As long time regulars at the Talkshop know, our ongoing research into the links between planetary motion and solar variation has occasionally borne fruit in unexpected ways. The ‘shorthand’ for the sum of all planetary vectors is the Sun’s motion with respect to the barycentre of the solar system. This is the path the Sun is forced to follow by the ongoing evolution of the motion of all the planets. We have found various tantalising near-correlations between aspects of this motion and solar activity levels suggestive of some kind of mechanistic linkage.
We have been ridiculed for years by the WUWT wankers among others for working on this theory. Various other solar researchers have attempted ‘disproofs’ of a planetary effect on solar activity too. They all tell us the planets are “too small and too far away to affect the Sun”.
Last year, we featured a post concerning the work of Shepherd, Zharkov and Zharkova, who have been coming at the solar variation problem from another angle. They resolved the solar-hemispheric components of the solar polar fields into two separate curves, representing shallow and deep solar ‘dynamos’.
Combining the curves together produces a good representation of changing solar activity levels. Their prediction is, like ours from our planetary model, for a big solar slowdown extending through the middle decades of this century. The mainstream climate scientists tried to get the press release revoked…
Looking at the red curve in the top panel of the first figure, which becomes the blue curve in Fig 2 of the paper, I decided to compare it with the solar angular momentum around the solar system barycentre. The match is good.
This plot removes all doubt. The motion of the planets which drives the motion of the Sun around the system barycentre is intimately involved with the evolution of the Solar Dynamo.
now if we can just work out what causes the lags and distortions in the red curve, we will solve the problem of accurate solar prediction and collect the Nobel Prizes we so richly deserve. 🙂
I can smell revolution in the air.
UPDATE: The link between solar angular momentum and solar activity is further confirmed in a new paper by James Shirley of JPL.
In our standard models, in both Newtonian and relativistic contexts, orbital and rotational motions are considered to be independent and uncoupled, aside from certain small effects (including precession-nutation, and tidal friction) that arise due to tidal gradients of gravitational fields (see the Appendices of P1). Paper 1 introduces a new and potentially far more effective type of coupling, which may be operative at much greater distances than is the case with tidal processes.
“A periodicity of ~22.4 years, virtually identical to that of the Hale cycle, arises naturally
from combinations of the orbital periods characterizing the system of the four giant planets
(Bureau & Craine, 1970; Mörth & Schlamminger, 1978). On the basis of the correlations
displayed in Figs. 1 and 5, and the many other relationships and correspondences found linking the dynamical forcing function dL/dt with solar phenomena, we conclude that the 22-year Hale cycle of the solar dynamo is most likely driven by the same solar system dynamical processes that determine the trajectory of the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycenter of the solar system. We are unaware of any other physical process that may similarly act as a pacemaker for the Hale cycle. The orbit-spin coupling hypothesis described here and in Paper 1 supplies a testable and fully deterministic physical mechanism to account for the system behaviors observed. “
A nice touch:
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Rhodes W. Fairbridge.
And a disclaimer:
This work was done as a private venture and not in the author’s capacity as an employee of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Usoskin et al. [and others] showed that the Zharkova hypothesis has no predictive value:
Click to access 1512.05516.pdf
“A two-wave dynamo model was recently proposed by Zharkova et al. (2015, Zh15 henceforth), which aims at long-term predictions of solar activity for millennia ahead and backwards. Here we confront the backward predictions for the last 800 years with known variability of solar activity, using both direct sunspot observations since 1610 and reconstructions based on cosmogenic nuclide data. We show that the Zh15 model fails to reproduce the well-established features of the solar activity evolution during the last millennium. This means that the predictive part for the future is not reliable either.
How big of a solar slow down? It looks like Dalton type of activity now.
Do you think Maunder Minimum?
How low will solar wind speed become? Less then 300 km/sec?
Nice one Rog 🙂
For anyone wondering what it’s all about, try Arnholm’s solar simulator which is easy enough to use.
http://www.arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/
Start and end dates can be selected, and solar motion relative to that of its orbiting planets is clearly shown.
Tip: to keep it simple, de-select the rocky planets including Earth. Maybe select ‘Solar orbit’.
Latest solar info: http://www.solen.info/solar/
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Salvatore: To answer your questions one by one:
I don’t know
I don’t know
and
I don’t know
🙂
“We have been ridiculed for years by the WUWT wankers among others for working on this theory.”
Anything that goes against the luke-warmer’s way is not allowed at wanker central. They just love the “CO2 warms the planet via back-radiation” delusion. Oh well, I guess ridicule by the “cold things warm up hot things” crowd is not all that insulting.
Leif: “Here we confront the backward predictions for the last 800 years with known variability of solar activity”
Good grief, Leif: extrapolate a model using just 3 decades of data hundreds of years into the past and then claim the model’s inadequacy invalidates it? That’s just bullying tactics. Poor Valentina, you and Ilya should be ashamed of yourselves. Where is your sense of fair play?
We’ll be able to assist with tuning her model now we have found a link between her SBMF principle components and solar motion.
honest answers thanks
TB wrote: ‘now if we can just work out what causes the lags and distortions in the red curve’
We’re in Charvatova’s 1985-2040 disordered trefoil – see the PRP paper, Figure 1.
Click to access prp-2-21-2014.pdf
The solar simulator is quite good for showing what’s happening, once you get used to it.
Update: instead of three inner loops (trefoil) of one J-S/2 period each, there are two of about 9.8 years and one in between those two of about 10.2 years [in the 1985-2040 period].
As a guide:
Jan 1986 – Aug 1995 = ~9.8y (loop 1)
Mar 2006 – May 2016 = ~10.2y (loop 2)
Aug 2025 – Apr 2035 = ~9.8y (loop 3)
The gap (or ‘arc’) between L1 and L2 is well over a year greater than that between L2 and L3.
A J-S opposition occurs at about the mid-point of each loop according to the simulator. The start point of a loop can be easily predicted once you get the hang of it.
OB: If you check out Zharkova’s fig 2 and measure the periods, the blue curve has extrema about every 10 years and the red curve goes more like 11, 11, 13.5, 11, 11.
TB: look at where red/blue lines cross.
OB: Eyeballing, it looks like crossing points are near 10, 10, 13, 10, 10
TB: the dates of the first two seem to match the J-S opposition (July 1990) and conjunction (June 2000) pretty well. The 13 is a bit of a problem. Is this where it gets more disorderly?
OB: From memory, Charvatova has the orderly bit ending long before 1990. There’s plenty of non-linear dynamics in play here. It’s a knotty problem.
The crossing with the ‘A’ next to it is the only one in the lower half of the chart (end of the anomalously long period).
—
Charvatova’s (current) disordered trefoil is dated 1985-2040.
The last three disordered trefoils occurred at the times of the last three solar minima (Spoerer, Maunder, Dalton).
A/the common feature was that they all contained a Uranus-Neptune conjunction, the latest one being in 1993.
Keep going oldbrew, you are getting closer to what causes the disordered period. Charvatova herself still does not understand the simple reason.
TIP: there is ONE particular planetary configuration that throws the normal solar inner loop orbit out of balance.
This paper finds a better fit of ice age glacial inception to orbital inclination than to eccentricity. The bobbing up and down of Earth relative to the orbit of Jupiter (roughly).
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8329.full
They struggle with how that would change climate. I suspect folks here look at more causalities than they do… electric, tidal, influence on the sun of the major planets that also perturb inclination.
Per the Sun Deniers: It always fascinates me how a straw reduction to the absurd aguement is sufficient for them to dismiss a solar connection…
So solar perturbation by planets matches solar output changes. Earth inclination matches the 100000 year ice age glacial cycle and is driven by major planet orbital tugging. Lunar inclination changes and other orbital changes control our tides. All roads keep leading back to orbits and planets…
More clues to be found here:
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/AMP_Events.pptx
A correlation over 3 cycles is not a grounding for any conclusions and hence not reliable for predicting. Any model must reproduce the entire sunspot record and beyond before taken seriously.
The deep and shallow power cycles are the result of the fusion and fission layers suggested by the deep and shallow layering in the seismic data. The barycentric stirring of these pressure sensitive areas cause increased nuclear reactions during the changes of gravitation caused changes of packing density of mater/energy. Increased packing for more fusion or decreased packing for increased fission in their respective pressure density areas…pg
You might be correct pg, and no doubt the exact mechanism for the change in the Dynamo will be discovered soon. But there is no doubt that the disruption to the Dynamo occurs when the solar inner loop orbit tries to become an outer loop which breaks the trefoil pattern. This is seen throughout the sunspot record and across the Holocene via the proxy records.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/
I think Zharkova et all are interpreting their model incorrectly. It’s not the two waves going out of sync that correlates with solar grand minima, rather it is the perturbation to the waves like seen at 2005 in their graphs and also shown on tallblokes AM graph at the same point.
Another point to remember is that the AM sine wave over the past few cycles has aligned with the sunspot record in a timing sense. If we go back a few decades it goes completely out of sync …the two cycles do not seem to be connected.
Note how the speed of seismic wave travel through the solar body changes from the center, 0.0, to the surface at 1.0.
The “surface” at 1.0 radi is actually the “tropospheric” cloud top and the actual surface is at 0.75r . The solid core is somewhere around 0.1r- 0.15r.
Notice the notch at 0.3r and at 0.6r …pg
TB, have a look at this graph I did in 2009 (with Gerry’s help). It’s the total planet AM against solar AM. It looks very similar to your graph.
New superior paper solar-planetary influence!
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.01854
Geoff, that’s because it’s the same graphic. 🙂
I just grabbed it off a google image search to do a quick comparison.
Oh ok…getting you now. So one of the Zharkova waves similar to solar AM. I think if you do it over a longer timeframe the relationship will fall apart. For one AM is at its lowest around 1900 (U/N apart) and the Zharkova extrapolation is at its highest. Also think it will break down at the cycle level and go completely out of sync.
Their extrapolation is not good as Leif points out, the Sporer and Wolf minima are labelled as the MWP? I don’t see how they can go back and forward with their extrapolation on such little data.
Here’s the radius plot now I’ve had time to pull the data from JPL
That was Quick Rog?..what data fields did you use out of JPL and what formula did you apply to get the green curve?
But the simple fact is the relationship WILL breakdown. The Zharkova waves are tied to the Dynamo and hence the solar cycle. The solar AM curve does NOT follow the sunspot cycles of the past, the relationship breaks down entirely.
So we can stop at this point, solar AM is not linked to the sunspot cycle. Breakthrough averted.
Our own planetary planetary harmonic model is more successful on the longer timescale I agree. I think Zharkova should keep going with this stuff though. There’s something worthwhile about her approach.
No mention of Scafetta?
Geoff: That was Quick Rog?..what data fields did you use out of JPL
Target body Sun
Observer location Barycenter
and what formula did you apply to get the green curve?
Pythagoras.
Geoff: So we can stop at this point, solar AM is not linked to the sunspot cycle. Breakthrough averted
Oh it is. Just not in a simple linear way.
I’m not sure calling people “wankers” is the way forward. Goodbye
Correct, Solar AM is the background engine that drives cycle modulation and cycle breakdown, but not linked to cycle timing in any fashion. So we can’t say Solar AM is linked to the Zharkova waves, the WUWT wankers are still not defeated…yet
Considering the similar but mutually distorted shapes of the blue and red curves, I think we probably need to be looking at the AM at two different shell surfaces within the solar radius in relation to the barycenter. Zharkova and Wolff-Patrone are giving me food for thought.
I agree I was suffering a case of premature breakthrough, 🙂 but I can envisage some useful progress here.
Was meaning which data field, if it was radius you just need to plot distance without using a formula, and if it’s the xyz components then you need to use Jose’s formula.
Solar radius distance from SSB and Solar AM are related, but are different.
Davd Johnson: I’m not sure calling people “wankers” is the way forward. Goodbye
Not something I often do, but in the case of Willis and Leif’s attitude to cutting edge research in this area, well deserved.
Geoff: Was meaning which data field, if it was radius you just need to plot distance without using a formula, and if it’s the xyz components then you need to use Jose’s formula.
Solar radius distance from SSB and Solar AM are related, but are different.
I just took X-Y and applied pythagoras to convert from X-Y to polar coordinates (radius) for a quick and dirty engineers approximation, since Z motion is much (much) smaller. I know radius and AM are different.
And Watts is most certainly in the same category.
Still got a soft spot for Anthony for his devotion to duty, though his character judgement isn’t so good, and his understanding of physical processes poor.
@sunspotlover Thanks! Looks interesting.
ABSTRACT
We explore consequences for the solar dynamo of a newly-developed physical hypothesis
describing a weak coupling of the orbital and rotational motions of extended bodies. The
coupling is given by – c (L̇ x ωα) x r, where L̇ represents the rate of change of barycentric orbital
angular momentum, ωα is the angular velocity of rotation, r is a position vector identifying a
particular location in a coordinate system rotating with the Sun, and c is a coupling efficiency
coefficient. This form of coupling has no dependence on tides. The coupling expression defines
a non-axisymmetric global-scale acceleration field that varies both in space and with time.
Meridional components of acceleration typically dominate in equatorial and middle latitudes,
while zonal accelerations become increasingly significant at higher latitudes. A comparison of
the waveform of the putative dynamical forcing function with the time series for measured solar
meridional flow speeds from Sunspot Cycle 23 yields correlations significant at the 99.9% level.
We introduce the possibility of a destructive interaction between the predicted large-scale flows
(due to orbit-spin coupling) and the dynamo mechanism(s) of the 22-year magnetic activity
cycle; observations in recent cycles of higher meridional flow speeds during episodes of reduced
solar sunspot activity may be explained as a consequence of differences between the phasing of
the magnetic cycle and the phase of the forcing function. Algorithms are provided for
calculating meridional and zonal orbit-spin coupling accelerations within the Sun as a function of
latitude, longitude, depth, and time.
Watts is not a man of his word. he stated on his blog that he would review my paper on WUWT if it passed peer review. My paper did that in 2013 and still no WUWT review.
Watts, Svalgaard, and Eschenbach, bring it on…I dare you 🙂
Well, yes. He also denied Nikolov and Zeller a right of reply to Wanker Willis’ scurrilous bad mouth & bad math attack on them.
We carried it of course, and it’s a great read.
@sunspotlover: from the paper:
“No attempt to survey the scientific literature treating planetary theories of solar activity
will be made here. “
Booo! The usual reservation of the field to the clique, denying citations to the people doing the pioneering. I see Ian Wilson and Wolff and Patrone get an honourable mention though, including a cite of Ian’s PRP paper. (Good!)
“Shirley (2015) uncovered and described a small number
of remarkably systematic relationships linking the occurrence and non-occurrence of global-scale
dust storms on Mars with the variability of that planet’s orbital angular momentum with respect
to the solar system barycenter. “
Wowser!
“We thus obtain a value of 4.418 x 104(m2s-2) for the overturning torque of the couple given by Equation (1) when c = 1.
As discussed in Section 3.5 of Paper 1, this quantity has the temporal dimension of
inverse seconds squared, corresponding to an acceleration parallel to the Sun’s surface, at some
locality of interest. It is more than 2 orders of magnitude larger than the acceleration of gravity
at the Sun’s surface (~270 m s-2), and is larger than the tidal acceleration of Jupiter by 14 orders
of magnitude. The above calculation assumes a coupling efficiency of unity, and as we already know
(P1) this cannot be the case. …An initial strategy for the Sun might be to begin
with c = 1.0 x 10-13, and to thereafter progressively increase the c value in steps of an order of
magnitude from that threshold. This would initially yield accelerations about an order of
magnitude larger than those of the tidal acceleration of Jupiter, with each successive iteration
thereafter producing accelerations larger by a factor of 10. An upper bound for c may
presumably be found through a comparison of model outcomes with observations.
Unrealistically large or otherwise pathological model-generated values for meridional flow
speeds may for instance be obtained when the specified value of c is too large.”
Teaser!
“The existence of an intimate relationship linking the variability of the solar rotation with
solar activity is by now widely accepted (Zhao & Kosovichev, 2004; Georgieva et al., 2005;
Rempel, 2007; Komm et al., 2011; DeRosa et al., 2012; McIntosh et al., 2014; Cameron et al.,
2016)”
Are you paying attention Svalgaard?
The same Shirley that wrote the paper supposedly debunking any planetary influence on the Sun?
His Fig.1 is very dubious….he has cherry picked the times Solar AM lines up with solar cycle timing. The cycles don’t need to align, the background AM is the driver until it meets a fork in the road. That fork is the Dynamo affecting reversal of Solar AM that occurs during the 10 year disordered inner loop orbit.
Surely Shirley should have given Charvatova an honourable mention with respect to figure three.
Edit, Oh wait, he does, but out of alphabetical order in the list.
“For the years from 1888-1948, in panel
a), smaller and larger orbital loops alternate to form a relatively regular and symmetric pattern,
which has been labeled a ‘trefoil’ (Charvátová & Střeštík, 1991). Panel b) of Fig. 3 illustrates
the solar motion for the period from 1950-2030. “
Geoff; read on to section 4.2 covering 1950 to now
Just reading that section now…he all over the Uranus/Neptune driver. Some good stuff here.
Geoff: The same Shirley that wrote the paper supposedly debunking any planetary influence on the Sun?
I wonder how much of the credit should go to our works for changing his mind? 🙂
This is where you should have got a cite:
“The differences between the Sunday Driver mode and the Teenage Driver mode may be
directly attributed to differences in the azimuthal distribution (in celestial longitude) of the
28
outermost giant planets Uranus and Neptune. For extended intervals, as in panel 3a, when these
slow-moving bodies are near solar opposition with respect to one another, their combined
influence on the displacement of the Sun from the barycenter is much reduced. At other times,
as in panel 3b, the interference of their contributions typically leads to a larger range of
variability of the Sun’s radial distance (R) and orbital angular momentum L. The solar motion is
described more completely in the studies by Jose (1965), by Fairbridge and Shirley (1987), by
Charvátová & Střeštík (1991), and by Shirley (2015).”
He obviously hasn’t read my paper…think I had better contact him.
In the Maunder trefoil, assuming the first loop (L1) starts in November 1648 (U-N conjunction is in 1650), there seems to be a big difference between the period of the L1-L2 arc (end of L1 to start of L2) and the L2-L3 arc (end of L2 to start of L3).
L1-L2 arc = ~ 8 years 9 months
L2-L3 arc = ~ 11 years 0 months
Sum of the two = about 1 J-S conjunction period as expected.
Total trefoil period = 2.5 J-S (Nov. 1648 – Oct. 1698)
There is no trefoil pattern during the Maunder oldbrew, solar grand minima across the Holocene ONLY occurs during the disordered phase.
GS: understood, but there are still loops and the dates can be noted.
Referring to Charvatova’s ‘green boxes’ here, Figure 1.
Click to access prp-2-21-2014.pdf
I just love the McCracken plot. The WUWT crew have no answers for that one.
Oldbrew: The timing of each loop is totally dependant on the outer 4 with U/N adding their strong input (same as Saturn when together). Don’t think maths comes into it, but the cycle does sort of repeat every 178 years.
Shirley is already partially onto the insight I laid out in my comment at 8.17am when I said: “Considering the similar but mutually distorted shapes of the blue and red curves, I think we probably need to be looking at the AM at two different shell surfaces within the solar radius in relation to the barycenter. Zharkova and Wolff-Patrone are giving me food for thought.”
Some additional insight may be gained by a further consideration of the CTA acceleration
field illustrated in Fig. 2. In the northern hemisphere, at the left side of the figure, the northwarddirected
accelerations will presumably act to enhance poleward flows of solar materials at the
surface. However, at depth, the velocities of the corresponding return flows would instead be
retarded. The magnitude of the acceleration retarding the return flow would, however, be
somewhat smaller (due to the dependence of the acceleration magnitude on the radius vector r in
Equation (1)). The opposite situation would prevail in the southern hemisphere, at the left side
of Fig. 1. As previously noted in connection with Fig. 2, hemispheric asymmetries of meridional
flows might plausibly arise in this manner.
The processes envisioned above are likely to operate (and produce cascading effects) on
multiple timescales, including scales shorter than or comparable to the period of one solar
sidereal rotation. We suspect that their cumulative effects may reflect the longer-term evolution
of the putative forcing function dL/dt. Once again, numerical modeling is likely to be required to
gain traction on this question…. We anticipate that the inclusion of the CTA within existing dynamo models
may present a somewhat different set of problems, for instance, in connection with specifying the
angular velocity of axial rotation ωα as a function of depth and latitude within the Sun, “
The money quotes. Stitch that Svalgaard!
In our standard models, in both Newtonian and relativistic contexts, orbital and
rotational motions are considered to be independent and uncoupled, aside from certain small
effects (including precession-nutation, and tidal friction) that arise due to tidal gradients of
gravitational fields (see the Appendices of P1). Paper 1 introduces a new and potentially far
more effective type of coupling, which may be operative at much greater distances than is the
case with tidal processes.
“A periodicity of ~22.4 years, virtually identical to that of the Hale cycle, arises naturally
from combinations of the orbital periods characterizing the system of the four giant planets
(Bureau & Craine, 1970; Mörth & Schlamminger, 1978). On the basis of the correlations
displayed in Figs. 1 and 5, and the many other relationships and correspondences found linking
the dynamical forcing function dL/dt with solar phenomena, we conclude that the 22-year Hale
cycle of the solar dynamo is most likely driven by the same solar system dynamical processes
that determine the trajectory of the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycenter of the solar system.
We are unaware of any other physical process that may similarly act as a pacemaker for the Hale
cycle. The orbit-spin coupling hypothesis described here and in Paper 1 supplies a testable and
fully deterministic physical mechanism to account for the system behaviors observed. “
Don’t agree with the last bolded section…cycle length has no link to SSB movements. He should look at the JEV connection perhaps?
Recently came across this paper:
Sun’s retrograde motion and violation of even-odd cycle rule in sunspot activity (2005)
J. Javaraiah
http://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/362/4/1311/988883/Sun-s-retrograde-motion-and-violation-of-even-odd
Quote: These findings indicate the existence of a relationship between the violation of the G–O rule and the Sun’s retrograde motion about the centre of mass of the Solar system. In Table 1, it can be seen that the epochs at which L was steeply decreased, Saturn was aligned approximately in opposition to Jupiter, and Uranus and Neptune were nearer to Saturn (i.e. Jupiter leads by about 180° with respect to the other three giant planets). Obviously, such configurations of the major planets are responsible for the Sun’s retrograde motion about the barycentre, which in turn seems to be responsible for the violation of the G–O rule. Since the planetary configurations and the Sun’s retrograde motion can be computed well in advance, it is possible to know the epochs of violations of the G–O rule well in advance. Therefore, the G–O rule is expected to be violated by the Hale cycle, which will include (or end at) the year 2169…[etc]
[bold added]
. . .
From the introduction:
…one would reasonably expect that the violation of the G–O rule and the variations in the differential rotation are probably having a relationship with the Sun’s motion about the barycentre. We have investigated this in the present paper.
Geoff: cycle length has no link to SSB movements. He should look at the JEV connection perhaps?
Well we’ll see about that when I find the time to roll my sleeves up and produce the sum of two interacting AM curves representing solar surface and tachocline depth. I think Zharkova and Shirley have inadvertantly pointed the way to a neat simple solution, but we’ll know once I’ve done it.
With Paul Vaughan’s help We’ve already verified the gas giant hale cycle connection in terms of our favourite cosmic number.
Oldbrew: this is the area that has held planetary science back. The retrograde action happens close to grand minima events, but it is NOT responsible for solar grand minima. Landscheidt, Fairbanks and Shirley got it wrong in the old days. This planetary alignment needs to be buried if we are to move forward.
I wonder how long Leif has been aware of Shirley’s paper 1 and been sitting on it hoping we’d never notice. 🙂
An interesting takeaway from Shirley’s paper is that the conversion of solar AM into heat and light is what keeps the planet’s orbits from decaying. Ain’t it a wunnerful whirled?
Javaraiah also says:
The large drop in the equatorial rotation rate during the deep Maunder minimum might be related to the steep decreases in L at 1632 and 1671 (see Fig. 1), and obviously to the configurations of the major planets at these epochs (see Table 1).
(and)
We have used here the data on the giant planets only. However, the inner planets may also be important because of their proximity to the Sun. Their tidal forces on the Sun are larger than those of the outer planets (except Jupiter). Therefore, when they are closely aligned with the Jupiter, the combined effect may cause ‘jerks’ (rate of change of acceleration) in the orbital motion of the Sun (Wood & Wood 1965).
Shirley paper submitted 6th of June…
But he would have been aware previously I bet….
Paper 1:
Shirley, J. H., 2015. Solar system dynamics and global-scale dust storms on Mars, Icarus 251,
126-148, 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.09.038
Now Earth’s atmosphere is much denser that Mars’ so there would be less barycentric AM effect. Still an interesting new potential lead on storm prediction though… It might be worth looking at lunar perigee distance variation in relation to this to get a feel for magnitudes too.
Not much in the older paper perhaps, but interesting. The biggest take out is Svalgaard can no longer count Shirley in his club…
Have emailed Shirley, See what happens…
Nor are Clette, Cliver, Lockwood, Lefevre, Arlt, Vaquero, Usoskin, Pevtsov, etc.
He’s on his lonesome now, because his solar knowledge is perfect, and everyone else is wrong. Well, according to Leif anyway. 🙂
Thought Clette was onboard, a disciple perhaps?
Grumpy old man syndrome I think.
I am so glad you guys have the knowledge to oppose Leif who always thinks he knows it all and the rest of us know nothing.
The Zharkova model hindcasts are hopeless. No Sporer Minimum, and Dalton is erroneously marked as virtually the whole of the 1700’s, while the model is increasing in activity during the early 1800’s when the Dalton Minimum actually occurred. It’s a dogs dinner.
Sure, but the paper has some useful elements nonetheless.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 12, 2017 at 9:02 am
The same Shirley that wrote the paper supposedly debunking any planetary influence on the Sun?
Maybe not. Which paper did you have in mind?
Here are some of his earlier efforts:
Shirley, J. H., (2006). Axial rotation, orbital revolution, and solar spin-orbit coupling. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 368, 280-282.
Shirley, J. H., K. R. Sperber, and R. W. Fairbridge (1990). Sun’s Inertial Motion and Luminosity, Sol. Phys. 127, 379-392.
Fairbridge, R.W., Shirley, J. H. (1987). Prolonged Minima and the 179-yr Cycle of the Solar Inertial Motion, Sol. Phys. 110, 191-210
I’m guessing you may be thinking of the 2006 paper?
Another question which I hope can be answered to some degree.
How much of given solar activity is due to the solar planetary theory versus internal changes to the sun itself?
Salvatore: Do you mean How much of given solar activity variation is due to the solar planetary theory versus internal changes to the sun itself?
In which case my answer would be – All of it, because if the planets weren’t whirling the Sun around the solar system COM, then there’d be no reason for any internal solar changes. At least, not on the timescales we’re primarily interested in.
thanks that is what I meant
What an ordered trefoil should look like…
The orange triangle links the start/end points of the three inner loops. There are also two arcs. The continuous white line is the path of the Sun relative to the solar system barycentre (red crosshairs) in a particular ~50 year period [1192-1241 approx. in this example].
A Jupiter-Saturn opposition occurs each time the Sun (which is centred at the meeting point of the four planet lines) is about halfway round each of its three inner loops shown, like this…
[Graphics via Arnholm’s solar simulator software]
The key point oldbrew is the trefoil patterns only occur when Uranus and Neptune are apposed. This position creates balance in the solar system and lets Jupiter and Saturn do their thing unhindered.
OK, and the second diagram is a good example of that. Somewhere along the line there must be a ‘grey area’, maybe 2160s?
I gave you some clues oldbrew to what is behind the evolution of ordered to disordered phases of the Jose cycle…any enlightenment gained?
Yes TB the Shirley paper of 2006 is the one Svalgaard keeps trotting out when trying to defeat argument on planetary influence. So Shirley has gone from being fully on board with planetary theory (teaming up with Fairbridge etc) to debunking spin orbit coupling and now back again with his latest paper.
I guess that’s another blow for Svalgaard.
Geoff, I don’t think his intention was “debunking spin orbit coupling” per se. Just to point out that some arguments being advanced for it were unphysical. Notably, he hasn’t criticised Wolff and Patrone, apart from to say that their mechanism hasn’t been shown to work at Schwabe cycle timescale (But it has at centennial timescales).
GS: thanks for explaining the concepts. I only started looking at the trefoil thing in more detail a few days ago – before this post – after seeing the Javaraiah paper, so still getting up to speed probably.
I should add, I can see the U-N timing is obviously a moving target relative to the J-S cycles, and that’s where it can get tricky.
Oldbrew: Charvatova’s trefoil discovery is huge and still unchallenged. Svalgaard is completely stumped on this one. But she still does not know what causes the ordered phase (trefoil pattern) to move to the disordered phase where ALL solar grand minima occur.
The Talkshop should do a post on this subject, I believe it holds the key that will ultimately bring planetary science into mainstream science.
Charvatova’s diagram on p.22 of the PRP paper has the ordered trefoils starting at ~179 year intervals, but obviously if there’s a U-N element of 171.4 years that can’t go on indefinitely without hitting the buffers, so to speak.
Then it’s a question of how to characterize what happens ‘next’ before – presumably – ‘order’ is restored. Or there may be two or more scenarios to explain. Plenty to think about.
NB Fig. 4 says ‘Notice the twice shortened distance of 159 yr between the three trefoils in each segment’
Also: ‘As it follows from Fig. 3, the number of loop-arc pairs between neighbouring maxima varies between 9 and 8’
Yes that is a mistake in her paper, the U/N synodic is the pace maker. Wish I had the chance to be a reviewer of that paper as so much would have been changed.
The ~370-year segments look like 2 * 159 plus 50, or 18.5 J-S (8+8+2.5).
Geoff Sharp says:
“Watts is not a man of his word. he stated on his blog that he would review my paper on WUWT if it passed peer review. My paper did that in 2013 and still no WUWT review.”
Watts claims that he is aghast that the CO2 alarmists will never debate the facts and claim that the “science is settled”. His actions belie this however.
Watts will delete and banish anyone he thinks is a “slayer” or too close to being one. Anyone who does not think that CO2 and “back-radiation” from the upper atmosphere can warm the surface of the planet are not allowed to be part of the conversation. This makes Watts an anti-science hypocrite.
No matter your position on what CO2 can and can not do — the scientific debate on that issue is not over. (it is over in Watt’s mind of course)
~ Mark
One of the things that caused me to lose interest in Dr. Zharkova’s 2015 paper was the lower part of Figure 2 (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689#f2) showing a “prediction” of the 2014 second peak of SC24 that is much lower than the first (2012) peak. The actual 2014 peak was, in reality, significantly higher than the 2012 peak.
I am awed every day by the revelations of real science folks. (as opposed to the science fiction of The Satanic Gases)
As a ham radio operator the sunspot cycles are very important. Then there’s the CAGW scam… sheeesh! The more you guys find out about the sun and the rest of the cosmos’ effects on our little blue marble the more succinctly our guys can kill off this vampire sucking trillions out of the world economy for little but to sustain himself.
Rent seekers beware! The real scientists are sharpening their wooden stakes.
I thought the following statement “We have been ridiculed for years by the WUWT wankers among others for working on this theory” was slightly rude, there’s nothing wrong with ridicule or a bit of tongue ‘n cheek banter, I wouldn’t like to see friends getting the wrong impression (as they frequently do) lol
Nice thought provoking post as usual.
General comment re WUWT;, things are-a-changing as the ground is slowly subsiding beneath Anthony’s feet as more slayer-esque comments appear without stonings or even “he’s a very naughty boy”. For those with the right tendencies I encourage a visit, chances are you will have a nice chat over tea and cake..”More tea, vicar?”
Pro tip – Try not to fart as soon as you arrive, save it for later.
Part of a response I’ve had from James Shirley:
“While I am hopeful that the dynamo modeling community will take up this question [of prediction] soon, there are no guarantees, and it could be some years before progress is made in that area. Thus other approaches (not requiring supercomputers) are worth exploring. I welcome the efforts of others to explore and stress-test the ideas.”
Geoff Sharp says:
June 12, 2017 at 7:08 pm
Yes that is a mistake in her paper, the U/N synodic is the pace maker. Wish I had the chance to be a reviewer of that paper as so much would have been changed.
There is NO mistake in the paper. I WAS one of the editors. The U/N synodic IS the longterm pacemaker but is NOT the dominant feature of the .Jose cycle.
Here’s a figure from Fairbridge and Shirley’s 1987 paper which will look pretty familiar to Geoff, as it was replicated by Carl Smith in the early 2000s. I have annotated it with black lines showing the trefoil periods from fig 1 of Charvatova’s paper. As you can see, they are at regular ~179 year intervals.
The U-N effect can be seen rippling through the large J-S induced barycentric loops and every 2402 years you get a 367 year period in which there are two 159 year shortened Jose cycles, exactly as Charvatova correctly shows in fig 4 of her paper. This reconciles the 121J-S and 14 U-N synodics occurring in each 2402 year Halstatt cycle.
Geoff may well be right that U-N is the harbinger of grand minima, but that is NOT what Charvatova’s paper is about.
This test result from the solar simulator is intended to show the 2402 year repetition.
The second period of solar motion has been rotated to highlight the similarities between the two.
U-N position is advanced by 14 U-N so virtually the same, and J-S is only slightly different.
The trefoil (three inner loops) and the arcs seem to stand up to comparison too.
Left: 476-529 AD, right: 2878-2931 AD (2878 – 476 = 2402 years).
NB The period was chosen at random, but Arnholm’s simulator v2 only works from 0-3000 AD.
Full screen image
We have been through this before Rog, the U/N synodic is the major driver behind Charvatovas’s work. If you went back in steps of 179 years over time the disordered pattern would appear where the ordered phase should be. This is why McCracken also changed the Jose cycle to 172 years to keep the phases in sync across the Holocene.
I know you were a reviewer of that paper and I was disappointed that the new knowledge gained from my work that validates and corrects Charvatova’s work was not passed on. I have tried to contact her a few times without success, it will happen one day.
Geoff: U/N synodic is the major driver behind Charvatovas’s work
No it isn’t. The grand minima get a brief mention in her paper on the Jose and Halstatt cycles but no more.
Geoff: McCracken also changed the Jose cycle to 172 years
No he didn’t.
Look at the table you love so much. Jose Cycles of 179 years on there, like it or not:
Have you made a version of that table with U/N synods on it?
Or with the U-N vs J-S configurations you say cause solar grand minima on it?
If not, why not?
No Rog, read the text in the paper, he clearly states the slices are 172 years, the graph is labelled incorrectly. Think about it, the ordered phase can ONLY occur when U/N are apart, over 10 cycles the U/N synodic would move on by about 70 years moving the ordered phase into the disordered phase.
Email me a copy of McCracken’s paper please, mine’s on a dead lappy.
However, the Fairbridge-Shirley graphic I posted 3 comments above with Charvatova’s trefoils annotated show’s your assertion to be incorrect. Here it is again. Please explain what’s wrong with it.
> June 12, 2017 at 10:51 am
Your formulas with phi and planet frequencies — this works ONLY if they are expressed in Earth-years ?
What meaning has Earth-years in large-planet cycles?
Also, Solar Hale cycle frequency of 22.1393 years is also just theoretical or a crude average…
We have been through this before…this copied from Gerry’s thread last year.
————————————————-
October 21, 2016 at 1:04 am
TB
From the McCracken paper:
The times of commencement and of greatest effect of these GME were then determined with respect to the commencement of the Jose cycle, and are displayed in Figure 7. The data have been arranged so that the ordered phase of each cycle commences at T = 0 on the left-hand edge of the figure. The intervals of increasing cosmic-ray intensity (open boxes) and maximum cosmic-ray intensity (black boxes) are shown relative to the commencement of the cycle. The heavy-dashed lines indicate the approximate limits of the ordered phase. The light-dotted lines denote the average location of the barycentric anoma- lies within the cycles. The figure shows that all 20 GME occurred during the disordered phase of a Jose cycle. Typically the intensity started to increase significantly during the first half of the disordered phase, attaining maximum intensity in the latter half. Closer inspec- tion indicates that ≈ 40 % of the GME commenced in the vicinity of the first barycentric anomaly, while ≈ 50 % commenced in coincidence with the second. Frequently the intensity decreased rapidly in coincidence with the commencement of the ordered phase of the next Jose cycle. Taking the duration of the disordered phase to be 112 years, the probability that a GME would peak (at random) during the disordered phase is 112/172 = 0.651. Based on bino- mial statistics, the probability that the 20 GME would coincide with the disordered phase is (0.651)20 = 2 × 10−4 . Allowing for the averaging effects of the 22-year averages, we reduce this probability to 10−2. This correlation persisted throughout the 9400 years of the PCR record, indicating that it is not an ephemeral correlation unassociated with the Jose cycle.
From this we conclude that the long-term average Jose period is 171.49 ± 0.21 years. Independently, Sharp (2013) has concluded that the Jose period is ≈ 172 years averaged over the past 6000 years. For the purposes of this article, we defined the first Jose cycle to commence at the start of the ordered phase in 10 332 BP. This places the modern era in the 59th Jose cycle.
——————
The best way to see the drift of U/N is to look at the actual solar paths on Arnholms sim etc, look over the long term…not just a few cycles.
I still rather believe in small-planets influence, possibly through Earth’s magnetism:
E-M double-planet’s orbital energy, different modes well match with signed Sunspot cycle.
This is just another expression of the EVJ cycle.
Which matches timing well, but does not tell anything about cycle strength…
Jose 1965, McCracken 2012, Fairbridge-Shirley 1987 and Charvatova 2013 are all showing us that we get 179yr cycles and two 159yr cycles within a 367yr period, per 2402yrs. The evidence is there in the tables, graphs and plots.
Geoff appears to have convinced himself that the trefoil is shaped by UN oppositions and therefore must shift by 7 years per Jose cycle in a steady, regular progression.
I prefer to believe the evidence of my own eyes. We all agree the the long term average of the Jose cycle is at the UN synodic period. Those previous scientists think so too. But there is no “mistake in Charvatova’s paper”. There is no “mistake in the labelling in McCracken’s paper” either.
Semi: the formulas work whichever units you choose to measure with. Use the Hale cycle length average as a unit of 1 and test it for yourself.
And I agree the Earth’s magnetism has an effect on the Sun. This was shown by Ernest Maunder’s wife in the late 1800s.
You obviously can’t read Rog, McCracken clearly states as shown in my previous post that the slices are 172 years and that he agrees with me and cites me on this issue.
And that you challenge the trefoil pattern is not a direct result of the U/N opposition shows your lack of understanding of basic solar system dynamics.
I have provided the evidence, if wish to ignore it that’s up to you. We shall agree to disagree.
Apologies for being unable to read Geoff. Please help me out by quoting the exact part of the McCracken text which “clearly states …that the slices are 172 years ”
Thanks.
All of the pioneers got it wrong and made bad predictions. This is the major reason we are lumped in the pseudo science bin. Look at the current data from McCracken and myself that is still unchallenged and based on real raw data, not models with many tuning parameters, to see the way forward.
Roger should be more up to date with the new science, regrettably very few understand the new concepts. I am still astonishing that he does not understand the importance of the U/N opposition and the trefoil patterns and How they move on 7 years per 179 year cycle.
PA Semi wrote: ‘Your formulas with phi and planet frequencies — this works ONLY if they are expressed in Earth-years ?’
No, it’s about ratios. The units of time don’t matter at all.
(Jupiter orbits per mean Hale cycle) + (Saturn orbits per mean Hale cycle) = ~2.618 = Phi²
Ratio of Hale:J+S = 1:Phi²
Taking the duration of the disordered phase to be 112 years, the probability that a GME would peak (at random) during the disordered phase is 112/172 = 0.651. Based on bino- mial statistics, the probability that the 20 GME would coincide with the disordered phase is (0.651)20 = 2 × 10−4 . Allowing for the averaging effects of the 22-year averages, we reduce this probability to 10−2. This correlation persisted throughout the 9400 years of the PCR record, indicating that it is not an ephemeral correlation unassociated with the Jose cycle.
From this we conclude that the long-term average Jose period is 171.49 ± 0.21 years. Independently, Sharp (2013) has concluded that the Jose period is ≈ 172 years averaged over the past 6000 years. For the purposes of this article, we defined the first Jose cycle to commence at the start of the ordered phase in 10 332 BP. This places the modern era in the 59th Jose cycle.
——————
McCracken here is discussing fig. 7, can you see 179 years mentioned anywhere in this text? He states 3 times the period is 172 years. He is in total agreement with me, and challenges Charvatova Fairbridge and Shirley not to mention many others. The pioneers got it wrong, its time to move forward or suffer the same pain.
Geoff can’t quote McCracken stating the Jose Cycles are in 172 year slices. That’s because what McCracken actually states is that the long term average of the Jose cycles is ~172 years. Well, duh. I’ve told Geoff that no-one disputes this three times this morning.
Yet Geoff says it’s me that can’t read.
Geoff is also in denial of the plots I’ve shown him that put Charvatovas nice trefoils at regular 179yr intervals century after century after century. Which is why Jose, McCracken, Fairbridge-Shirley and Charvatova all tell us the Jose cycle is 179.7 years with an occasional cycle which is one JS conjunction shorter at around 159 years, which brings JS and UN back into an alignment which produces the ordered trefoil pattern. Far from these pioneers being wrong, it’s Geoff who is wrong about this.
Geoff’s inability to grasp basic solar system dynamics is such that he doesn’t understand that a phase shift in the UN conjunction cycle isn’t going to change the shape or temporal phasing of the trefoil pattern much when the phase of UN relative to JS is also shifting in a synchronous way. Nor does he understand that the numerical relations between these planet pairs are such that instead of a steady progression we see a ‘cogging’ type of effect on the trefoil pattern whereby after centuries of quasi-stability, there is a quite rapid shift to a new temporal alignment.
In ~179 years the Sun will trace out 9 inner loops and 9 outer arcs, mostly as a response to Jupiter and Saturn.
That’s not to say that something else couldn’t repeat over a different time period while those loops and arcs are going on. The two things don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
Btw I suggest the ordered and disordered periods are really 1/3rd of the ~179 year solar motion period. Just add half an arc to the start and end of each trefoil.
Kepler’s trigon = 3 J-S = one triangle
rog says:
Have you made a version of that table with U/N synods on it?
Or with the U-N vs J-S configurations you say cause solar grand minima on it?
If not, why not?
————————–
It has already been done…that’s what the McCracken paper is all about. Why would we do it again?
It’s not what I say, it’s what the data says…happy for you or the WUWT boys to try and prove the data wrong….do your best, you all seem to be in the same camp. (You and Watts refusing to review my paper so far) which says a lot??
[Reply] I’ve shown you the data this morning, twice, and you’ve refused to comment on it.
Far from refusing to review your paper, I’ve twice offered you a guest post here so it can receive peer review from the talkshop massive. You’ve chickened out both times.
I have plotted two phases that are 1790 years apart, one is disordered and the other is ordered (go figure). The first plot has U/N roughly together in the middle of the phase and the second has U/N roughly opposed in the middle of the phase. The start dates are separated by 179 x 10.
So if we stick with 179 year slices the ordered phase can become the disordered phase as U/N move 7 years per Jose 179 year cycles. So by Rogers logic solar grand minima can occur during the ordered phase??
Mc Cracken’s graph does not show any grand minima in the ordered phase across the whole Holocene, how can that be? It is because it is as he stated very clearly in his text that the ordered phase is 60 years and the disordered phase is 112. 60 +112 = 172.
Once again the older crew got it wrong. And myself and McCracken and Beer and Steinhilber have shown a new way that is correct.
OB: [1192-1241 approx. in this example].
Yep, and here’s 1370 – 1419 : 178 years later
And here’s 1549 – 1598 : 179 years after that
And here’s 1727 – 1777 : 178 years after that
And here’s 1906-1956 – 179 years after that.
And here’s 2085-2134 : 179 years after that
In all sincerity I hope you see the validity of the plots I posted, the Charvatova phases cannot be repeating on 179 year intervals. Understand if some of our chit chat is not posted.
[Reply] I do understand your argumentation. Equally sincerely I hope you can see the validity of the Fairbridge-Shirley/Charvatova plot. I think there’s middle ground to be found between you/McCracken and their positions, so please go ahead and do your write up and submit it.
TB: yes, 3 loops + 3 arcs every 1/3rd of ~179 years.
The period you’re showing is 3 loops + 2 arcs, as used by Charvatova.
Expanding on that, the third arc splits into 2 links, one with the previous and the other with the following SIM period (whatever it may be) i.e. 2 arcs + 2 half-arcs. It’s always loop-arc-loop-arc [etc.] in the end, whatever the period. The J-S conjunction is mid-arc.
IIRC there’s a Jupiter-Saturn opposition at around the mid-point of each loop i.e. when the Sun is halfway round it, with Jupiter on the ‘outside’ – at least on the ones I tried.
Like this…
If you look at oldbrews SIM2 plots it is easy to see the the changing U/N position every 179 years. It goes from nearly opposite to almost 90 deg opposed within a few 179 year cycles. The ordered phase trefoil will still occur in these circumstances but you will not see solar grand minima.
More proof of my statements, give it a few more cycles and we will see the disordered phase kick in as U/N get closer together each 179 years.
[Reply] Well I’m sorry but that’s just wrong. The last UN conjunction was in 1992 and they’re now getting further apart every 179 years, not closer together.
Geoff: All of the pioneers got it wrong and made bad predictions.
The Fairbridge-Shirley method for identifying the grand minima laid out in their 1987 paper is actually pretty good. Their mistake was to call the onset of the current grand minimum we’re going into one J-S opposition early. If they had erred on the side of caution and gone for 2010 instead of 1990, they’d have been looking good.
It’s not good enough Rog, most of them made the same mistake, 20 years is a longtime. Landscheidt, Fairbridge, Shirley and countless others used the zero crossing or J opposite S/U/N as the marker for grand minima. When looking at low resolution proxy records this looks convincing but when we drill down to the solar cycle level it’s way out.
This caused all of them (Charvatova for different reasons) to make bad predictions that brought the whole show down. If they saw that it is J/U/N with S opposite that coincides with all grand minima measured at the solar cycle level the world of solar physics would be in a very different place right now.
[Reply] I’m sorry, but this is wrong too. Fairbridge & Shirley’s 1987 paper uses a completely different predictor. Why don’t you read the paper and see for yourself. Anyway, write it all up in your guest post and let’s have at it on a fresh thread. 🙂
GS wrote: ‘If they had erred on the side of caution and gone for 2010 instead of 1990, they’d have been looking good.’
Looking at the 1987 F&S paper, they say: ‘Our tentative prediction is for the inception of a new prolonged minimum within the time span of the solar barycentric orbit of 1990-2013.’
Doesn’t that mean ‘sometime between 1990 and 2013’, rather than a specific year?
Rog says:
Reply] Well I’m sorry but that’s just wrong. The last UN conjunction was in 1992 and they’re now getting further apart every 179 years, not closer together.
————
You are missing the point Rog, OB’s plot start at 1231 with a trefoil position and U/N almost opposed. Each successive 179 period there after sees the U/N position quickly move to 90 deg quadrature. As I have shown but you have not posted the U/N position will move from opposing to together over 10 x 179 year periods.
[Reply] Ah, ok, not from 1992 but from 1231. There’s no need for guesswork because I went to the trouble of plotting each successive 179 year period after 1231 and posted them above. Charvatova’s trefoils hold up well for over 1000 years and you can see exactly where U-N end up.
I have read the paper OB & TB, they along with Landscheidt were expecting grand solar minimum at 1990. J with S/U/N opposing being their marker, which is plainly wrong.
OB: Looking at the 1987 F&S paper, they say: ‘Our tentative prediction is for the inception of a new prolonged minimum within the time span of the solar barycentric orbit of 1990-2013.’ Doesn’t that mean ‘sometime between 1990 and 2013’, rather than a specific year?
Yes, it means exactly that. So within their margin of error, they were correct. In 1987.
in·cep·tion
inˈsepSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
the establishment or starting point of an institution or activity.
“she has been on the board since its inception two years ago”
synonyms: beginning, commencement, start, birth, dawn, genesis, origin, outset
I wrote about this years ago on my blog, they are using the same marker as Landscheidt and both expecting grand minima at 1990. The marker is wrong, end of story, there are no grand minima occurring across the sunspot record that correspond with this marker.
Other pioneers making the same mistake in the following:
[Reply] Thank you for posting the evidence.
‘Our tentative prediction is for the inception of a new prolonged minimum within the time span of the solar barycentric orbit of 1990-2013.’
Probably the greatest single obstacle to progress in modern science is the insistence on “mechanism”. This is one of the greatest mistakes in science.
Look at history. Mechanism is the last ingredient in discovery, and it invariably turns out to be wrong as greater insight is gained.
Discovery starts with a problem to be solved. When should we plant the crops, when should we harvest?
Somewhere along the way, someone notices that the height of the sun in the sky is somehow related to planting/harvest. Someone else notices that this can be measured by using shadows. And eventually someone builds a calendar to predict the seasons.
But nowhere along the way was an understanding of the orbital mechanics of the sun and earth part of this process. It took thousands of years after successful prediction before we gained even a rudimentary understanding of the mechanism.
The problem with mechanism has a parallel in human thinking. Many people assumed that we solve problems by going from problem, to method, to solution. But this is not how we solve problems.
Almost always humans go from problem, to guess, to solution, to rationalize. What we do is almost always guess the answer to a problem, and then we look to see if we can rationalize the answer to see if it “fits” logically.
And so, when someone says that “you are fat because you eat fat”, or “you have ulcers because of stress”, this sounds reasonable, and science blindly marches down a dead end for generation after generation.
The problem is that we are looking at “mechanism” to judge if the solution is reasonable. But if you told someone 1000 years ago that invisible gravity was the mechanism behind the seasons, they would probably be looking to lock you up or burn you as a witch, because clearly it is the sun that causes the seasons.
So when someone says orbital mechanics cannot predict the sun because there is no mechanism, I would say that is a very wrong-headed argument. Mechanism is the worst way to judge if a prediction is accurate or reliable. The only true test of a prediction is performance.
> Reply to Rog June 13, 2017 at 11:21 am, oldbrew June 13, 2017 at 11:47 am
> referencing: June 12, 2017 at 10:51 am
2*φ^5 = 22.180339 – comparing this number to cycle length works ONLY in Earth-years units.
1/(U-N) = (φ*sqrt(5)) ^ 4 = 171.35 works also ONLY in Earth-year units…?
var y:=1, u:=y/84.07, n:=y/164.88, r=1/(u-n)
This :
var y=1, j=1/(11.86368*y), s=1/(29.44835*y), u=1/(84.07104*y), n=1/(164.87966*y),
r=2 / (j + 3*s – u + n)
result r == 11.090502207871
which is NOT 22.180339 (rather if there was y=1, r = 4 / … )
selecting another value for coefficient “y” (units, year), gives another frequency number, of cause numeric frequency result depends on units, in which it is expressed…
Do I miss some special math behind “+” and “-” and “/” operators ?
————–
> reply to: Geoff Sharp …
The 179-year cycle is slightly modifying on each pass, there are few more longer-term cycles superposed over this.
@ PA Semi
I repeat:
(Jupiter orbits per mean Hale cycle) + (Saturn orbits per mean Hale cycle) = ~2.618 = Phi²
Ratio of Hale:J+S = 1:Phi²
No Earth units.
Regarding TB’s graphic:
That was TB’s early artistic impression of the exposed tip of 1 iceberg.
We now know:
1. There are lots more icebergs.
2. There’s universal generality.
In recent days I’ve been skiing (skimming and skipping through) through some of the history of q-analogs, quantum mechanics, etc. and wondering why only in recent years this has become a core mainstream focus.
They thought they had it all figured out, so they curbed their drive to explore further.
It was the usual mistake: a false uniformity assumption (e.g. anisotropic 2D samples from 3D isotropic context — mainstream inattention to aggregation criteria is mysteriously evasive).
Then along came some observations to raze, pulverize, and incinerate naive notions.
Mathematically there are direct analogies with:
1. fermions, anyons, and bosons.
2. The Pareto Principle.
This is about the geometric and topological roots of stability.
It’s about efficient neutral balance.
Simple stability based on Conway.
Before reading up on q-analogs I had not realized that the efficiency of the Pareto Principle is based on the Conway Triangle. I had not realized the connection between phi and the Pareto Principle.
Another fresh new idea (refreshed from 2009):
Derivative of acceleration (Jerk) of Sun relative to Jupiter.
Jerk is vector quantity, and to convert it to number, there are multiple choices. Taking just magnitude looses sign and doubles frequency. Originally I plotted vector X erroneously, which also seemed interesting, but here it is V_jerk dot V(Sun,Jup) which seems little more interesting than “dot” with Sun rel SSB…
In the acceleration of Sun and it’s derivative, dominant frequency is arround 236 days (Venus/Jupiter) and 89.6 days (Mercury/Jupiter) and 397 days (Earth/Jupiter)
Although it seems to match Sunspot cycle, it gets out of sync sometimes and it _cannot_ be said, that IF it gets out of sync the cycle is weaker…
So probably it is just a nonsense, or just another “function of planets” that resembles sunspot cycle somehow…
> oldbrew … June 13, 2017 at 10:28 pm
I did not object that (yet).
I’ve originally June 13, 2017 at 10:32 am objected that _nice_ image at June 12, 2017 at 10:51 am and I was saying:
“Your formulas with phi and planet frequencies … only in Earth-years”
Those formulas on that one image were suspicious and still they are…
But I’ll object your phrase “mean Hale cycle” now:
The cycle length is highly irregular, there actually is no regular cycle as I could understand a “frequency”. Also there is a relationship between start and cycle length and it’s amplitude and the following cycle’s magnitude. Thinking just of single frequency you would loose many interesting properties…
—–
(But consider, that I am just an amateur physicist and professional senior programmer, which is a craftsman or a digital wright, possibly a cyber-shaman… I’m not a mathematician…)
Also related to large planets and barycenter…
I’ve promissed more from this one idea:
Angular momentum relative to barycenter is a conserved property of the system, Solar system is one such example.
Actually, the vector sum of angular momentum in JPL model is very constant,
BUT
since planet distances are elongated by Shapiro delay, if the line connecting them to SSB (solar system barycenter) crosses arround Sun, their angular momentum temporarily grows (they are with same mass and velocity more far from center for some time) and then drops, and it has to be taken from somewhere and later returned somewhere (or contrary?) — either in planet & Sun spin energy, or into planet orbital energy, which would then be missing in JPL calculation of ephemerides…
Possibly it is just a minor error of JPL ephemerides and nothing really important — if this momentum cannot be transfered to spin momentum… (it would not make that much difference to be observed on that short time-scales on which the ephemerides are verified by observations. Planet orbital periods would not change by whole days due to that, probably…)
There is a 7.5 year cycle (probably 7.34 year?) as a beat of all 4 large planets…
I’m even not sure, whether the Shapiro delay is calculated correctly, there is a lot of confusion about that and the ways to calculate it, the equation specified in wiki stub article is wrong, I’ve used arXiv 1403.7377 pg 43…
A numerical estimate:
3.1346e43 is magnitude of total angular momentum in SI units probably kg m^2/s, “swing” caused by Shapiro is 1.05e35 in same units, and Sun’s spin angular momentum is 1.043e42 probably in same units, if it was a homogenous sphere…? Maybe the “swing” is too small to have any meaning…?
After all, there is no 7.5-year cycle in Sunspots… Can it make a “beat” with something else ?
Still not sure if this is not some gaffe…
geoff sharp- I remember not very long ago you said this cycle would be very short and ending soon.
Looks not to be occurring.
Re:
> Geoff Sharp says: June 13, 2017 at 5:44 pm
> new prolonged minimum within the time span of the solar barycentric orbit of 1990-2013
I’ll return to my chart June 13, 2017 at 11:03 am with EMB orbital energy compared to Sunspot cycle, which is just one of instances of JVE (Jupiter,Venus,Earth) cycle.
Explaining : cycle 23 started too early (earliest possible), and it ended too soon. There was not a timing for SC 24 to start, so it’s start was delayed until 2010 to be again in-time with it’s main JVE schedule (and to still vindicate JVE claims). And since it had a delayed start and since the previous one was too long, it will be very weak…
(Thereby claiming the SC24 “grand minimum” is just an occasional error or irregularity in the cycle, caused at start of SC23 with a possible impact even onto SC25. It has been shown by K.Georgieva et al, that tides (mainly Jupiter alone, perihel/aphel) during one cycle’s late maximum (poleward transport phase) braking meridional flows have impact on next cycle strength – generally one cycle’s conditions influence the next one cycle.)
Impact of JVE oppositions and conjunctions is well observable on daily and monthly scale level, and often also during cycle minimum…
Proving/disproving this JVE theory would come soonest at start of SC26 (possibly not yet at SC25), if it comes too soon, or if it comes too late and would not be impaired by that …
Problem with barycentric orbit is, that it gets out of sync with the Sunspot cycle, and it cannot be claimed, that if the cycle is “out of sync”, it is weaker…
(I’ve not yet investigated, if that “out of sync”->”weaker” link can be just delayed by one cycle)
———
And to the original post – the chart with dark and light blue lines “Solar angular momentum … VS Zharkova … principle components” just shows and proves, that Zharkova uses Solar angular momentum as a main influence in her model…
So to modify your quote I would say:
This plot removes all doubt. The motion of the planets which drives the motion of the Sun around the system barycentre is intimately involved with the Zharkova’s MODEL of the Solar Dynamo.
Let’s compare it with Sunspot record since 1750 , and let’s see, how it matches…
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 13, 2017 at 11:56 pm
geoff sharp- I remember not very long ago you said this cycle would be very short and ending soon.
Looks not to be occurring.
—————————————-
Please try to get your facts right Salvatore, I said the current trend suggests it might be a short cycle based on the data, we shall see.
P.A Semi,
I think you maybe making the same mistake I originally made when looking at the graph with two blue lines, that graph is not a comparison of the Zarkhova wave and Solar AM. What Roger did was use my AM graph as a guide to AM and placed it under the Zharkova graph as a comparison.
A better graph of Solar AM would have been clearer as the one Roger chose also has total planetary AM plotted along side.
I don’t think Zharkova would be aware of Solar AM and they have just plotted the magnetic trace of each solar hemisphere (and applied liberal massage) and one of those traces is sort of close to Solar AM for a very short period. In other words pure coincidence.
Rog, you asked me to comment on the Fairbridge graph and I responded showing the solar orbit traces separated by 10 Jose 179 year periods (my response is now way up thread because of the time it took to approve). My data shows that over 1790 years the disordered phase can evolve into the ordered phase if we move in 179 year steps. Over that time period Uranus & Neptune go from together to opposed so it is obvious that the phases are not in sync with the Jose 179 period but in fact in sync with the the U/N synodic.
So the data says that Charvatova was wrong to say her phases repeat every 179 years.
You showed 5 cycles (179 years) going forward from 1231 which show the evolution of U/N at each step but then jump ahead roughly 1000 years and proclaim the cycle repeats? Either you made a mistake or you are trying to deceive.
To end this argument show another 5 SIM2 plots separated by 179 years after 1956 so we can all see the evolution of U/N and how the phases WILL go out of sync when using 179 year slices.
Just to be clear, show 10 SIM2 plots in a row separated by 179 years.
[Reply] On my way to work. No time for this today.
[…] via Major breakthrough in solar-planetary theory: Barycentre research vindicated — Tallbloke’s T… […]
Email sent to Ken MCCracken:
Hi Ken, long time since we chatted, hope you are well.
I was hoping you could sort out some confusion arising from your 2014 paper that is causing a storm at Tallblokes Talkshop.
Your figure 7 shows grand minima across most of the Holocene that only occurs in the Charvatova disordered phase. ( such an awesome graph, Svalgaard still has no answer). The text pertaining to Figure 7 suggests you used 172 year slices (or 171.44 years) but figure 7 shows 179 year slices according to the dotted lines?
I maintain as I think you do that the slices have to be 172 years ( U/N synodic) otherwise the Charvatova phases would go out of sync and could not possibly be displayed as you have shown if the slices were 179 years?
This is causing great confusion and I was wondering if you could clear it up.
Regards
Geoff Sharp
PA Semi: re Hale cycle
2016 paper:
‘Finally, in the framework of a reduced, zero-dimensional α–Ω dynamo model we recover a 22.14-year cycle of the solar dynamo’
Click to access 1511.09335.pdf
Of course the solar cycle length varies, we all know that. The ‘mean’ is by definition a statistical result, but observations show it’s fairly accurate.
– – –
Timo Niroma: ‘TABLE 1. The sunspot cycle lengths since 1745.
The second vertical lines mark the average sunspot period (11.07 years).’
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#tleng
11.07 * 2 = 22.14
A Jupiter-Saturn conjunction occurs at around the ‘mid-arc’ point of the trefoil sequence. Any of those could serve as the starting point for a ~179 year solar motion interval (3 per trefoil, 9 per Jose cycle).
Likewise the J-S oppositions occur around ‘mid-loop’. At the start/end of each loop J and S will be very near 90 degrees relative to each other, using the imaginary lines joining them to the centre of the Sun.
Charvatova explains that the smaller the smallest angle in the orange triangle below is, the greater the ‘disorder’ of that trefoil. Conversely an ordered trefoil must have 3 angles close to 60 degrees each. [The triangle connects the start/end points of the 3 inner loops].
The J-S conjunction shown is the end of the 3 J-S sequence, and the start of the next one.
The start point is the beginning of the other ‘half-arc’ (lower left quadrant in the graphic).
Bottom line: the triangle shape shows we’re now in the middle of a disordered period, and the current low level of sunspots is linked to that (if theory is correct).
Paper: THE 22-YEAR SOLAR MAGNETIC CYCLE.
II. FLARE ACTIVITY
G. MARIŞ, M. D. POPESCU, A. C. DONEA, M. MIERLA
Abstract. This paper is part of a larger set concerning the study of the last Hale cycle, a cycle that had an unexpected behaviour. Here we analyze the occurrence of the solar flares registered in X-ray as well as in Hα, with the aim to find an explanation for the activity much lower than predicted of the current 11-year solar cycle. We conclude that it could be determined by a pulse of flare activity in the descendent phase of the previous cycle, as well as by its belonging to the secular cycle descendent phase.
Click to access 386a.pdf
– – –
It could be that the ‘pulse of flare activity in the descendent phase of the previous cycle’ is linked to the Uranus-Neptune conjunction in the same period (roughly 1991-95). On the other hand the authors say something similar was observed in the three previous cycles. Maybe the intensity varied, or something like that?
Quote: After 1991, the activity began the descendent phase but had a sudden growth for the period June 1994 – May 1995. [bold added]
Where did that growth come from? Nobody knows, but around June/July 1994 there were 3 sets of planetary conjunctions at about the same time, including a Uranus-Neptune-Earth triple.
U-N conjunctions only occur every ~171.4 years or so but when they do, it takes a while for them to separate again in terms of alignment with the Sun for the same reason, i.e. outer planets orbit much more slowly.
Miles Mathis writes: ‘A reader just sent me a couple of diagrams confirming my analysis in this
paper. He tracked the declination cycles of the big four planets against sunspot activity over the past
116 years in two charts, finding an almost perfect correlation’
Charts here, under ‘Addendum May 2, 2017:’
Click to access cycle.pdf
[Title of paper: The Cause of the Solar Cycle]
PA Semi wrote: ‘Another fresh new idea’ [June 13, 2017 at 11:01 pm]
Not exactly new, because this earlier paper proposes it, but may add weight to what you say re. ‘solar jerks’ and the inner planets + Jupiter.
See: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/11/major-breakthrough-in-solar-planetary-theory-barycentre-research-vindicated/comment-page-1/#comment-127041
The author also cites Wood & Wood 1965.
RE: oldbrew says: June 13, 2017 at 8:58 am
Adding the triangles (T1 and T2) to the graphic shows that their angles match, which confirms the ~2402 year period or at least doesn’t contradict it. The outline of T2 can be superimposed on T1.
“It is interesting to know that one can really do geometry in this setting, where coordinates do not commute. This is the remarkable discovery in recent times.“
The axial period is fermionic:
Next Up:
The Anyonic Pareto Principle
> Geoff Sharp says: June 14, 2017 at 2:39 am
> pure coincidence
Absolutely impossible. The match is so good, and the Solar “Dynamo” is _always_ just a MODEL, that it perfectly nailed, what are they using as an input to their model.
Real nature _never_ matches model inputs that exactly…
A nice similarity would be a bombshell, but an exact match is deception or mis-interpretation…
I guess, that by this match with solar AM in their charts you nailed, that the charts (model) are actually solar AM charts…
(By which I do not mean, that it can or cannot have influence. But one line is the Model and other is calculation of planets+Sun dynamics, as I suppose…)
———
> oldbrew says: June 14, 2017 at 9:47 am
> solar cycle length varies, … but observations show it’s fairly accurate.
It just depends, what part of the record you select (if you selected one more “cycle” before or after, the average would shift).
All it can be said is, that there is no fixed frequency, or that the longer-term average can be somewhere _near_ this number.
(Otherwise, almost _any_ noise, if you take some small part of few amplitudes, can be said to have a statistical average frequency…? )
Unlike playing with theoretical frequencies and finding numeric beat with many planets in +-* relation to match it, ignoring real phase and just searching for numeric frequency,
I’m instead trying to come out with some physical theory hypothesis and then try to verify it by a match with “reality”…
The “tides” looked promising, but one cannot ignore Mercury in tides, it has larger effect than Earth onto Sun, and with Mercury included the JVE beat arround 22 years just vanishes… After all, tides are dominated by 11.86-year period of Jupiter being near-far, with some high-frequency noise overlaid…
[(So while it may possibly explain amplitudes in the cycle by matching high-tides with cycle phases, it does not explain the cycle “frequency” of 11.07 years, or each “peak” (“SCn”) timing…)]
Otherwise, if you find some matching frequency, then try to explain it’s physical meaning, or at least check, if the phase has some relation too…
The paper 1511.09335.pdf looks interesting, I will read it once again in more detail, just first impression, that matching solar cycle with planets on interval 1975 – 2015 is completely insufficient. Let’s match full observed interval 1750-2015, (and possibly stretching into some historical reconstruction?) to see, if the frequency really matches…
Otherwise it’s good, that they have got some physically-meaningful theory and then applying it to check the results…
——-
> oldbrew wrote … Uranus-Neptune conjunction in the same period
I also thought it obvious, how exactly it worked…
But the last one did not work same at all…
Similar Jupiter-Saturn opposition at 1951 – seemed to have an observable effect, but it does not repeat other times, so it well may be a coincidence. (Also the barycenter passing at that time, effects at 1991 and 1812 were not comparable at all, one late after maximum, other at deepest minimum at next cycle start…)
The true effects should have repeatable similar consequences.
While we may not place the planets again in the same state for “testing” the theory, with sufficient long record we should be observing recurring conditions having recurring consequences.
The sudden growth on descending phase – K.Georgieva calls it a “geomagnetic activity maximum on the sunspot decline phase”, because she says it can be also observed by increased geomagnetic activity, where Earth “senses” the Sun’s pole switch…
There often is a secondary maximum (or “peak”) on the descending phase…
——-
> fresh new idea, refreshed from …
By that I’ve just meant, that it is not any sufficiently tested or rethinked, it’s just a preliminary sharing of ideas and working hypotheses…
P.A. Semi: I think you are still confused, the second graph that Rog posted is more clear.
The green line is pretty much the AM curve, the match is not that good and will go out of sync either side going forwards and backwards. Zharkova’ waves are hard linked to the sunspot cycle, the solar AM sine wave is not and never will be.
From Ken McCracken:
Hi Geoff
Thank you for the question/.
I had open heart surgery 3 months ago and science has taken a back seat. I
cannot get the brain fired up. However with your query, I will take a
hard look at the issue. It may take a while- I may need to quiz Juerg
Beer.
I hope all is well with you
Ken
[Reply] Blimey, sorry to hear that. Please pass on my best wishes for a speedy and full recovery.
Oldbrew:
Charvatova explains that the smaller the smallest angle in the orange triangle below is, the greater the ‘disorder’ of that trefoil. Conversely an ordered trefoil must have 3 angles close to 60 degrees each. [The triangle connects the start/end points of the 3 inner loops].
The greatest “disorder” during the 112 year disordered phase primarily comes from the typically 3 J/U/N with S opposite planetary alignments that occur during this phase.
The Saturn angle determines the amount of disorder, with the approx +30 position creating the most disorder. This is my contribution to Charvatova’s work that hopefully one day she will recognise.
Did you see my PowerPoint presentation that helps with this understanding?
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/338
More from the McCracken paper on the 172 Jose cycle:
A.1. Properties of the Jose Cycle
Jose (1965) examined the periodic motion that the Sun executes about the center of mass of the solar system (the barycenter). Based on his calculations for the interval 1655 – 2012, he estimated the period of this motion to be 178 years. As outlined below, we have used the position of the barycenter for the interval 9337 BP to 10 000 years in the future, as given by the NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory Ephemeris DE-408 J2000 (see Abreu et al., 2012, for more details). Note that the barycenter we used includes the effects of all the planets, but it is easily shown that the four Jovian planets provide the dominant effect. Thus the small planets (Mercury through Mars) contribute Rb ≥ 0.15 solar radii. Identifying the ordered (quasi-sinusoidal) phases throughout this interval of 19 339 years, we conclude that a sequence of 97 Jose cycles lasted for a total of 16 635 years. From this we conclude that the long-term average Jose period is 171.49 ± 0.21 years. Independently, Sharp (2013) has concluded that the Jose period is ≈ 172 years averaged over the past 6000 years. For the purposes of this article, we defined the first Jose cycle to commence at the start of the ordered phase in 10 332 BP. This places the modern era in the 59th Jose cycle.
Geoff: Zharkova’ waves are hard linked to the sunspot cycle,
The Zharkova waves represent the hemispheric magnetic fluxes. The addition of the two waves reproduces the schwabe cycle. As you can see from the lower panel in the top graph in the headline post, when the two Zharkova waves are in antiphase, the addition results in a destructive antiphase which wipes out the amplitude of the solar cycle.
That’s the theory Rog, we will see….
Well,, no. Zharkova’s two curves are based on empirical observation of the solar polar fields (over only a few cycles). On closer inspection, the solar AM curve doesn’t match just one of them, they both wibble around, sometimes close to the solar AM curve, sometimes not. I’m well aware they can’t do that over a full Jose cycle, simply because JS isn’t Hale. However, I’m in agreement with Fairbridge and Shirley 1987 that because they DO match at cyclic periods, there is a relationship, even if not a simple linear one.
Anyway, you’ll be glad to know that having re-read McCracken’s paper, I’m in agreement with you that the figure 7 timing line at ~179 years is in error and that McCracken agrees with you that the Jose cycle is ~171.49 years, the UN conjunction period.
“Jose (1965) has previously identified a long-term periodicity in the combined effects of the Jovian planets (now called the Jose cycle) that he estimated to be 178 years on the basis of two cycles between 1655 and 2012 AD. As discussed in the Appendix, a modern ephemeris indicates that the Jose period is 171.49 ± 0.21 years, closely approximating the Uranus–Neptune synodic period of 171.42 years. Sharp (2013) has reached a similar conclusion.”
Geoff Sharp says: June 15, 2017 at 5:04 am
15 degrees of U-N = 171.4 / (360/15) = just over 7 years
So it could be that Jupiter (orbit 11.86~y) would not pass that ‘window’ at all in some percentage of cases.
Is that correct?
OB: A simple test would be to plot the three JS that straddle the UN opposition every 171.4 years using the solar barycentric calculator. I think we’ll find that the trefoil is better centred to the SSB and closer to 120 degrees than some of Charvatova’s trefoils.
I have been re reading also, there are a number of inconsistencies in the paper, the worst perhaps is they used the wrong planetary configuration that coincides with their barycentric anomaly, but I am convinced the paper is based on the new 171.4 year Jose cycle (perhaps it should be called a new name as the 179 year cycle also has its uses when comparing J/S alignments)
This paragraph also makes it very clear:
Figure 7. The data have been arranged so that the ordered phase of each cycle commences at T = 0 on the left-hand edge of the figure. The intervals of increasing cosmic-ray intensity (open boxes) and maximum cosmic-ray intensity (black boxes) are shown relative to the commencement of the cycle.
So now that we have established Charvatova was incorrect when stating her phases repeat on 179 year cycles the next challenge is to make her aware of the AMP events or barycentric anomalies that make up the major portion of her disordered phase. It might take some time as the pioneers are hard to bring around, as I am finding with Shirley.
Charvatova’s PRP paper says:
‘The average distance between maxima computed from the interval
7000 BC–2000 AD is 171.1 yr, which is very close
to the Uranus/Neptune (UN) synodic period of 171.4 yr’
. . .
Figure 3. The smallest angle of the characteristic triangle of triplets of loops. The basic cycle of 171.4 yr (UN) as well as the long cycle of 2402 yr is well demonstrated. The cycle of 2402 yr is 14 cycles of 171.4 yr.
Click to access prp-2-21-2014.pdf
Shirley 2017 finds strong similarities in these two periods separated by 178 years:
‘Figure 1. Hale cycle sunspot numbers and the rate of change of the Sun’s orbital angular
momentum dL/dt, for the intervals from 1710 to 1770 (upper panel) and from 1888 to 1948’
This is the SIM result for those periods, the similarities are obvious (rotate RH side 10-20 deg. right):
Yes Oldbrew, but that will always occur when only one 178 year gap, notice the differing positions of U/N and then multiply that different angle by 10 and the game changes.
Geoff: For the third time: No-one disagrees that the longterm average of the Jose Cycle is ~172 years (i.e. UN synodic period)
You said the 179 period was useful too. Perhaps you could enlarge on that so we can see why you think the pioneers used it.
Charvatova in even her latest paper suggests many times her phases return every 179 years, so she is disagreeing.
If you are comparing multiple sets of 179 year solar AM plots stacked on top it makes sense not to use the U/N synodic. The J/S synodic is more important in this scenario. The U/N evolution in this case changes where the perturbations occur on the Solar AM sine wave mainly controlled by J/S.
But when looking at the all important Charvatova phases the U/N synodic is the only way.
So horses for courses I guess.
The point being that Shirley finds the sunspot numbers correlate as well after that 178/179 year period.
Geoff: Charvatova in even her latest paper suggests many times her phases return every 179 years, so she is disagreeing.
As OB pointed out, Charvatova’s PRP paper says:
‘The average distance between maxima computed from the interval
7000 BC–2000 AD is 171.1 yr, which is very close
to the Uranus/Neptune (UN) synodic period of 171.4 yr’
I’m not sure which part of that statement is ambiguous, but Geoff doesn’t seem to believe she’s actually said it.
OB: The point being that Shirley finds the sunspot numbers correlate as well after that 178/179 year period.
Yes, that’s because 9 x JS is 178.722 and 8 times Hale is 177.12.
This plot by Carl Smith ( my annotations) best shows how the perturbations ripple through the record as U/N moves in relation to 9 x J/S synodic. (179 years)
If more 179 year slices were added you would see the U/N ripple wave return back to the same place every 4627 years. The U/N ripple wave IS the Holocene solar proxy record.
Distance between maxima is different to returning phases, but you would have thought that would have given her a clue that she may have been wrong about her phases returning every 179 years.
So Rog are you still saying Charvatova is not wrong when she states her phases return every 179 years….getting hard to understand you?
Rog says:
Geoff may well be right that U-N is the harbinger of grand minima, but that is NOT what Charvatova’s paper is about.
Interesting statement, if you think I am right about U/N as the harbinger of grand minima, why don’t you challenge the output of the Salvatore and Zharkova models that predict a Maunder type event from SC24?
There is no more U/N induced AM anomalies after 2005 until we get to 2150…
Interesting that Javier agrees by using statistical methods.
As McCracken points out, other solar anomalies occur too. Sometimes 38 years after a UN induced anomaly, sometimes 2 x 38 years. Our own solar model shows a recovery in the 2040s, but with generally low activity the rest of this century. I don’t think there’ll be a Maunder type event insofar as I expect to see sunspots return sooner than 50 years later.
I do expect a very noticeable effect on North Atlantic climate though, starting soon, and lasting a long time. That’s why I’ve bought a house with growing land at 47N, and will be vacating our house at 55N in 5 years time.
Geoff: why don’t you challenge the output of the Salvatore and Zharkova models ?
Because I find that being supportive and collaborative with others gets me further than slagging them off about uncertain predictions. Especially when my own are no more certain than theirs.
I vote for 179 years, more exactly 178.87 years.
This is a length of barycentric motion cycle, so I do strongly disagree with a cycle of length 172 years…
Over this is superimposed a cycle of length cca 857 years (Jup-Sat cycle) and cca 2300 years (some beat??).
Estimated on the period -1900 .. +3000 , almost 5000 year span, estimated by curve properties (matching extreme re-occurence), in JPL ephemerides.
——–
re:
> Geoff Sharp , June 15, 2017 at 4:24 am
I have been disproving the chart with dark and light blue lines, bottom on the image I re-included from original post, titled: “Solar angular momentum WRT Solar system barycentre VS. Zharkova SBMF Principle components“.
The match between light blue and dark blue lines on grey background just shows, that they are from identical source and not a real correlation…
Then the chart with red,blue,green lines and “A”-marked ellipse, that you linked instead:
If the blue line changes PRECEDE the green line changes, it clearly may not be, that the “blue” is a consequence of the “green”…!
I would strongly prefer _causality_ in explaining anything…
(Maybe taking a derivative of the “green” line would help to make it look causal?)
—–
re:
> Geoff Sharp , June 15, 2017 at 5:04 am
Landsheidt called this “Perturbance of Torque Cycle” (PTC) …
Matching PTC on the cycle are also spaced by 179 years. (they are usually in a group of 3 nearby)
But still they are shifting relatively on the 179-year cycle, so their actual period may be different ?
The PTC makes one cycle through the Sun-SSB cycle of 179 years after cca 2300 years.
(the bottom 5 lines are 1px/year, arbitrary cutting on 960 pixels per row)
Data-file in XML format, compatible with my EphView program but not hard to extract from XML into any format:
http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/DistSunSsb_M1900-3000_ver170615d.zip
(program EphView runs on Win32 platform, there is a gui version and another as a command-line function plugin into “Eval” language similar to javascript)
http://semi.gurroa.cz/EphView/
Semi: Great plot, thanks.
You said:
The match between light blue and dark blue lines on grey background just shows, that they are from identical source
They’re not. The blue line in the top plot is one of the solar polar field magnetic field. The blue line on grey below is solar angular momentum around the barycentre.
Rog says,
Because I find that being supportive and collaborative with others gets me further than slagging them off about uncertain predictions. Especially when my own are no more certain than theirs.
I hope you are not referring to me with the slagging comment?
McCracken rightly states that there are around 38 years (2x JS synodic) between AM anomalies (each disordered phase usually has 3 anomalies) but there are no unaccounted anomalies, I cover this in my paper as well..It’s either there or it’s not. The current disordered phase has 2 anomalies and they are all used up, nothing else to come. So myself and McCracken et al see no further reason for grand minima type solar cycles after SC25, but anything is possible.
Shirley 2017 says: ‘The intervals chosen for display in Fig. 1 were not selected arbitrarily, but instead
represent previously recognized periods in which the Sun’s barycentric orbital motion was
relatively regular and well ordered (Charvátová & Střeštík, 1991; Charvátová & Hejda, 2014)’
Yes Semi, the two blue lines on the grey background are almost from the same source, I made the graph. As stated one is solar AM the other is total planet AM, the planet AM is calculated using the Sun at the focal point and then subtracting Solar AM to get the values back in the same inertia frame.
The PTC events (AMP events or barycentric anomalies) can be 179 years apart but on average are 172 years apart. Trust me I plotted every one of them for 6000 years. This is what started the whole debate on the length of the Jose cycle.
Yes, as I said, not grand minima cycles, but generally low ones.
From the thread post:
Combining the curves together produces a good representation of changing solar activity levels. Their prediction is, like ours from our planetary model, for a big solar slowdown extending through the middle decades of this century. The mainstream climate scientists tried to get the press release revoked…
Come on Rog, you can’t have your cake and eat it too?
Geoff, not sure which part of combining the two Zharkova curves to get solar activity levels you have an issue with?
I already said that on closer inspection the AM curve doesn’t match either one of Zharkova’s, so I don’t have any cake. But never mind, it got a lively and interesting discussion going. 🙂
The 1620-80 period (U-N conjunction 1650) produces a ‘trefoil triangle’ with a smallest angle of only 30 degrees. Could that be some sort of yardstick to judge Maunder-type events by?
The loop based on the 30 deg. angle runs from 1667-1677, in the middle of the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
OB: That, in conjunction with Fairbridge and Shirley’s other predictor, yes.
The 1620-80 period (U-N conjunction 1650) produces a ‘trefoil triangle’ with a smallest angle of only 30 degrees. Could that be some sort of yardstick to judge Maunder-type events by?
Most likely oldbrew, the greater the disordered inner loop orbit the smaller the angle perhaps.
OK thanks, I’ll look into that later.
The smallest angle in the period 1980-2040 is ~40 degrees for the inner loop between August 2025 and March 2035 (upper right quadrant in the SIM graphic). Nothing like the 30 degree ‘Maunder angle’ for example.
But predictions of cooling around 2030 seem to fit the pattern.
OB: The terrestrial response to solar input (or lack of it) lags, so it may well be cold in 2030. You’ll always have a welcome in sunny France.
TB: Keep talking 😎
– – –
For 2160-2220 (includes next U-N conjunction in 2164) the smallest angle is about 42 degrees for the loop of 2204-2214.
A lot of indicators point to a long period ahead of fairly stable solar conditions with no Maunder or LIA events for many hundreds of years.
AM perturbations look to be related to triangle angle of disordered phases as well as the method used by Fairbanks and Shirley.
And as we know the 4 outer planets repeat their positions in their relationship to each other every 4627 years so if these planets are resposonible for grand minima we should be able to look back 4627 years and see our future?
A very long period of stability looks likely?
> Geoff Sharp says: June 15, 2017 at 1:34 pm
> can be 179 years apart but on average are 172 years apart
From which data source did you get it?
I get this from JPL ephemerides DE406 or DE422 and I’m absolutely sure it’s 179 years and NOT 172 years.
(Not considering planet positions, just distance Sun from SSB, the cycle is very clearly 178.9 years)
172 years is a period from a minimum to a maximum before the matching minimum of next 179-year cycle. Distance from deepest minimum to maximum preceeding next occurence of that deepest minimum – like 1632 to 1804 instead of 1811.
Matching PTC’s in that cycle 1646-50 to 1825-29, 1609 to 1788, 1685 to 1864
By “PTC” I mean that, what is June 15, 2017 at 5:04 am in left&right bottom insets, or see these years in my chart “Distance Sun,SSB” from June 15, 2017 at 1:02 pm…
Ultimatelly it’s always 179 years, and never 172 years.
Semi, the data source is JPL and is a simple matter of plotting AMP or PTC events against time. Because the U/N conjunction precesses every 179 years the gaps between AMP events change, but because all events are governed by the U/N synodic over long time spans (6000 years) the average works out at 172 years. If I went back in steps of 179 years the AMP events (centres) were simply not there.
As you know every 179 years there is an average of 3 AMP or PTC events per cycle, these are grouped around the UN conjunction. I went back over 6000 years and found the central AMP event gaps between 179 year cycles averaged at 172 years. The results are seen in the following diagram.
It takes a long time to overturn what has been excepted conventional wisdom. For decades 100’s of papers have incorrectly used the Jose 179 year cycle as a returning cycle for lots of aspects of the SIM.
The Sun returns roughly to the same position in space every 179 years governed by 9 JS synodics. But we now know that the ordered and disordered phases and all grand minima are tied intrinsically to the U/N synodic of 171.4 years, there is no question on this statement.
So we need to change our thinking. I like to think of it as two clocks overlaid on top of each other. One is the 179 year clock and the other the 172 year clock. Each time the clocks come to 12 o’clock the inner clock (U/N) moving slightly faster edges ahead and takes anything connected to it along for the ride. Over several cycles of 179 years the two clocks get further apart and eventually after about 900 years they come back to a similar start position. After 4627 years they come back to nearly the identical start position.
Sometimes you just have to repeat the message over and over before it eventually sinks in. It’s been nearly 10 years and regrettably the progress is very slow.
And while observing, when the PTC happens, it is usually, when Saturn is opposite of center between Uranus and Neptune, regardless if Uranus is ahead of Neptune or behind, but not when they are almost opposite arround 180°. The small “swing” on the distance of Sun-SSB is then executed, while the “fast” Jupiter moves over this configuration… The PTC usually happens from Saturn opposition of Uranus or Neptune to the opposition of the other.
So it actually does not depend on Uranus and Neptune only, whose beat is 171.53 years, but it depends on Saturn too, therefore it should be near a multiple of 29.4 years of Saturn and it waits 7 more years for Saturn to get opposite of N,U center… Actually for the PTC, the N,U can be middle-wide opened or quite close to each other, but important is, when Saturn gets in front of them.
And each matching PTC after 179 years happens few degrees CCW from the previous one, so it takes more than 6*29.44835 = 176.6901 years … 2.11 year difference is 7.17% of Saturn year, so it should be 25.8° CCW from previous on average…?
And since the angle between Uranus and Neptune differs after 179 years, the matching PTC shape slowly morphs, as it takes longer or shorter for Saturn to get from one’s to the other’s opposition…
Actually, it’s somewhere between 5*(S-N) and 4*(S-U)
1/(1/u-1/n) = 171.536211001331
5/(1/s-1/n) = 179.258176545771
4/(1/s-1/u) = 181.298534421062
previously I’ve measured cycle length as 178.88 which is by 1 year less than I would expect now…?
(there is probably something about Jupiter in it too)
No Semi, the PTC and AMP events have to have J/U/N roughly together with S opposite. There is a rare event I call type C that is U/N together with J/S opposite but the angles need to be precise.
Line up precisely the planetary positions on the perturbation and you will see I am correct.
Geoff: Over several cycles of 179 years the two clocks get further apart and eventually after about 900 years they come back to a similar start position.
Doesn’t look like that according to the set of plots I did:
Yep, and here’s 1370 – 1419 : 178 years later
And here’s 1549 – 1598 : 179 years after that
And here’s 1727 – 1777 : 178 years after that
And here’s 1906-1956 – 179 years after that.
And here’s 2085-2134 : 179 years after that
And here’s 2264-3413 : 179 years after that
This is basic stuff Rog?
You need 10 plots in a row each separated by 179 years. Jumping from 1956 to 2085 won’t work.
The first plot shows UN at about 180 deg, the fifth plot UN are at about 90 deg, that is the progression.
There is a somewhat similar situation after 853 years
Geoff: Jumping from 1956 to 2085 won’t work
I went from 1906 to 2085. You need to go 179 years from the start of the cycle, not the end of the 50 year harmonious period. You made the same error up the thread, but I let it pass, thinking you’d spot it for yourself.
Sorry my mistake, your last plot confused me labelled 2264-3413..
So you agree U/N come back to the same position roughly after 900 years?
Well, not really, because if we go on your two clocks analogy, the 179 and the 172 are nowhere near after ~900 years. But there is a somewhat similar gas giant config at 853 years, so we could have a think about reconciling the ‘two Jose cycle problem’ with that period in mind.
This is the 2140-2200 J-S trigon. U-N occurs in 2164.
The smallest angle is ~44 degrees, at the start/end of inner loop of Nov. 2164 – July 2174.
Lower right quadrant.
26 U-N / 25 = 178.26~y so not far off 9 J-S, around 0.5y short.
26 U-N = 4456.5~ y.
– – –
This looks better:
24 U-N / 23 = 178.86~y
Period is 4113.75~y.
Geoff Sharp says: June 16, 2017 at 2:19 am The figure in this post makes for interesting correlations/ cum pattern seeking.
Note specifically the two points at 3200bce and 5200bce. The ‘twin peak’ is similar at both dates. Now this correlates with two identical point in the “north Atlantic ice rafting”. These two points/dates are important because they correspond to two major seismic events in the Med where horizon equinox sunrise point shifts around by ~47 deg ccw. (long story). Such event has not repeated itself since 3200. Previous to 6200 >> maybe at 7300 but speculative here.
This is pointed out because since the end of the YD there have been ugly trigger points which have not repeated past ~2345bce. For some reason or reasons+ the Earth can change its behavior drastically.
Comparison here: https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.433731873468290.1073741829.430211163820361/808339939340813/?type=3&theater
OB: We shouldn’t lose sight of the long term cycles visible in paleo records. Halstatt especially.
Sorry to quote myself, but…
oldbrew says: June 15, 2017 at 1:54 pm
The 1620-80 period (U-N conjunction 1650) produces a ‘trefoil triangle’ with a smallest angle of only 30 degrees. Could that be some sort of yardstick to judge Maunder-type events by?
– – –
Now comparing that with 750-810, the triangle looks somewhat similar but the smallest angle is only ~24 degrees (Maunder was ~30). The inner loop with that angle took place between Feb. 755 and Dec. 764, and the nearest U-N conjunction was 30 years later (Oct. 794).
The date difference between the two loops with the small angles is about 912 years (near the ‘Great Inequality’?).
77 Jupiter orbits = 913.42 years.
The long sides of the two triangles are all the same length, within the limitations of a small diagram.
Not much happening on the AM graph for that era oldbrew…weak Type B perturbations along with no deep grand minima…maybe the triangle theory is no good?
GS: re. ‘The greatest “disorder” during the 112 year disordered phase primarily comes from the typically 3 J/U/N with S opposite planetary alignments that occur during this phase.’
In the 750-810 period above there’s a 24 degree angle without this configuration. However there is a J-U-N triple conjunction in 795.
Oldbrew, this period is a bit technical, there is one Type B and one Type C event involved. AMP events come in many forms and it’s a matter of distinguishing the differences. The Type C is U/N together with J/S opposed, it creates an amazing circle around the SSB that has no change in velocity or AM. As a rule they are not strong like a good Type A but I would imagine it would play havoc with the triangle.
Although the phase would look very disordered it is not strong in terms of solar disruption..perhaps a short coming of looking at it at the Charvatova level.
TB: re. ‘We shouldn’t lose sight of the long term cycles visible in paleo records. Halstatt especially.’
Halstatt is very similar to Charvatova’s 2402-year long cycle.
Charvatova paper:
‘The ordered (trefoil) intervals of the SIM are characterized
by a triplet of loops whose vertices form a nearly equilateral
triangle (see Fig. 2).On the other hand, loops in disordered
parts are often distributed along a straight-line and
the corresponding triangle has at least one small angle (see
e.g. Dalton period in Fig. 1)’
Maybe that doesn’t necessarily mean that a small angle signifies disorder.
Are there three types of triplets:
(a) ordered (b) disordered and (c) nothing to see here, even with a small angle?
I think so oldbrew, I think trying to look over a 112 year disordered phase and trying to work out what will happen at the solar cycle level is hard. Charvatova hasn’t a good record at predicting, the tool is too vague and needs to be expanded. But kudos for her for discovering the two phases, her work stands tallest in my view amongst the pioneers.
OB: Good question. The loops thing is a groping after understanding the dynamics behind the Sun’s observed activity levels. We have observations of TSI and magnetic fields spanning 40 years, sunspot counts spanning 300 years and cosmogenic isotope measurements spanning 10,000 years. It all gets wobblier and less certain the further back you go.
I kicked this thread off to see what came of a discussion arising out of solar polar field observations and barycentric motion. It’s turned into a trefoils and PTC discussion, which is fine, but we need to remain mindful that the trefoils and PTC events are just an imperfect indicator of likely solar activity conditions. They don’t cover the true dynamical situation of the ‘stirring of the solar pot’, which, as Shirley points out, is complicated by the differential conditions between surface and deeper into the solar interior, throughout which circulations take place as a result of the orbit to spin coupling (the muscle behind the spoon that stirs the pot).
The Sun is a roiling mass of boiling plasma, so it’s pretty lively in the interior. Unusual solar activity conditions usually arise within 5 years of a PTC (perturbed torque cycle) caused by U&N being in the right places to twist the usually smoother passage resulting from the motion of J&S.
But the Sun stayed active rather than getting damped by the PTC starting in 1990.
Geoff has a hypothesis relating configuration of U&N to phase of J-S and solar cycle. Shirley wants to get at the actual solar interior solar dynamics which can better explain the Sun’s currently unpredictable responses to PTC.
All good TB, but must point out there was no PTC event at 1990. The PTC event is the same as the AMP event or barycentric anomaly, take your pic on the naming convention. Landscheidt didn’t use the PTC event for predicting solar downturns, instead relying on extrema of torque with is his zero crossing or J with S/U/N opposite when the Sun is on the other side of the SSB.
Thanks for the replies, must ponder further.
Meanwhile this is the Wolf minimum which has a 22 degree angle, the smallest possible according to Figure 3 in the Charvatova PRP paper:
Click to access prp-2-21-2014.pdf
The period is 1286-1346. U-N conjunction occurs in 1307.
> re: Geoff Sharp June 16, 2017 at 3:24 am
The PTC cycle depends on S/N and S/U opposition, it does NOT depend on Jupiter, because it is usually arround 10 years long (seldom only 5 years), so Jupiter is anywhere along that PTC, it runs through whole one orbit at the PTC time.
The matching ones ARE always 179 years apart, because they do NOT depend on U/N conjunction that much, they ALWAYS depend on SATURN timing with both of these two.
Mainly, the cycle boundaries are arround matching minima…
Occasionally as the angle between U,N gets too wide, in some 179 year cycle there is more PTCs and this leads you to claiming, that long-time average is 172 years, but instantaneous frequency does not depend on long-time average…?
There always is instantaneous frequency of 5 PTC repeating in 179 years, of which 1 or 2 is usually degenerate and 2 or 3 clearly visible.
Actually denominative of the PTC cycle is S-N opposition cycle, 5*35.85 years.
The deepest minima making Jose cycle boundaries depend on J-S 19.86-year cycle too, 19.8676*9 = 178.8087…
Here is 179-year cycle, with blue arrows marking S-N opposition, purple arrows marking S-U opposition, and red lines mark what I call PTC, degenerate ones are dashed …
The red lines are drawn manually in graphics editor, so they are not exactly aligned…
(The PTC could be probably mathematically analysed as inflection points…?)
Here is a same cycle painted with 171.5-year stepping…
Again blue arrows S-N oppositions, purple arrows S-U oppositions,
and vertical red lines showing, what also could be considered matching…
(Hence, some time it runs as in 171-year cycle, but then it clearly drifts)
Note to Rog: if you consider the charts too large, can you make a smaller preview linking to my charts instead? If they do not matter this large, keep them as they are…
Where does one start?
To make it easy we will do one step at a time.
Semi, first off it looks like you have plotted AM, so the events are really AMP (angular momentum perturbation) not PTC….can you show me the planetary position at 1470?
I am sorry for the second chart Jose171 at June 16, 2017 at 2:31 pm, the program snaps to cycle minimum and despite being ordered to use 171 year cycle, it finds nearest minima at 20-year stepping of J-S cycle, and some rows use different horizontal scaling than other rows…
Sorry that I did not verify it better before posting it…
An ugly gaffe…
Semi: the slices at this level need to be 179 years in keeping with J/S, then you can see the drift of the AMP events over time as U/N drags them along.
Here is a Sun-SSB cycle aligned on 170.9-172.0 year cycles, aligned with Neptune/Uranus conjunction on left side (and next one on right side)…
Clearly visible drift of matching “features” is shown by red lines added in graphics editor…
(So these lines connect matching features spaced 179 years apart)
PA Semi – re. this:
‘There always is instantaneous frequency of 5 PTC repeating in 179 years, of which 1 or 2 is usually degenerate and 2 or 3 clearly visible. Actually denominative of the PTC cycle is S-N opposition cycle, 5*35.85 years.’
– – –
These are Landscheidt’s ‘big hands’ and ‘big fingers’…
Caption to Figure 2: The Sun’s dynamics displays five-fold symmetry, thought to be reserved to the realm of life. “Big hands” with “big fingers” emerge, when the 9-year running variance of the Sun’s orbital angular momentum is plotted. Big hands and big fingers cover cycles o/solar activity with mean lengths of 178.8 years and 35.8 years, which are reflected in terrestrial cycles
http://bourabai.kz/landscheidt/consider.htm
Semi: I was going to do a guest post re my theory on the Talkshop, and seeing you have so much interest why don’t I prepare a preamble and a link to my paper and we can thrash it out?
I am busy over most of the weekend but can start to get something together next week.
This paper looks relevant…the authors review the solar motion studies and mention Charvatova and the trefoils. Then:
2.2. The question of a causal link
The implication of any relation between solar motion and solar
activity, should it exist, is that there is some mechanism related
to its motion which, in some way, alters or modulates material
flows and/or magnetic fields within the rotating and revolving
Sun.
– – –
Paper: The barycentric motion of exoplanet host stars
Tests of solar spin–orbit coupling
M.A.C. Perryman and T. Schulze-Hartung
Results. A variety of complex patterns of barycentric motions of exoplanet host stars is demonstrated, depending on the number, masses and orbits of the planets. Each of the behavioural types proposed to correlate with solar activity are also evident in exoplanet host stars: repetitive patterns influenced by massive multiple planets, epochs of rapid change in orbital angular momentum, and intervals of negative orbital angular momentum.
Conclusions. The study provides the basis for independent investigations of the widely-studied but unproven suggestion that the Sun’s motion is somehow linked to various indicators of solar activity. We show that, because of the nature of their barycentric motions, the host stars HD 168443 and HD 74156 offer particularly powerful tests of this hypothesis.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/47338084_The_barycentric_motion_of_exoplanet_host_stars_Tests_of_solar_spin-orbit_coupling
[pdf available]
Geoff: Landscheidt didn’t use the PTC event for predicting solar downturns, instead relying on extrema of torque with is his zero crossing or J with S/U/N opposite when the Sun is on the other side of the SSB.
In his ‘Sun Earth and Man’ book, he uses the barycentre skimmimng within 0.1 solar radii of the solar surface for more than a few years as his predictor of reduced solar activity.
Looks very interesting oldbrew….good find. Have read his earlier paper. Have always thought other stars might give us the breakthough we need, but suspected not many solar systems like ours.
No Rog, he never associated the PTC event with solar grand minima. He saw it as a boundary condition and thought it had other effects on human outcomes Wars, stock markets, crops and animals etc…this was his wacky side but you need to read it carefully, it is a bit esoteric.
Perryman paper:
Fig. 2. Barycentric motion of the host star for a selection of representative multiple exoplanet systems. Main plots (central two columns) show the orbit over the indicated time interval in a reference frame with the system barycentre at the origin, with abscissae and ordinates in AU (the solar diameter is R = 6:96 × 108 m, or 0.00465 AU). To the outer side of each orbital sequence, plots show the orbital angular momentum, Lz (upper), and dLz=dt (lower) for the same time interval, in the units as given in Table 1.
[link to pdf above]
That’s an old paper oldbrew…Bugger, thought is was something new.
The last paragraph is mine:
In his 1989 book on pg 16 he states:
“As has been shown already, the Sun’s surface is a boundary in terms of the
morphology of nonlinear dynamic systems. Thus, it makes sense that the
major instability events starting about 1789, 1823, and 1867, and later about
1933 and 1968, occurred just when the centre of mass remained in or near the
Sun’s surface for several years.
When the Sun approaches the centre of mass (CM), or recedes from it, there
is a phase when CM passes through the Sun’s surface. Usually, this is a fast
passage, as the line of motion is steeply inclined to the surface. There are rare
instances, however, when the inclination IS very weak, CM runs nearly
parallel with the Sun’s surface, or oscillates about it so that CM remains near
the surface for several years. Fixing the epochs of start and end of such periods
involves some arbitrariness. The following definition is in accordance with
observation and meets all requirements of practice: major solar instability
events occur when the centre of mass remains continually within the range
0.9 – 1.1 solar radii for 2.5 to 8.5 years, and additionally within the range 0.8
– 1.2 soIar radii for 5.5 to 10 years. The giant planet Jupiter is again involved.
In most cases major instability events are released when Jupiter is stationary
near CM.
The first, sharper criterion yields the following periods:
1789.7 – 1793.1 (3.4 yr)
1823.6 – 1828.4 (4.8 yr)
1867.6 – 1870.2 (2.6 yr)
1933.8 – 1937.3 (3.5 yr)
1968.4 – 1972.6 (4.2 yr)
2002.8 – 2011.0 (8.3 yr)
The first decimal is only given to relate the results rather exactly to the aiterion.
The epochs of the onset and the end of the phenomenon cannot be assessed
with such precision. The second, weaker criterion yields periods which begin
earlier:
1784.7 – 1794.0 (9.3 yr)
1823.0 – 1832.8 (9.8 yr)
1864.5 – 1870.9 (6.4 yr)
1932.5 – 2938.3 (5.8 yr)
1967.3 – 1973.3 (6.0 yr)
2002.2 – 2011.8 (9.6 yr)
Henceforth, the starting periods 1789, 1823 etc. of the first criterion will be
quoted.
In case of major instability events that affect the Sun’s surface and the
incidence of features of solar activity displaying in this thin, sensitive layer
the instability seems to spread out in the planetary system and seize all events
in time series that are connected with the Sun’s activity.”
When Landscheidt talks of major instability events he is NOT referring to solar output, but instead he is using this event as a place in time where phase reversals occur. ie where he uses the minima instead of maxima of extrema in the particular dataset he is employing. The major instability events according to Landscheidt affect rise and fall of animal populations, economic turning points, stock prices, interest rates, global periods of general instability and even human creativity, later he associated the PTC event with changes to the ENSO pattern. Landscheidt in later papers moves away from these less than scientific statements but at no point associates these events with reduced solar output.
In my today’s charts above, the horizontal line is Solar radius, to appreciate the barycenter passing across it.
Some time ago, I have been carefully observing in 2002,2006,2010 on Soho EIT 195 and 304, and in magnetograms, if the passing of barycenter across the solar surface will have any visible effect.
It does not seem so, the EIT 195 “clouds” even did not shiver, and no significant peek in activity, and no significant effect on surface flows…
——
On this chart, distance Sun-SSB compared with Sunspots :
The minimum distance on 1990 at cycle maximum, but on 1772, 1851, 1951 on descending phase, but on 1811 at utter minimum.
PTCs at 1790 arround a cycle with no influence, but following cycles damaged, 1830 arround a cycle with following cycles increased, 1970 arround a cycle which is damaged but following cycles are increased, 2006-2010 at long minimum, following cycle damaged. Descending minor PTC on 1860 with smaller cycle but folllowing ok, ascending 1935 at start of cycle with no visible effect…
There is NO simple connection between PTC and solar activity, each one has different correlation.
Just to be clear about positions…
Most people here are with the position: Planets do it !
Most of you, namely Geoff Sharp and Landsheidt, are with the position: Large planets do it, by angular momentum or similar cycles. (Which are dominated by 19.8 year cycle J-S and 179-year Jose cycle). There is no high frequency in that.
Some are here with: Tide does it, Jupiter, Venus, Earth . — They are missing Mercury… Real tides do not correlate, but may have influence on following-cycle’s amplitude…
I am here with position: Small planets do it ! Either through jerk, which is a function of small planets onto Sun, or by Earth’s magnetism… Small planets’ influences are dominated by J-V-E trio… Also the oppositions of some planets are very clearly visible in daily sunspot records… And there is plenty of high frequencies in it…
Just an odd reply to: ferdberple says:June 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm which I had missed. He says ” Somewhere along the way, someone notices that the height of the sun in the sky is somehow related to planting/harvest. Someone else notices that this can be measured by using shadows. And eventually someone builds a calendar to predict the seasons.
But nowhere along the way was an understanding of the orbital mechanics of the sun and earth part of this process. It took thousands of years after successful prediction before we gained even a rudimentary understanding of the mechanism.”
They did so exactly as he says and better. Even others, as the Sumerian texts show by following the Venus+ retrograde motion would figure out the makeup/action of the solar system.
The loop-arc-loop-arc repetition of solar motion is continuous, although the angles, sizes, position relative to barycentre etc. obviously vary, within certain limits.
J-S conjunctions occur around midway between loops (i.e. mid-arc) and J-S oppositions are at around mid-loop. Anything else is a variation on the basic J-S framework but doesn’t undermine it.
Geoff: When Landscheidt talks of major instability events he is NOT referring to solar output, but instead he is using this event as a place in time where phase reversals occur. … at no point associates these events with reduced solar output.
We’ve been here before Geoff… 🙂
Landscheidt predicted in 1999 that:
“The extrapolation of the observed pattern points to sunspot maxima around 2000.6 and 2011.8. If a further connection with long-range variations in sunspot intensity proves reliable, four to five weak sunspot cycles (R < 80) are to be expected after cycle 23 with medium strength (R ~ 100).”
> Geoff Sharp says: June 16, 2017 at 2:38 pm
> Semi, first off it looks like you have plotted AM, …
Since June 15, I have uploaded multiple charts of DISTANCE of Sun from solar system barycenter (ssb).
While this may be related to Angular Momentum, in AM there is also the velocity component which is not in these charts…
The horizontal line in those multi-line charts is at distance 696342000 m – the Solar radius, when the charted line is above the horizontal, barycenter is outside Sun.
Using JPL ephemerides DE422
We have been here before Rog and the issue has not been resolved. Read pages 15-24 of his book to achieve a proper understanding of landscheidt “major stability events” associated with the perturbed torque curve.
Click to access Sun-Earth-Men_116_p_1989.pdf
Landscheidt 1999:
“The extrapolation of the observed pattern points to sunspot maxima around 2000.6 and 2011.8. If a further connection with long-range variations in sunspot intensity proves reliable, four to five weak sunspot cycles (R < 80) are to be expected after cycle 23 with medium strength (R ~ 100).”
The text you quoted is not landscheidt using the PTC event to forecast but rather torque extrema. If it was PTC he would have have predicted a sudden drop after SC23 and a recover at SC26 like I do.
If Landscheidt had used the PTC event to predict solar grand minima we would be 30 years ahead of where we are now and the Babcock crew would have been long gone. I would also have not published my paper as it would be already accepted mainstream science. The almost unbelievable fact is, he missed the connection between the PTC event and solar downturns (and everyone else who read his 1989 book) and I was lucky enough to stumble on it via another mechanism…namely Carl’s Graph.
If we can’t get past this point there is no point me doing a guest post on my paper.. as I would have no discovery or hypothesis.
————-
Semi: your research on the SSB travelling through the surface of the Sun is interesting. As we might find out the lesser PTC (AMP) events are not important and can mostly be discarded. The lesser events as you point out have a U/N component but more on an individual basis. My research suggests that it is not the SSB travelling through the Convection Zone that coincides with solar slowdowns but rather is connected with the perturbation of AM that occurs in that 10 year period that is seen in the distorted inner solar orbit that is intrinsically linked with Charvatova’s 112 year Disordered Phase. Also not all PTC (AMP) events are the same and one must learn how to distinguish the weak from the strong.
Thanks for your reply concerning the data used in your recent graphs, solar distance is almost identical to solar angular momentum and both are a mirror image of solar torque. For the purposes of having one data set to avoid confusion I suggest we stick with solar AM.
If Rog can get past the PTC confusion I look forward to hopefully swaying you across to the Jovian influence in a future guest post.
About spin-orbit exchange of momentum:
– In orbiting body, gravity is perfectly balanced with centrifugal force, and so the body itself does not feel any gravity and is in a weightless state
– Exception to this is tide (gravity on nearby side stronger than centrifugal force, on far side centrifugal stronger than gravity), but tides on Sun surface are minuscule, and are always symmetric (north/south, near/far). Sunspot cycle is quite assymetric, so it is not caused mainly by symmetric tides…
Tidal vector can be split into vertical and horizontal components. The vertical component is negligible, but the horizontal component, always (almost) equatorward, is braking poleward transport of magnetic field in a measurable way.
– Sun is almost perfect sphere. There is no possible mechanism to exchange angular momentum from orbit to spin, no torque, which could work by some irregularity used as a lever arm, as in case of Earth-Sun-Moon system: The equatorial bulge, the tidal bulges and the continent assymetries balanced by similar assymetry inside iron core (more weight below Pacific?) all can be used to exchange momentum with Moon and planets to modify Earth spin.
There is no gravitational torque on perfect sphere of Sun.
Except:
– only the Sun’s magnetic field can be used to exchange spin angular momentum.
Then the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field), the plasma that fills Solar system, is conductive, so the magnetic influences of planets are not same, as they would be in a vacuum. This effect little favours Earth over Jupiter, which is more far and electric plasma is less dense there…
As there is NO WAY that solely the AM (angular momentum) would influence Sun alone, and not finding any convincing proof so far affirms that, let’s look at combination of AM with magnetically active planets (Jupiter, Earth, others) etc…
(For Earth speaks, that Sunspots start at the latitudes, which are synchronized with 27..29-day Earth pulse by Moon counterweight. For Jupiter speaks, that it is by far stronger magnet at Sun’s distance – in vacuum…)
In what configuration would be angular momentum best exchanged via a magnetic lever arm ?
Sorry to spoil the party… I have a paper in review with my polar field findings. Conclusion: the polar fields rule the sunspot cycle. Can’t say more till it is accepted.
SSL: You’re not spoiling the party, you’re bringing the thread back to the original topic! Zharkova’s analysis of the polar fields combining to reproduce the SSN curve was the basis for my post. YOU took it off topic by linking Shirley’s new paper. 🙂
Now, we’re not going to let you get away with this teaser, so tell us more about your paper.
Can’t because it is not accepted yet. Already 5 months in review.
But for the smart ones. It has to do with the zero field line
Semi: – In orbiting body, gravity is perfectly balanced with centrifugal force, and so the body itself does not feel any gravity and is in a weightless state
This is theoretically true for a Newtonian point-mass, but I think it’s unlikely to be true for a 1.4mkm diameter wobbly mass of roiling plasma with enormous convection of matter-energy conversion streaming from its core to space, which is swinging around the centre of mass of the system at speeds ranging from 20-50kmh at a radius ranging from -0.1 to 2.2 solar radii in the space of 5 years.
However, I agree that magnetics play an important part, and this is why I don’t dismiss hypotheses from anyone who argues for mechanisms involving angular momentum, electro-magnetism, tides or anything else.
In the ‘idealised’ version of the ~179 year cycle shown here, the PTC number can be derived from the difference between J-H and S-H, i.e. 7 – 2 = 5 per cycle.
Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/another-dip-into-solar-planetary-theory/
[In case it’s not clear, the S-H and J-H numbers are the difference between numbers on the top row.]
Another little related and very preliminary result.
(Since the data is problematic, it is not in peer-review anywhere yet. I rather need some advice with it)
Solar surface flows from HMI magnetograms:
This was analysed from 58,000 magnetograms, 1 image per hour since 2010.
Top row is color-coded direction of flow (both X and Y combined in one picture).
Then X,Y rows with blue minus (left,up) and red plus (right,down)
Images are 1 pixel per week horizontaly, and 3° bin in 1.5° spacing vertically, until +- 60° latitude
Differential rotation can be viewed as huge flow on equator rightward (faster rotation) and on poles leftward (slower rotation). Further, there is constant flow north up and south down toward poles.
Middle column: direction code, X-flow and Y-flow in degree/day within +- 60° latitude. At 60deg there is almost 2 degree / day slower rotation, and 0.38 degree/day poleward flow.
Right column is interesting, it is a difference from symmetric average.
There can be seen:
– Faster rotating belt of sunspots, visible on X near equator, red stripes getting toward equator, which is blue/slower initially. WSO has similar images for previous Sunspot cycles since 1980’s…
– Zebra pattern of yearly flow in Y direction – this is ERROR of the north-pole specification in SOHO/SDO data. I have calculated the error as 0.178° , not sure yet. At bottom part, data are averaged on week of year and it is clearly visible, that as the Earth circles arround Sun, the percieved “flow” goes up/down, and north/south X goes left-right… It should be possible to calculate propper rotation of Sun’s pole from this…?
Due to this problem the data has not been released yet.
– in 2010-2011, JSOC/SDO used different mechanism for descaling without noise reduction which is visible as sharp line difference at start of 2012.
– There is at 2010 north side and 2016-2017 south side huge southward flow ANOMALY, which corresponds with Jupiter position above/below solar equator and possibly something else. It can best be visible on right side third row Y-difference, as red smudge at 2010 north and 2017 south…
This is, what is most interesting on this data for me…
– South hemisphere rotates faster than north hemisphere (visible on X-difference, right column 2nd row, south is red and north is blue, which should not be… Can it be related to wrong pole rotation?)
Should it be possible to clear the yearly zebra of incorrect pole rotation, the data could be published or better analysed…
Downloading and quality control of some 60Gb data took few weeks, and single calculation pass takes arround 24 hours on 8 CPUs. (And I repeated it at least 10 times due to various problems.)
It’s problematic to make try-test rotations of North pole, since every such test takes at least 24 hours of computation until results are seen…
Someone asked me, why I want to get rid of that Zebra, since it may be a real phenomenon. But earlier similar calculations, it is visible on SOHO data, it is visible in Stereo data, but in Stereo, looking from different position onto Sun, the flow is different in other parts of year, so it is a problem of view-point and Sun’s pole rotation, not a real phenomenon…
And this one is, how it looks when the North pole is rotated by 0.178°
Zebra pattern in Y is cleared.
Another zebra pattern in X is introduced.
Still is north X blue (slower) and south X red (faster)
Problem with the rotation is, that the source images are somehow rotated (P_Angle) and specify coordinates in Distance, Carrington latitude, Carrington longitude.
There are no cartesian coordinates.
To apply the rotation, I modify P_Angle of the image (rotate image clockwise or counter-clockwise) by cos(DayOfYear-BaseDate) * 0.178°, and I modify Carrington latitude accordingly (do not know if correctly?). I do not modify Carrington latitude nor Distance.
Again need to say, that it is problematic to make try-test different rotations, since it needs to process 60,000 images to get some result.
Flow in each pair of images is _very_ noisy, but averaging 168 frames per week together gives some usable results…
The flow is detected by comparing two images, 3×3 degree boxes, square by square, and seeing, where it best matches when moved, with centi-pixel resolution (0.01 pixel) …
Question is:
How to calculate North pole position error ?
(SOHO and SDO use Carrington pole position from mid 19th century, and getting it wrong only by 0.178° was really good back then, but is somehow harassing now)
Correction: to rotate, I modify P_angle and camera latitude, but do not modify camera _longitude_ and distance …
And note: Comparing frames is done on projection of image onto 360×180 degree rectangular projection map (actually 2880×1440 pixel image). Tan gnomonic projection is ignored, it should make only 7 mas (milli-arc-sec) difference on image borders…
> tallbloke says: June 17, 2017 at 8:22 am
> This is theoretically true for a Newtonian point-mass, but I think it’s unlikely to be true for a
If you are weightless on orbit, it does not matter, how much you flutter (convect), and it does not matter how small or large or fast is the orbit.
(We orbit the Sun at 30km/s speed. It does not hurt… We run faster and slower in a year, more near to Sun or more far, and we cannot measure Sun’s gravity here, because it is ballanced, and we do not measure or “sense” slowing down or accelerating on orbit)
The only exception to this is TIDE – the difference in gravity on near and far side (or deep and shallow depth) compared to identical centrifugal force through all the body that should cancel the gravity…
So if the lever arm to transfer AM from orbit to spin was not magnetical, it would work through a tide (gravity assymetry), hence it would work better, when Jupiter is near, and worse, when Jupiter is more far…
Same is true with magnetic lever arm, but it can relate to Earth distance too beside Jupiter’s…
(which is a reason, why it would be worth to detect yearly signature in solar surface flows or activity, that is not introduced as an observing-point related error)
——
> sunspotlover says: June 17, 2017 at 7:17 am
> Conclusion: the polar fields rule the sunspot cycle.
Let’s wait, eager for that.
But it is also possible, that sunspot cycle rules polar fields instead, or that common cause rule both, since correlation is not always a consequence.
It is also a question then, what rules the polar fields in this rythm, strange 10..12-year chaotic rythm…
Timo Niroma theorised that Jupiter on its own had a direct effect on the Sun e.g, at perihelion:
Another interesting paper by NASA was titled “The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared” (science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm). I quote: “From May 10-12, 1999, the solar wind that blows constantly from the Sun virtually disappeared — the most drastic and longest-lasting decrease ever observed.” … “Starting late on May 10 and continuing through the early hours of May 12, NASA’s ACE and Wind spacecraft each observed that the density of the solar wind dropped by more than 98%.” … “According to observations from the ACE spacecraft, the density of helium in the solar wind dropped to less than 0.1% of its normal value, and heavier ions, held back by the Sun’s gravity, apparently could not escape from the Sun at all.”
According to NGDC, the Wolf sunspot number got a jump a few days earlier: 08 May the number was 151 and 09 May it was 149, when the first-May value was 75 and the peak was followed by a decrease, so that the value was 85 in May 24. Compare these to the smoothed value of May, 90.
According to my theory the Jupiter’s perihelion very much regulates the sunspot cycles. The last Jovian perihelion occurred just during those days in May 1999, when the Sun appeared to behave abnormally. But the effect does not include only those few days, it affects the whole cycle. [bold added]
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#may1999
Semi: If you are weightless on orbit, it does not matter, how much you flutter (convect)
Have you read the 2010 paper by NASA scientists Wolff and Patrone?
We derive a perturbation inside a rotating star that occurs when the star is accelerated by orbiting bodies. If a fluid element has rotational and orbital components of angular momentum with respect to the inertially fixed point of a planetary system that are of opposite sign, then the element may have potential energy that could be released by a suitable flow. We demonstrate the energy with a very simple model in which two fluid elements of equal mass exchange positions, calling to mind a turbulent field or natural convection. The exchange releases potential energy that, with a minor exception, is available only in the hemisphere facing the barycenter of the planetary system. We calculate its strength and spatial distribution for the strongest case (“vertical”) and for weaker horizontal cases whose motions are all perpendicular to gravity. The vertical cases can raise the kinetic energy of a few well positioned convecting elements in the Sun’s envelope by a factor ≤ 7. This is the first physical mechanism by which planets can have a nontrivial effect on internal solar motions.
“It is curious that among several definitions of q-trigonometric functions, used throughout all the previous century, none satisfied the Pythagorean identity.”
Was that a response to my question? If so, I’m none the wiser. 😦
Sun having negative angular momentum (opposite spin and orbit angular momentum) is very rare, it happens just for a brief time less than once in a century… (Once, very seldom twice, sometimes not even once, per 179 years Jose cycle). Effect of this onto activity – compare 1811 and 1910 – is not much profound or even uniform…
1811 and 1990 …
Hi Semi, I think you’ve misunderstood Wolff and Patrone. half of the Sun is carrying its mass in the opposite direction to its orbit at any one moment.
Something that gives a new perspective on “Who does What”. See link here (but full paper is pay-walled). Still two points are evident. Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X17300559 and https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com.mt/2017/03/under-dead-sea-warnings-of-dire-drought.html#tx7VbsXFxmgFBJPz.97
1 Evidence in Dead sea of a dire climate shift, early in holocene at start of interglacial. As other evidence shows this results from -and with- drastic changes, climatic, geological,—.
2 Similar evidence at start of previous interglacial MIS5e. Wiki> ” Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e, called the Eemian, around 124,000–119,000 years ago, was the last interglacial period before the present (Holocene)—-“.
These are likely not the result of some planetary configurations. But maybe -and hopefully- we are out of the worst and coasting to the next interglacial.
sunspotlover says:
June 17, 2017 at 7:17 am
“Sorry to spoil the party… I have a paper in review with my polar field findings. Conclusion: the polar fields rule the sunspot cycle. Can’t say more till it is accepted.”
I don’t know how that spoils a party, everyone knows that the suns reversing polarity is the direct cause of sunspots, maybe you should elaborate more, as it appears that you have an astounding lack of awareness on the subject, really a scientific paper? lol
You should read the paper better I linked too:
Two other features of the acceleration field of Fig. 2 are worthy of note. As just
indicated, in the northern mid-latitudes of the displayed subject body, the zonal accelerations
would act to augment the velocity due to axial rotation; but at the corresponding latitudes of the
southern hemisphere, on the same side of the body, the opposite tendency will prevail. While
detailed modeling will be required to draw firm conclusions, this pattern seems well suited to the
generation of hemispheric asymmetries of the circulations of solar materials. As emphasized by
Lemerle et al. (2015), the Coriolis force is presently the main physical factor that breaks the axial
symmetry of proposed driving mechanisms for solar dynamo models, thereby allowing these to
escape the fatal consequences of Cowling’s theorem (Cowling, 1934). The CTA may provide
another source of non-axisymmetric motions of relevance to the dynamo problem.
=> One polar field is ACCELERATNG while the other is DECELERATING. 11 years later the opposite happens…
In the middle of this the polar fields reverse… Isn’t this interesting?
The planets induce speed REVERSALS at the poles… So shouldn’t this be linked to a reversal from the poles?
tallbloke says: June 13, 2017 at 8:25 am
‘The U-N effect can be seen rippling through the large J-S induced barycentric loops and every 2402 years you get a 367 year period in which there are two 159 year shortened Jose cycles., exactly as Charvatova correctly shows in fig 4 of her paper. This reconciles the 121 J-S and 14 U-N synodics occurring in each 2402 year Halstatt cycle.’
– – –
The Jupiter-Saturn conjunction returns to its starting position over 126 J-S (about half a degree off on average) in ~2503 years = 14 Jose cycles = 41 revolutions of J-S position.
So it looks as if the influence of U-N is reducing the corresponding solar cycle from a notional 41 J-S to just over 14 U-N, i.e. 2402 years.
S = 6 * 14, +1
J = 15 * 14, +1
J-S = 9 * 14 (= 14 Jose cycles)
Trigons = 3 * 14
J-S revs. = 3 * 14, -1
(6:9:15 = 2:3:5)
Sunspotlover: => One polar field is ACCELERATNG while the other is DECELERATING. 11 years later the opposite happens…
In the middle of this the polar fields reverse… Isn’t this interesting?
Could this be linked to the fact that the sum total of the planet’s masses lies either above or below the solar equatorial plane for years at a time?
This is what should be looked for:
North changes into South: the speed from the polar field changes, for example from 9 degrees/day => 10 degrees/day. This takes 11 years
+ => changes into – or – into +
South changes into North: the speed from the polar field changes for example from 10.2 degrees/day to 9 degrees/day. This takes 11 years.
– => changes into + or + onto –
So the change in speed should happen around the time the polar fields change polarity. Mind: they don’t change at the same time, but that can be calculated probably.
Can anyone check if the barycenter or the sum of the masses from the planets is up or above the equator every 11 years around the time the polar fields change polarity?
When both speeds are nearly equal,, around 9.6 degrees/day (arbitrary number)=> polarity change sunspots
Also, the equator speed of the Sun changes! Can anyone find a relation between the barycenter and the speed of the equator of the Sun?
The change from the equator speed can be found here:
Valentine I. Makarov, Andrey G. Tlatov, Dirk K. Callebaut, Long Term Variations of the Torsional Oscillations of the Sun.
Solar Physics, 170:373-388, 1997
1915.2009752575400 13.9512828857047
1915.5232221126200 13.9765846663887
1915.5316119715700 14.0162966654124
1915.6410614951200 14.0343577435856
1916.0678426028600 14.0544549868531
1916.9118285146700 14.0493216361185
1916.9201336275700 14.0886325038390
1916.9245404221700 14.1094913316090
1917.7760687324400 14.1400586668655
1918.4173420926800 14.1754192387093
1918.6314106149500 14.1886769107692
1919.4696337953700 14.1562666314123
1919.9934915033600 14.1358597825755
1920.3072637534400 14.1210484329325
1920.7230278746700 14.0889986067749
1921.0353594419000 14.0673680249764
1921.1356563920600 14.0421069223963
1921.4487506737300 14.0240865223272
1921.9718456672700 14.0000694917610
1922.3887962332100 13.9736355038492
1922.8081196885400 13.9584331924289
1923.6456649005600 13.9228138626459
1924.4952440516700 13.9441551779272
1925.3423655673400 13.9538636854136
1925.6635107237700 13.9739507591551
1926.1938938776100 13.9844310206701
1926.7282600958000 14.0137644534388
1927.0489815219700 14.0318458706640
1927.0576256190700 14.0727612635975
1927.4860169017500 14.1004800016271
1927.9113573266300 14.1137580127390
1928.4382658924300 14.1077918908200
1928.7517839043500 14.0917771472672
1929.5926342123200 14.0718019383117
1930.4278065349400 14.0249509320371
1930.4316201071900 14.0430018406842
1930.9536981481300 14.0141712344788
1931.2645042864600 13.9853202892213
1932.1076427377700 13.9761756254541
1932.9538320468900 13.9814716886046
1933.7987501652500 13.9807507822060
1934.6434987915200 13.9792276132009
1935.4891796243400 13.9821168885318
1935.4928237044900 13.9993655345724
1936.3312163770000 13.9677575178221
1937.1808802741700 13.9894999644067
1938.0237644873400 13.9791519067296
1938.8683436215000 13.9768264751180
1939.6097444398100 13.9861236817752
1939.7184312489200 14.0005745782189
1940.5642815738400 14.0042661161563
1940.9830118068200 13.9862558856132
1941.4075047712000 13.9955225836924
1942.2449652371700 13.9595021226061
1943.0853070688400 13.9371201258309
1943.0881036884900 13.9503574588388
1943.5022576347700 13.9106861379191
1944.2409465794800 13.9071471428717
1944.7601432547200 13.8646780723550
1945.6070952782900 13.8735843172350
1946.3513774623000 13.8965199882033
1946.4627761450000 13.9238070863517
1946.7884128420800 13.9651541191665
1947.3223553300200 13.9924818954189
1947.3250672036200 14.0053180971235
1947.7566788362000 14.0482798246774
1948.1848158807300 14.0747951687972
1948.4968932098100 14.0519611930888
1949.0189712507500 14.0231305868833
1949.8521944142200 13.9670535606335
1949.8566012088200 13.9879123884036
1950.2766873786000 13.9763202587127
1950.7005871206300 13.9827790376691
1951.0199526100100 13.9944423540419
1951.5455899850500 13.9824592625738
1952.3866945311700 13.9636874475281
1953.2313584113800 13.9617631472197
1953.7573347706300 13.9513845809647
1954.0752595771500 13.9562286651819
1954.9184827745200 13.9474851327180
1955.7741636412300 13.9977079018347
1956.3086146054700 14.0274424659067
1956.5267509381400 14.0599544405235
1956.9553964589700 14.0888765724630
1957.4890847087600 14.1150009548055
1958.3295112864800 14.0930200893336
1959.0665900562400 14.0818595995241
1959.1683276892500 14.0634177290996
1959.4784558591700 14.0313577334160
1959.6836260461900 14.0024966186326
1959.9934152319200 13.9688320977359
1959.9964660897200 13.9832728246536
1960.8300282373800 13.9288003236169
1961.0370628375000 13.9087640975054
1961.2445211678700 13.8907335279103
1961.6700310848500 13.9048138016287
1962.8359248675400 13.9233777063651
1963.6771989057600 13.9054081539259
1964.2009718677000 13.8846001737859
1965.0385170797200 13.8489808440029
1965.8828419757400 13.8454520184814
1966.4077166363300 13.8298587452839
1966.7294550151000 13.8527537381483
1967.0575493476200 13.9057335787579
1967.1692870145300 13.9346252021193
1967.5959833762100 13.9543213140836
1967.9194166759900 13.9852389330133
1968.0288661995500 14.0033000111865
1968.4581049427300 14.0350300622488
1969.3091247766900 14.0631906096857
1970.1492971162600 14.0400063503040
1970.5679426032000 14.0215949884576
1970.6705276967000 14.0071644310659
1970.9747236431300 13.9470252441534
1970.9827745178800 13.9851327179640
1971.8182010786500 13.9394851055992
1972.1311258682200 13.9206624429235
1972.6574412116700 13.9118884018816
1973.5027830602800 13.9131731519994
1973.7110888511500 13.8991538954369
1974.3474469405000 13.9112488516910
1974.4490150814100 13.8920047186601
1974.6557106973200 13.8703639673355
1975.1806701039700 13.8551718254412
1975.7021549225600 13.8235333001129
1976.0112661398900 13.7866597287900
1976.3252926281100 13.7730517730569
1976.8520317018000 13.7662833885313
1977.6899158980200 13.7322685839613
1978.0116542767900 13.7551635768257
1978.5433086213900 13.7716608078897
1979.1805141712300 13.7877670771765
1979.3981420276000 13.8178722639738
1980.2474669405700 13.8380101853453
1980.5690358272400 13.8601029156031
1981.1021308546800 13.8834193788228
1981.7386584361300 13.8963165976834
1981.9546761175500 13.9188002897185
1982.4895508120400 13.9505405103068
1982.8101874921600 13.9682207962287
1983.6556988328800 13.9703078089530
1984.1896413208200 13.9976355852054
1984.5079898575900 14.0044853259390
1985.1449411692900 14.0193882013159
1985.3601113902100 14.0378605803184
1985.8935454018500 14.0627815687511
1986.2050295085700 14.0371396739198
1987.0531679768400 14.0516617570455
1987.3663470045700 14.0340424882796
1987.4674066691800 14.0123915674290
1987.5677036193300 13.9871304648490
1987.8771538208600 13.9518614187393
1988.7084278251800 13.8865583725143
1988.8086400292900 13.8608961386310
1989.3322434991300 13.8392858958844
1989.5483459266000 13.8621707192228
Is this the equatorial bands speed relative to the Carrington rotation speed in m/s?
> tallbloke says June 17, 2017 at 6:42 pm
> half of the Sun is carrying its mass in the opposite direction to its orbit at any one moment.
That probably means nothing…?
There is a thing named Angular momentum, and it is a vector, that points upward from north pole. It also points upward (northward) from orbit, there is a right-hand rule, that if fingers point in orbit or spin direction, the thumb points in direction of the angular momentum vector. Sum of all orbital angular momentum vectors is a normal to the so called “invariant plane” (invariable plane?), The Plane of Solar System. If the planet orbits get more inclined to this plane, they gain more individual angular momentum, since their vector sum is smaller than if they are all well aligned. There is 850-year cycle, when Jupiter and Saturn are more or less aligned with each other and therefore they or something else in the system have less or more individual angular momentums… So this Angular Momentum Vector is what counts, what is important…
IF the Sun goes arround the barycenter from left side and not as usual from the right side, it’s angular momentum is of opposite direction to the whole rest of Solar system and to it’s own spin, and planets gain angular momentum to balance that loss…
But this is very rare. (the “Retrograde Sun” )
Also as the Sun gains or loses orbital angular momentum, it is transfered from or onto planets, since the sum must be balanced – so there is a conjecture, that this loss or gain of orbital angular momentum of Sun can be transfered to it’s spin angular momentum…? No, it cannot, unless there is some lever arm, some irregularity. Gravitationally, Sun is very perfect sphere, with nothing to use as lever arm. Tidal bulges are probably negligent. It could work magnetically?
Also Torque is a vector quantity and this late in night I’m lazy to recall, in which direction that vector points, probably also poleward with a force acting in/against orbit direction…
So it should be quite irrelevant, if half of Sun sphere travels opposite to orbital direction, same as in case of Earth: in morning you run straight head up, during all day you run opposite to orbital direction, at evening you run on orbit straight down below feet, and at night you spin with Earth in orbital direction. Do you feel it, or do very sensitive instruments feel it ? No. (And it does not matter, how much you jump or shake or convect…)
But in case of Sun, the velocity vector on surface due to spin may be larger than the velocity vector due to orbit ? In case of Earth surface, our velocity due to spin is at most 400m/s while orbital velocity is arround 30km/s …
At this moment, Sun orbits only 12m/s, and point on equator moves 1860m/s due to spin…
After all, the part of the Sun, that travels in opposite direction to orbit, is balanced by the other part, that moves faster than center of Sun in direction of orbit. (Is it really exactly balanced?)
————-
> sunspotlover says June 18, 2017 at 6:55 pm
> Can anyone check if the barycenter or the sum of the masses from the planets is up or above the equator every 11 years
Everything bary-center related is either 11.86-year Jupiter, which sometimes matches Sunspot cycle, but gets out of sync during centuries,
but more usually it is 19.86-year cycle of Jupiter/Saturn, which again is sometimes synchronized with Sunspot Halle cycle but too often it looses sync…
There has been shown, that Jupiter perihelium (stronger tides) influences (brakes) by tides poleward speed of flux transfer, which is most important from sunspot maximum to geomagnetic maximum later in the cycle, when the poles switch, and strength of tide at this time is directly related to next-cycle magnitude… (I do not have a link at this moment…)
But the tides (at least with a normal Theory of Tides) are exactly symmetric on north/south hemisphere…
————–
> tallbloke says June 18, 2017 at 8:03 pm
> Is this the equatorial bands …
> sunspotlover says June 18, 2017 at 7:03 pm
This is very probably in degrees per day, since this is the Solar equatorial rotation…
(I’m not sure at this moment if it is sideric or synodic rate. 360°/13.86dpd = 25.97 days )
(If so, it is very valuable data, if it goes that far into past…)
This speeding/slowing of Solar equator is that wave, on which are sunspots (“the Butterfly”), that is also visible in my red-blue images above, that wave on the equator
This image is from Mt.Wilson observatory, work of Roger Ulrich “Very Long-lived Wave Patterns Detected in the Solar Surface Velocity Signal”, which I downloaded at 2006, not sure about current location
> sunspotlover says: June 18, 2017 at 7:03 pm
Those data are interesting, but STRANGE !
– why Sun slowed down so much ?
– why is 1940 so damaged (almost flat) ? (war-time lack of observations???)
– why is 1985 so delayed after the cycle SC21 right into minimum before SC22, if the former quite match respective sunspot cycles ?
Data are in degrees/day from 1915 till 1989 calculated from sunspots on equator. Speeds as they are on the Sun, not viewed from Earth. I am looking for data from 1989 till now!
Who can find a relation between the barycenter and the changing speed of the equator? This will proof the planets rule the Sun!
sunspotlover: If I find a source of data, I’ll let you know.
Semi: If you are going to understand Wolff and Patrone’s paper. You’re going to need to read more than the first two sentences of the abstract. If you want a copy of the full paper, let me know.
sunspotlover – there might be some correlation between the duration of an arc or loop and the rotation speed, i.e. longer loop or arc = greater rotation speed and vice versa. ‘Longer’ means greater than J-S/2 or 9.9325~ years.
Just a possibility based on initial checks on the solar simulator.
Semi: concerning the tide principle. If the Northern polar fields fastens, than it comes closer to the equator. We have the opposite tide effect on the Southern hemisphere: it slows down and moves closer to the pole. Any objections against this? This proofs the change in polarity of the poles with the tide principle and is also what Shirley said in his paper. Do you agree? If yes, than this proofs the polarity change and has to be investigated further!
In the 20th C ‘arc + loop’ gives a better fit to the 19.86~ J-S period than ‘loop + arc’.
Between J-S conjunctions the pattern is: 2 longer, 2 shorter, 2 longer, 2 shorter (LL,SS,LL,SS)
Therefore J-S oppositions give alternate longer and shorter i.e LS,SL,LS,SL
Arcs always start ~1/4 J-S (~5 years) after an opposition.
Loops always start ~1/4 J-S after a conjunction.
Again that’s just the 20th C. No further analysis done.
Recap:
Shirley states in his paper that every 11 years one side goes faster and the other side slows down.
1. Northern field reverses speed from 10 degrees/day => 9 degrees/day (arbitrary number)
2. Southern field reverses speed from 9 degrees:day => 11 degrees/day
11 years later opposite happens
3. If the Northern field increases in speed it goes closer to the equator
4. If the Southern field decreases in speed it goes closer to the pole
5. The Northern field goes from a small circumference to a bigger circumference
6. The Southern field goes from a big circumference to a small circumference.
Conclusion:
We have 3 REVERSALS => MEANING THE POLES CHANGE FROM POLARITY.
We now need proof that the speed changes happen around the polarity change of the poles. Than we can write a paper.
We also need proof hat the equator speed of the Sun changes with the barycenter. Can anybody put the accelaration and deceleration of the barycenter on a time lap and compare it with the changes of the equator speed as found in the paper stated above (the values were also given).
> sunspotlover says, June 19, 2017 at 9:24 am
> If the Northern polar fields fastens, than it comes closer to the equator. We have the opposite tide effect on the Southern hemisphere: it slows down and moves closer to the pole
Tides are always symmetric (identical “bulge” on near side north as on far side south, further the Sun rotates in that so that “near” and “far” switch quite soon). Magnetic field is not symmetric.
On both hemispheres, there is strong flow poleward.
Not sure if it is same on both, actually I found it is not, but I have a problem with SOHO/SDO north-pole specification being wrong, which poisons my results a little…
(You may see my result here: June 17, 2017 at 2:16 pm for SC24 – there is almost 0.38 degree/day poleward flow at 60° latitude on both hemispheres, and the difference between them is at most 10° … The error due to bad pole specification is 0.041°/day up or down at most)
As you may see on those red&blue charts from Mt.Wilson and mine above, the zonal speed (horizontal, different rate of rotation) is always higher there, where there are sunspots. It starts from the belt at 40° latitude, which is synchronized with Earth pulse, and it goes down to Equator. So higher-speed at equator is usually near end of each Sunspot cycle.
You may also see, that the poleward flow of magnetic field goes somehow in waves in approximately YEARLY rythm, i.e. synchronized with Earth, possibly little longer…?
But if your data since 1915 are from Sunspot observations, it may not be on equator, since Sunspots at start of cycle are at higher latitudes, arround 20-30°…
So if you ask – WHEN is there higher rotation – and ask also WHERE is it – the answer is: there and then, where and when there are sunspots.
For my red&blue charts above, I have all data in numeric formats (for SC24), this posted here is just an easy visualisation… Calculating same for SC23 (since 1996) is somehow problematic, because SOHO/MDI is more noisy and more sparse data than SDO/HMI…
Data since 1986 probably may be available at Mt.Wilson observatory from Dopler measurements…?
(Look at the top part of that last picture I’ve posted June 19, 2017 at 3:43 am, from 1986 to 2001, saying difference +- 7.5 m/s — look where it is faster/slower, compared with magnetic field on bottom chart)
The only time the 1915-89 numbers drop below 13.8 is in 1976-79, around the time of the ‘Great Climate Shift’.
1976.0112661398900 13.7866597287900
1976.3252926281100 13.7730517730569
1976.8520317018000 13.7662833885313
1977.6899158980200 13.7322685839613 [lowest]
1978.0116542767900 13.7551635768257
1978.5433086213900 13.7716608078897
1979.1805141712300 13.7877670771765
http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/climate_shift.shtml
The inner loop from 1966-76 was the longest (either loop or arc) of the century.
Feb. 1966 Loop started
July 1976 Loop ended / Arc started
L-A = 10 years 5 months
Mean J-S/2 = 9 years 11 months (approx.)
– – –
Re. the lowest number in mid-1977:
In 1997, researchers at the University of Washington in a paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reported that a multidecadal oscillation in Pacific sea surface temperature and pressure had been discovered, while trying to explain decadal changes in salmon fishery production. They called it the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
They noted that a major shift had taken place in 1977 in the PDO from what they termed the cold mode to the warm mode. [bold added]
Click to access THE_GREAT_PACIFIC_CLIMATE_SHIFT_II.pdf
[Credit: NOAA etc.]
Here is available a somehow preliminary version of my work on solar surface flows, from which are some images posted above…
Quite useful to understand, where Sun rotates faster, what are poleward flows, how is it related with Sunspots, what are differences between flow of active regions and the calmer areas beside them, comparision of SC23 and SC24, and two AVI videos (for download, without a player) of quasi-continuous synoptic map of magnetograms in SC23 and SC24.
http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Flow/FlowAvg.html
– I need a help with rotation of Sun’s north pole. (I’ll probably try to ask it one more time later)
– All data are available in numeric format on request…
(For the flow, rotation rate or torsional oscilations I’ve got data available only since May 2010 from SDO, but there is a link to older data in Mt.Wilson observatory on UCLA, Dr. Roger Ulrich’s page, where he has got some data for download since 1986)
sunspotlover says:
June 18, 2017 at 7:03 pm
In the limited data available the numbers go up at or very near the start of each loop or arc (when J and S pass 90 degrees orientation relative to the Sun).
In the case of the 1976-07 to 1986-01 arc (including the Great Climate Shift 1977-78) they keep going up for the whole period. The other loops and arcs don’t do that.
All sunspotlover’s highest numbers i.e. over 14.1 (except four) are in a group around 1917-19:
1916.9245404221700 14.1094913316090
1917.7760687324400 14.1400586668655
1918.4173420926800 14.1754192387093
1918.6314106149500 14.1886769107692
1919.4696337953700 14.1562666314123
1919.9934915033600 14.1358597825755
1920.3072637534400 14.1210484329325
That makes them 60 years before the group of lowest numbers at the time of the 1977 climate shift.
There’s an arc starting in April 1916 and three arcs later one starts in July 1976.
Obviously 60 years fits with 3 Jupiter-Saturn conjunction cycles (~59.6 years average).
Paper — Multi-Decadal Trends of Global Surface Temperature: A Broken Line with Alternating ~30 yr Linear Segments?
‘Our analysis strongly argues for the presence of a ~60-
yr oscillation in the climate system (at least over the limited
time interval—100 to 150 years—covered by reliable
instrumental observations). More precisely, global
temperature data can be interpreted as a series of linear
segments interrupted by rather fast changes in slope, i.e.
abrupt changes in regimes. Each episode or regime maintains
itself for approximately 30 years.’
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257923926_Multi-Decadal_Trends_of_Global_Surface_Temperature_A_Broken_Line_with_Alternating_30_yr_Linear_Segments
In solar motion terms: arc-loop-arc followed by loop-arc-loop (~30 years each), or vice versa.
arc-loop-arc = 2 J-S conjunctions + 1 opposition
loop-arc-loop = 1 J-S conjunction + 2 oppositions
Conjunctions occur mid-arc, oppositions occur mid-loop.