zero, hence the flat and hence attempts to compensate have eluded me. Perhaps processing change over time is confounding the problem.

    Is the “forecast” safe? No.
    I might comment again if my brain remembers.

  11. The weaker tstrength of earth’s magnetic field is likely correlated with the following:

    An increase in galactic cosmic rays/various other charged particles for the sun. Cooling.

    An increase in Muons a by product of galactic cosmic rays which could trigger volcanic activity. Cooling.

    A shift in the magnetic poles to lower latitudes which directs galactic cosmic rays to lower latitudes where more moisture is present more clouds. Cooling.

    Compounds all solar events which in turn impact the climate to one degree or another.

  12. correction -weaker strength and from the sun in the above post.

  13. J Martin says:

    Vuk’s polar field projection goes to 2030, it’d be interesting to see Tim’s polar field projection also extended to 2030.

  14. This is heresy, right? Proposing to say something about the fortunes of Men by studying the stars …

    The rack awaits thee …

    According to Archibald’s correlations, which have some use I think, the more time between solar minima, the greater the average temperature drop in some regions, if not globally. Tim’s predictions have this information. Could you plot it/chart it? Archibald has very specific expectations.

  15. tchannon says:

    I am very unhappy about casual extrapolation, mostly in the past done out of casual interest, not seriously.

    Either I need to be confident based on tests such as withheld data or hindcast, or have a technical basis. In this case there is still a conflict of parameters which means things are far from trivial.

    I’m preparing a new article which explains some common misconceptions and goes into what is a clue on next. Hopefully this will form a basis for some serious discussion.

  16. ren says:

    It must be remembered that Jupiter and Saturn have a very strong magnetosphere. Their mutual position can cause a particular response to solar activity (Vukcevic).

  17. David Arcibald says:

    Re Douglas Roctor, the temperature drop required hasn’t happened yet, though neither has it warmed. Which means that the temperature drop over the rest of the cycle becomes larger and larger. Ed Fix’s model also has some strangeness of the length of Solar Cycle 24 and/or the continuation into Solar Cycle 25.