Another dip into solar-planetary theory

Posted: February 24, 2017 by oldbrew in modelling, solar system dynamics

A bust of George Ellery Hale at Palomar Observatory [image credit: Visitor 7 / Wikipedia]

A bust of George Ellery Hale at Palomar Observatory [image credit: Visitor 7 / Wikipedia]

This is an extended re-write of the earlier post on this topic. The purpose is to explain the Jose cycle chart shown below (in blue).
– – –
The Hale cycle is the time taken for solar magnetic polarity to return to its initial state (i.e. two ~11-year cycles: one north, one south), so the two reversals of polarity take around 22 years.

Estimates of mean solar (Hale) cycle length:
‘Finally, we recover a 22.14-year cycle of the solar dynamo in the framework of a reduced zero-dimensional a-s dynamo model.’ – Stefani et al.

N. Scafetta re JEV: The 22.14 yr period is very close to the ~22 yr Hale solar magnetic cycle

I. Wilson (2012)
A Planetary Spin-Orbit Coupling Model for Solar Activity
Hence, the basic unit of change in the Sun’s rotation rate (i.e. an increase followed by a decrease) is 2 x 11.07 years = 22.14 years. This is essentially equal to the mean length of the Hale magnetic sunspot cycle of the Sun which is 22.1 +/- 2.0 yrs).

The aim here is to link the Hale cycle to the planetary movements of Jupiter and Saturn.

Planetary theory – from Abreu et al (2012):
Results. We find an excellent agreement between the long-term cycles in proxies of solar activity and the periodicities in the planetary torque and also that some periodicities remain phase-locked over 9400 years.

Conclusions. Based on these observations we put forward the idea that the long-term solar magnetic activity is modulated by planetary effects. If correct, our hypothesis has important implications for solar physics and the solar-terrestrial connection.
– – –

Jupiter-Saturn-Earth orbits  chart

Jupiter-Saturn-Earth orbits chart

In the Talkshop post Jupiter, Saturn and the de Vries cycle the graphic on the right showed the long-term orbital patterns in 14 Jose cycles ( = 14 x 9 = 126 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions).

Note that 85 S = 211 J = 126 J-S.
Dividing by the number of Jose cycles in the period i.e. 14:
S = 6 x 14, +1
J = 15 x 14, +1
J-S = 9 x 14 (9 J-S = 1 Jose cycle)
– – –
The Jose cycle chart (below, right) shows how the ‘components’ of the ~179-year Jose cycle fit together, using this data. Added in is the notional value of the number of mean Hale cycles expected in the period (8, + 1/14).

It’s a ‘model’ because not every 179 year period can be exactly the same, not least because solar cycles vary in length, within a range of roughly 11 +/- 3 years.

Linking the Hale cycle to the Jose cycle

Linking the Hale cycle to the Jose cycle

However over very long periods the numbers may average out as per the model. The Hale cycle would have a mean value of 22.15~years according to the model, i.e. a 99.95% match with the estimates above.

The idea of 15 plus 1/14th Jupiter orbits was once put forward by planetary cycles researcher Timo Niroma:
‘And one guess: the weak 179-year supercycle may bind the 9.9-year cycle with 15 1/14 Jovian years. This may have repercussions to the hypothesis that every 15th cycle among some others have the length of one Jupiter year.’

Chart – re S-H and J-H:
7 + 2 = 9 J-S conjunctions
7 – 2 = 5 = Landscheidt’s ‘pentadactyl hand’ (Lake Saki Varves paper – see Figs. 2 and 3)
[7 * 2 = 14]
– – –
Landscheidt and the ‘pentadactyl hand’ [extract from link above]:
Lake Saki Varve Thickness and Impulses of the Torque

FIG. 2 : Smoothed 9-year running variance in the angular momentum of the sun’s motion about the center of mass of the solar system (v), for the period 700-1600. The cyclic pattern, formed by the curve, conveys the impression of five-fingered (pentadactyl) hands. [bold added]
– – –
A complete five-fingered hand covers a period of 178.8 years, the fundamental cycle in the sun’s motion discovered by Jose (1965) and studied by Fairbridge, Sanders, and Shirley (Fairbridge and Sanders 1987; Fairbridge and Shirley 1987). Dansgaard (Dansgaard et al. 1969) has derived a cycle of just 180 years in climate from the Camp Century ice core drilled from the Greenland Ice Sheet. This correspondence begs for investigation of a possible relationship of climate features with the complex pattern of the five-fingered hand, which reflects both variations in impulses of the torque in the sun’s motion and secular sunspot activity.

The mean interval between fingers of the hand is 35.76 years.
– – –
Re. the 179 year cycle:
Gerry Pease Links Improved and Updated Solar-Planetary paper – Gerry Pease and Gregory Glenn

Do the planets affect the sunspot cycle? – Ask the Astronomer [Dr. Sten Odenwald]

Prolonged minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion – Fairbridge and Shirley (1987)

  1. M Simon says:

    This will amuse you

    Rock strata dating suggests planetary orbital effects on climate

  2. oldbrew says:

    Scafetta’s paper says:
    ‘The 22.14 yr period is very close to the ∼22 yr Hale
    solar magnetic cycle. Moreover, because the configurations Ea–Ve–Sun–Ju and Sun–Ve–Ea–Ju are equivalent about the tidal potential, the tidal cycle presents a recurrence of half of the above value, that is, a period of 11.07 yr. This is the average solar cycle length observed since 1750 (e.g. Scafetta, 2012b).’

    14/15ths of a Jupiter orbit is 11.07177~y.
    Double = 28/15ths of J in 22.14354~y = the Hale cycle
    28 Jupiter = ~15 Hale cycles as stated in the earlier post:

  3. oldbrew says:

    M Simon – yes it was amusing.

    Sphene pointed out a report on it in our Suggestions thread.

    “The impact of astronomical cycles on climate can be quite large,” explains Meyers, noting as an example the pacing of the Earth’s ice ages, which have been reliably matched to periodic changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit, and the tilt of our planet on its axis. “Astronomical theory permits a very detailed evaluation of past climate events that may provide an analog for future climate.”

    Is WUWT revising its attitude to ‘cyclomania’ we wonder.

  4. Sunsettommy says:

    Planet Mars has influence too?

    A new culprit for climate change is found, but it’s not of this Earth

    “Since the media is all aflutter over proposed changes to the EPA and various climate-based regulations, we may as well visit (or revisit) the debate on climate change. Is it the result of activities of man or simply the normal patterns of changes in the Earth’s complicated biosphere? Some claim that it’s a combination of the two. But now, a team of astrophysicists has released new data which seems to support a decades-old theory which places the blame, shall we say, a bit further away. Since a picture is worth 1000 words, here’s a hint:

    That’s right. The actual culprit for the repeated rise and fall of global temperatures might actually be Mars. That sort of thing is rather hard to square with our current debates but it all has to do with the “chaos” inherent in the orbits of the planets and how they interact with each other. The journal Nature broke the story this week and the details are contained in this release from the University of Wisconsin.”

  5. oldbrew says:

    Tommy – I’m a bit sceptical about all this 😦

    For example Mars is much further away from Earth than our nearest neighbour Venus and only has a fraction of its mass (about 1/15th).

    Plus, Venus has a well-known 13:8 orbital resonance with Earth, whereas Mars:Earth has no such low-number ratio.
    – – –
    I should say that not having read the paper I may have missed the point of it.

  6. oldbrew says:

    The long period of 126 J-S or ~2503 years in the diagram equals 41 retrograde revolutions of the J-S conjunction position. Since 41 is a prime number the period is unique.

    According to the model (8,+1/14 * 14 =) 113 Hale cycles would be expected in the period.
    113 is also a prime number.

    The number of J-S axial periods would be 211(J) + 85(S) = 296.
    296/113 = 2.619469 = ~Phi²
    [Fibonacci numbers: 55/21 = 2.6190476]

    You could say it was the beat period between J-S trigons (42 of 3 I-S each) and the number of retrograde revolutions i.e. 41.
    42 – 41 = 1.

    Kepler’s trigon