Its been a long time coming, but this graph is an easier way to appreciate the effect the outer planets have on our Sun. This is the same information Carl used in his now famous graph, but instead of a sine wave we have the absolute power shown in a conventional form. Angular momentum can be measured in different ways leading to confusion. Now we have a reliable power guide directed at the Sun from the Jovian planets.
Source: Carl’s JPL data assuming 2E+47 as a zero point and inverting all points below.
This next graph shows the sunspot cycle superimposed on the angular momentum strength…showing strong correlations. Notice how after a sudden slowdown the high angular momentum peaks are not fully utilized.
UPDATE 11/05/09:
The same graph but with the solar orbital velocity as it orbits the SSB overlaid. This shows the connection between Angular Momentum and the fluctuating speed of the Sun as it orbits the solar system barycenter, this orbit path being controlled by the outer planets. Conservation of angular momentum has consequences.
Below: This time I have compared the Sun’s velocity with the typical AM graph as per Carl….the altered velocity obvious at 1650, 1830 and 2010 which also correspond with radical Solar path changes caused by the outer planets. The Sun’s orbit speed is surprisingly slow and goes from around 30 km/h up to around 60 km/h (100% increase) when Angular Momentum is at its highest. This still allows the Sun to move over 1.5 million km from the SSB over 5 years. Note when the two lines diverge there is a corresponding slow down in solar activity.
This graph showing the velocity of the Sun is a product of Angular Momentum (red line = velocity). Interestingly velocity can exceed AM and also not use the full potential of AM. A conservation is required? Is there another force involved that modulates the usage of AM?
Now the question is, are there any other consequences, is the changing velocity also changing the rotation speed of the Sun as well. I have been searching for solar rotation rates but it seems we are unable to record this presently, there are no fixed points on the surface of the Sun which has a highly movable outer layer. The idea of a solar rotation change due to the planets is highly speculative, but until we can get an accurate measurement of solar rotation it cant be ruled out. If we could record the solar rotation accurately this discussion would be over…but we CAN record the rotation rate of Earth, and I postulate on the following with some brain food…… The Earth’s rotation rate is calculated by recording the Length of Day which shows our longest days (slower speed) are always in January. Theories suggest this is because of weather patterns that always occur in January but it also coincides with our planets fastest velocity which shows a very regular pattern each January.
Interesting pattern similar to the Jovian orbits…expecting earths orbit to follow the same trend.
Length of day graph from USNO showing the yearly rotation speed pattern of our planet. The slowest days are in January each year, which coincides with our closest approach to the Sun in our slightly elliptical orbit.
Landscheidt Cycles Research 
On the assumption that it is these fluctuations that determine the level of solar activity, it would seem to be the extended lows that are having the big effects (those little double dips you have marked in green), with the highs not seeming to matter very much. Interesting, and thanks for putting this together.
REPLY: Thanks Alec, the double dips are responsible for all grand minima. If I find a graph package that can handle the large amounts of data it would show these double dips going back 6000 yrs, and they occur every 172 years (centre) with corresponding solar inactivity. The high’s herald the onset of grand minima and give us short ramp ups of activity like we saw from 1930 to 1960. Neptune & Uranus when together produce those high’s and the disturbance or double dip that produces grand minima. It is very rare to find high solar activity when Neptune & Uranus are opposed (angular momentum is at its lowest), but there is one case around 185AD. In this rare case 2 special alignment’s come together to boost this normally quiet period, This alignment is when Jupiter and Saturn are at their points of conjunction they are also joined by Uranus first and then Neptune at the next conjuncture (173 and 194), the corresponding high angular momentum is seen on the angular momentum charts.
Thanks for the graph.
There is, in my opinion, no longer any doubt that solar cycles are linked to changes in angular momentum.
This observation seems to confirm that the Sun is not a homogeneous ball of hydrogen: It is the layered remains of a supernova that re-formed on the compact neutron star after all the material that now orbits the Sun was ejected at the birth of the solar system, 5 x 10^9 years ago. This scenario for the formation of the solar system came from decades of precise space-age measurements on isotopes and elements in meteorites, planets, the solar wind, solar flares, and solar flares and on measurements of solar neutrinos coming from the Sun.
See: “Isotopes Tell Origin and Operation of the Sun,” AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 822 (2006) pp. 206-225
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0510001v1
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/
REPLY: Great to have someone of your standing on board. This upcoming grand minimum should make the world open their eyes to the power of Angular Momentum.
Gary Gulrud posted a comment which was lost somehow in the moderation queue. Here is his comment.
Good progress, Geoff.
“On the assumption that it is these fluctuations that determine the level of solar activity”
Without actually understanding much of the current dynamo modeling that guys like Axel Brandenburg or Matt Miesch are doing my impression is that the Hale cycle would proceed to flip magnetic poles at some characteristic period without outside influences.
Changes in angular momentum or syzygy of orbiting magnetic fields perturb this machine and change levels in our proxies of solar activity, e.g., sunspots. I hope it isn’t preciosity, but ‘determine the level of’, therefore, seems a bit excessive.
Pingback: Jennifer Marohasy » Quiet Sun Shouldn’t Baffle Astronomers
Oliver K. Manuel said, April 14, 2009 @ 12:07 am
There is, in my opinion, no longer any doubt that solar cycles are linked to changes in angular momentum.
On what do you base this, as it has been shown through simulations recently that the orbital angular momentum of the planets balances out 100% with the orbital angular momentum of the Sun. There is no missing angular momentum in the solar system to drive solar activity, and there is also not a mechanism described to transfer the non-existent missing angular momentum.
See this, especially pages 13-15
Click to access AM_1940_1992_20090327_r1.pdf
REPLY: There does not need to be any missing angular momentum, its how the conservation of angular momentum is applied that is important.
I have shown in the link above how the angular momentum is conserved. The calculations show that AM is exchanged between the sun and the planets in such a way that the sum is exactly constant for all times, and therefore no part of it is missing. All of angular momentum is accounted for and therefore no part of it can be related to or causing solar activity. This fact is proof that there isn’t any link between angular momentum and solar activity.
I would like to hear what Mr. Manuels bases his statement on, please.
REPLY: Your statement is unfounded. The very fact that angular momentum is conserved can account for the rotation changes experienced by the Sun. I will also wait to hear from Prof. Maneul if he so wishes to respond.
Unfounded? Did you not understand what I said? Put simpler: It explains that AM is conserved and why. There is therfore no longer any room for an assertion about rotation changes in the sun caused by it. The spin-orbit coupling idea was interesting, but now proven unfounded.
Let us hear Mr. Manuels.
REPLY: I understand what you said…perhaps you dont understand that your experiment does not disprove the angular momentum trade off that could vary solar rotation rates. If you were right then we could not have what is already known in our Earth/Moon system…the moon would not vary its orbit distance etc. You are arguing against the laws of angular momentum conservation. There are others area’s of conservation that would also be impossible according to your logic, we would not see orbit velocity changes in the Sun around the barycenter as well as velocity changes of the planets due to elliptical orbits etc.
Carsten,
Why does it prove anything more than the barycenter is the hub of the solar system wheel?
Conservation of AM is not conservation of energy. If it has been established that the Sun’s velocity is varying it’s kinetic energy is varying, but it’s potential energy does not change much since it does not orbit any mass.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Geoff, unfortunatley you are completely off the mark here. For the last time: I have proven that that AM is conserved and why, and you are telling me “You are arguing against the laws of angular momentum conservation”. I am afraid this is nonsense. You don’t understand or don’t what to understand what I have shown. But I wasn’t really trying to debate with you on this. I would rather hear Mr. Manuels reiterate what he thinks. But somehow he has dissappeared. He may have changed his mind.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Lgl, the now disproven spin-orbit coupling idea was all about angular momentum. Full stop. If it was about something else, you may ask Geoff why there is an article about an angular momentum graph here. Then ask Mr. manuels why he believes “There is, in my opinion, no longer any doubt that solar cycles are linked to changes in angular momentum.”. If you don’t understand the proof, I an bit sure I can help you. Do the calculations yourself if you doubt mine.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Carsten,
I understand and do not understand. I understand that the total AM is constant. I also understand that the Sun’s ‘wobble’ is caused by this conservation of AM, i.e it is not a direct effect of gravity. The Sun is forced to move much more than from gravity alone, so I do not understand where this variation in revolutional energy is coming from if not from rotational energy variation. What other options do you see? The Sun is moving in it’s own gravitational field, not in a gravitational field from the barycenter, so it does not have a higher potentional energy when away from the BC like the planets have when they are further away from the Sun.
Lgl,
“I understand that the total AM is constant. I also understand that the Sun’s ‘wobble’ is caused by this conservation of AM, i.e it is not a direct effect of gravity.”
Your understanding is wrong. The wobble results from gravity alone. This is obvious from the start, but it also follows directly from my simulations. No AM calculations are needed to demonstrate the wobble. All you need is Newton’s law of gravity, and that is what I did in my simulations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
AM plays no part in computing the trajectories of the sun or the planets in the solar system.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Carsten,
Hmm.. but if Jupiter was moved to the orbit of Pluto the gravity felt by the Sun would decrease but the Sun’s wobble would increase. How can it be gravity then? I don’t understand how the Sun’s motion can be a direct result of gravitational pull since the Sun experiences almost no gravity from the planets.
This is a test. bold? Before I try to post something substantive.
[b]What I shall post is independent thinking which turns out to support Carsten Arnholm above.[/b]
Rich.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Now I’m becoming confused! I don’t think anyone is saying that angular momentum is not conserved. I thought the idea was to establish how the changes in angular momentum causes perturbations in the sun – the visual correlation seems too high to ignore.
I am presuming that when orbital calculations are done for the sun and planets they are treated as Euclidean points, i.e. dimensionless. The Solar System Barycentre is an Euclidean point by defintion. In reality the sun is not dimensionless and nor is it solid so, possibly naively, I had assumed that each different bit of the sun being a different distance from the moving SSB was subject to slightly different gravitational forces.
Professor Manuel tells us that the sun is layered by density. I would have thought the different viscosities (if that is the appropriate word) of the different elements and states of material of the sun would give rise to different reactions to the changing gravitational forces. Can’t you just see a bulge in a fluid iron layer forever being dragged around the sun towards the moving barycentre with overlying, lighter, less visous layers reacting more quickly? The fact that the sun is not an homogenous amorphous gaseous mass could be important in this matter.
I seem to remember that you, Geoff, have previously dismissed solar tides as not being significant although I can’t remember why.
REPLY: You are right on with your first statement, some are ignoring the most vital connection, perhaps blinded by another cause. In the trade off in conserving angular momentum there are results, if the conditions are right that can mean a change in rotation rate. We already know the velocity of the Sun varies as it takes its 2 distinctively different orbits around the SSB. Tidal force is something of the order of 1 mm on the Sun according to some, while not ruling it out I think angular momentum is the big boy in town.
Introduction
[This note was written before I saw Carston Aurnold’s?? postings, but it seems to support his views.]
I had generally found the concept of the Sun revolving around the solar system barycentre, in a non-uniform way, as an appealing idea towards explaining sunspot cycles. However, as a result of doing some “thought experiments” on this, I am afraid that I have become rather sceptical of it, and would now tend to side with Leif Svalgaard in this regard. The reasons for my scepticism should become apparent below.
To begin, here is a table of relative mean barycentric (linear), angular momentum (inverse square root), gravitational (inverse square), and tidal (inverse cube) effects, which makes it clear that the outer planets affect the barycentre significantly whereas the inner planets affect the tides significantly. The reason why angular momentum is like 1/sqrt(r), where r is radius of orbit, is that it is mrv, where v is velocity, and v is proportional to mr/T where T is period, and since by Kepler’s 3rd law T is proportional to r^1.5, we get m/r^0.5.
m r mr m/r^.5 m/r^2 m/r^3
– – — —— —– —–
V 0.82 0.723 0.593 0.964 1.57 2.17
E 1.00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00
J 317.83 5.203 1654. 139. 11.74 2.26
S 95.16 9.539 908. 30.8 1.05 0.11
U 14.50 19.182 278. 3.31 0.04 0.002
N 17.20 30.058 517. 3.14 0.02 0.0006
Thus Jupiter (J) dominates the barycentric position, but can be counterbalanced if Saturn (S), Uranus (U) and Neptune (N) lie in the same direction as each other. These are mean values, and this matters for the angular momentum. Since the barycentre (B) can be at the centre of the Sun, the Sun’s angular momentum about it can be zero. Then, when B moves away, the Sun acquires angular momentum relative to B (see later) at the expense of the other planets as they move nearer B.
For the tidal effect, J dominates but Venus (V) and Earth (E) are significant too.
[b]Nature of the barycentre[/b]
To start the thought experiments, here is an ASCII diagram of the Sun, 2 planets, and a barycentre.
[verbatim]
|——————————————————–K
|
MP-B—————————–L
[/verbatim]
M is the centre of the Sun (and also its mass), P is a point on its surface, L is a planet (perhaps Jupiter, also its mass), K is a planet (perhaps Saturn, also its mass), and B (or a point in the upper half of B) is the barycentre of the 3 bodies.
Ignore K for the moment, and consider just L and M and their own barycentre B’. In the absence of other forces, the inverse square law between L and M makes them revolve in ellipses with B’ at their foci. B’ is directly between L and M, and doesn’t move, so it seems as if L is revolving around B’ rather than M.
Now include K, and suppose that it applies negligible force to L and M – for instance K might be Proxima Centauri. B is now quite some distance away from B’, but not moving relative to it, and the orbits of L and M are unchanged, so to imagine that they are revolving around B rather than B’ is ridiculous. If K is Saturn instead of Proxima Centauri, then it is not so obvious, but even then M does not feel a net force in the direction of B, but in a direction between ML and MB (I can supply a proof of the angle involved if necessary).
So M is not falling around B in the sense of feeling a force towards it. B is merely a place calculable from K, L, and M, which, owing to Newton’s 2nd and 3rd laws of motion, experiences zero acceleration and so moves uniformly in a straight line, or is fixed in some relativistically equivalent frame of reference. M does not “know” where B is.
Angular momentum
The tenor of this website is that the Sun’s angular momentum about B is important. But angular momentum “about B” isn’t a valid concept. To see this let’s take our 3 bodies K, L, and M as reasonably general, and do some mathematics which I may have seen at university but then forgot. Let k be the vector BK, l be BL, and m be BM. Use k’ etc. for velocity. The definition of the barycentre is
(1) Kk + Ll + Mm = 0
By differentiating the above, we get that in the frame of reference with B fixed, there is zero momentum:
(2) Kk’ + Ll’ + Mm’ = 0
The angular momentum of the system measured about B is
(3) a = K(k^k’) + L(l^l’) + M(m^m’)
where ^ is the vector product, and a is a vector. Suppose now we decide to measure angular momentum about a point X where x = BX is fixed. Then since XK = XB+BK = k-x, etc., the angular momentum about X is
K((k-x)^k’) + L((l-x)^l’) + M((m-x)^m’) = a – x ^ (Kk’+Ll’+Mm’) = a by (2).
Thus angular momentum of the system is independent of the (stationary) point X about which it is measured. This is no doubt well known to those who know it. Now the Sun’s contribution to the angular momentum is M((m-x)^m’), and this does depend on X, but there is no reason to prefer one X over another – again, unless the Sun has a computer on board, it doesn’t know where B is. Angular momentum is a variable of the system, not of any single body.
It is hard, therefore, to give any credence to the notion of the Sun being affected by its motion relative to the barycentre of the solar system, but it is still possible that this motion correlates to something else which does affect it – I leave this question open.
In fact, I am reasonably sure that the planets, especially Jupiter have some effect on solar cycles. For example, Timo Nitoma at //personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmaru/sunsptos.html presents convincing evidence that solar minima do not occur uniformly around the Jovian orbit, preferring to be towards its perihelion but not at it. There is also the theory and data suggesting that solar maxima are timed according to JEV syzygies, as per http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=325&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=959b36e9ae7dab61ba9791b894f618f8&start=50#p12780 , though I am a bit less convinced by that as I don’t understand how the filtering is done on that.
Apologies to those for whom my analysis will be unwelcome. 😦 I shall continue to think on this subject.
Rich.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Sorry, I misspelled “Carsten Arnholm” and forgot to check it.
Regarding the reply to comment 7 and the Earth-Moon evolution, I should like to make the following point. The transfer of angular momentum is because the tidal bulge allows the Moon to apply a couple, or turning force, to the Earth. It is a very slow mechanism, but something similar could happen to the Sun over millions of years, though the tidal bulges there are very small (but perhaps larger near the core??). It cannot help us with solar physics on centennial time scales.
Rich.
REPLY: We are not interested in the cause of the rotation change in this case. The mechanics involved is what is important. Conservation of angular momentum produces an outcome. The earth slows its rotation and the moon adjusts its orbit radius, angular momentum is conserved.
Geoff,
“The Sun/Planet barycenter is determined by mass and distance, and AM is certainly involved.”
AM is certainly not involved. Mass and distance (i.e. positions) is all you need.
“Carsten, can you tell us what is responsible for the changing solar orbit velocity around the SSB that is so easily seen in your own Sim1 program?”
Just like the planets have a changing orbital speed, so does the Sun. The SIM1 uses orbital elements to determine the planetary positions, the Sun’s position is then determined from a simple equilibrium analogy (mass and distances in x and y). The sun’s position is then a result of the planetary positions. The sun’s velocity is the derivative of its position.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
lgl said,
“Hmm.. but if Jupiter was moved to the orbit of Pluto the gravity felt by the Sun would decrease but the Sun’s wobble would increase. How can it be gravity then? I don’t understand how the Sun’s motion can be a direct result of gravitational pull since the Sun experiences almost no gravity from the planets.”
There are no other forces than gravity at play. If you move Jupiter to Pluto you also have to reduce the orbital velocity of Jupiter in order to keep jupiter in the solar system. The result is a wider, but much slower wobble of the sun. You can try it in my gravity simulator or do the calculations yourself.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Roger Edmunds said,
“Now I’m becoming confused! I don’t think anyone is saying that angular momentum is not conserved. I thought the idea was to establish how the changes in angular momentum causes perturbations in the sun”
You are correct. Angular momentum is conserved as per the laws of physics. Indeed the idea was to establish how the changes in angular momentum caused perturbations in the sun, through the hypothetical spin orbit coupling.
What we established was that there is no change in the angular momentum of the solar system, and therefore such changes cannot cause any perturbations in the sun. The changes are zero. Solar activity is driven by something else.
REPLY: The spin orbit coupling scenario is your idea, not something I have ever put forward. Once again we are interested in the trade offs, not the balance of angular momentum. I am tired of repeating this point.
Carsten,
“Just like the planets have a changing orbital speed, so does the Sun”
It can’t be “just like” that. The planets have a changing orbital speed because they gain and loose potential energy in the gravitational field of the mass inside of their orbit, mostly the Sun, but there is no mass inside of the Sun’s orbit so there is no potential energy to tap. “The Suns velocity changes are a product of angular momentum conservation as seen in Kepler’s Law” (Geoff), not because of gravitational pull i.e the Sun is not in free fall and can not move like it is doing without changing rotation. You still have not explained where the energy is coming from. The ‘transfer’ of AM does not transfer any energy, yet the kinetic energy of the Sun is varying a lot.
lgl,
I think there are many ways to think of the Sun’s motion. But for me the simplest is through Newton’s 3rd law of motion, on action and reaction. The Sun is pulling many planets towards it, and in return those planets pull the Sun towards them. The resultant of those forces is what the Sun feels, and are what tell it to move. Thus if Jupiter and Saturn are near conjunction, the Sun will mostly be pulled towards them.
If every particle of the Sun experienced the same net force from the planets, then the Sun would be in free fall. But the difference between the forces on one particle and another on the other side of the Sun, known as the tidal force, is what prevents it being truly in free-fall. Unfortunately, the tidal forces from Uranus and Neptune are very small (see my table).
Regarding your question of “where is the energy coming from”, when Jupiter is moving towards perihelion, and losing potential energy, some of that energy goes into accelerating the Sun as well as accelerating Jupiter. If it was just the Sun and Jupiter, they would each be moving in an ellipse with the barycentre as focus, and both would be at peri-centre simultaneously, and moving fastest, and later both would be at ap-centre simultaneously, and moving slowest. Does that help?
Rich.
REPLY: Rich, your first statement is not quite right, when Jupiter and Saturn are in conjunction 2 things happen.
1. Jupiter is normally at its closest Perihelion in its 60 year cycle of Perihelion distance modulation.
2. The combined AM pushes the Sun AWAY from the SSB AND Jupiter & Saturn. This would seem incorrect after point 1 but that is what seems to be happening.
I have never seen any data on solar rotation difference at Jupiter Perihelion….can you provide? This is an area of current research for me.
See – owe to Rich,
“Does that help?” Thanks, but I’m afraid not, ref Geoff’s comment.
For your thought experiment; If it was just the Sun, Venus and Neptune, the gravity from Venus would be much greater than that of Neptune, yet it would mostly be Neptune causing the Sun to move, and obviously that motion would not be a result of losing potential energy in the gravitational field of Neptune, so my question remains unanswered.
lgl and Geoff,
So, where we’re at is that the JPL algorithms are used, because they are the experts, and they use Newtonian physics (perhaps with an epsilon of Einstein), because he was the expert, but we don’t quite understand why the pattern of Jupiter’s perihelia should be as predicted by JPL (and in fact observed).
I think I understand the recent perihelia, in which the 2010 distance is smallest because Saturn is in opposition. This works via a perturbation in which not only the Sun but Saturn also is pulling Jupiter roughly in the direction of the Sun, curving it inwards more than average.
But for now, I don’t understand the older data, 1643-1879, in which the closest perihelia corresponded to conjunctions with Saturn. I shall continue thinking about this.
Rich.
REPLY: You have a good understanding of the dilemma, an answer to it might also prove to be the scientific link required for planetary theory.
OK, I think I’ve got it – probably. Since the smallest perihelia occur both at conjunction and opposition with Saturn, one should not be surprised to see tidal forces involved, like the bimodality of oceanic tides. In place of the Earth, the oceans, and the Moon, think of the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn respectively. In other words, Jupiter’s distance from the Sun has a tidal wobble caused by Saturn. And like on Earth, it appears that the high tide occurs a significant portion of the cycle later than the maximum tidal force.
If this is correct, the graph of perihelia in the next thread is broadly explained as follows. Firstly, since hundreds of years are covered, so several times Neptune’s period, it is clear that Uranus and Neptune are not involved in the main effect. The periodicity of 5 perihelia is of course due to 5 Jupiter periods being about 2 Saturn periods. The fact that this relationship is not exact explains the phase change in 1891. For, Jupiter’s period T is about 4/10 of Saturn’s, and about 6/10 of their synodic period, so the time between conjunction and opposition is (1/2)(10T/6) = 5T/6 (about 10 years). So if a perihelion occurs about T/12 before conjunction, then the next perihelion occurs at -T/12+T =11T/12 which is T/12 after the next opposition, i.e. the same gap. Thus, if conjunctions and oppositions had equal weight, each of these two would give the same perihelic distance, e.g. as in 1879 and 1891, and from then on the one series would become replaced by the other.
Before I am totally satisfied by this explanation I want to do some mathematics to try and see whether the theoretical lag between the tidal force and its maximum effect matches the data. This may take a little time as I do have employment to distract me. Incidentally, if this is right, it means that when I previously said that I understood the effect of a Saturn opposition, I really didn’t!
Rich.
REPLY: An interesting concept but the forces involved might be quite different. In the earth moon tide system the 2 tidal bulges are created by 2 different causes. The ocean side closest to the moon bulges because of gravitational pull, the other bulge on the opposite side of earth is a result of the inertia involved between the 2 bodies. Jupiter & Saturn are not orbiting each other. Your point about the drifting out of alignments per orbit is what we see on any solar system viewer, over time the conjunction of J/S moves away from perihelion and the opposition starts to align more closely. This waxing and waning of alignments has probably been the same for 4 billion years. One thing I have noticed about the J/S orbit shapes is that they are both elliptical and on a similar plane but their perihelion/aphelion points are at right angles to one another. Maybe there is something here but I am still having difficulty as to how the closest Jupiter perihelion can have Saturn in conjunction and during this time the Sun is also moving further away from the SSB And Jupiter & Saturn. It is suggesting to me the Jupiter orbit at this point must be moving substantially perhaps trying to keep up with the rapidly moving sun and over shooting?
This viewer is very good for looking at orbit shapes and perihelion etc http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php?supersize=true
UPDATE: There are 2 schools of thought on the tidal bulge on the reverse side. Another theory states it is result of the gravity of the moon causing a negative force on the opposing side that mimics the tide on the closest side but perhaps 6% weaker.
The graph is about the angular momentum of the sun or the angular momentum
of the solar system?
thanks and congratulations for your blog
REPLY: Thanks…. The graph represents the total angular momentum of the solar system excluding the Sun, this is the angular momentum directed towards the Sun or as felt by the Sun. Some say the Sun doesn’t “feel” anything which is a topic of hot debate and still open for discussion. My research over 6000 yrs shows that every time we have a disturbance in angular momentum (roughly every 172 yrs) the Sun experiences varying degrees of reduction in solar output. Something has to give.
In reply to angelo, May 7, 2009 @ 1:52 pm Geoff said,
REPLY: Thanks…. The graph represents the total angular momentum of the solar system excluding the Sun, this is the angular momentum directed towards the Sun or as felt by the Sun.
This is complete nonsense. Angular momentum is not “directed towards the Sun”, it is a vector directed normal to the orbital plane of the object in motion. It is not felt by anyone or the Sun.
REPLY: Ok you have made your point, you dont believe AM can contribute to solar activity after your little experiment that proves angular momentum is conserved. That particular experiment was your idea (not to be confused with spin orbit coupling in general) and congratulations on the outcome, but nothing has changed. If you have something new to contribute we are all ears. It is my intent to keep discussions on a civilized level and request you adhere to those standards.
Carsten,
why don’t you answer this simple question instead. If the solar system was the Sun and Neptune only the Sun would still accelerate around the barycenter and you say it’s all about gravity. The gravitational field of what mass would be accelerating the Sun?
“REPLY: Ok you have made your point, you dont believe AM can contribute to solar activity after your little experiment that proves angular momentum is conserved. That particular experiment was your idea (not to be confused with spin orbit coupling in general) and congratulations on the outcome, but nothing has changed. If you have something new to contribute we are all ears. It is my intent to keep discussions on a civilized level and request you adhere to those standards.”
If your intent is to “to keep discussions on a civilized level” why do you refuse to let me refute your false claim that spin orbit coupling was my idea. You have now deleted my post on that subject twice, and that is notr an honest thing to do. I have a copy of it here:
Please answer the request in that post.
REPLY: The problem here is that there is no communication going on, perhaps try to move on and add something beneficial to the forum without being obnoxious.
lgl said, May 10, 2009 @ 3:14 am
Carsten,
why don’t you answer this simple question instead.
Geoff keeps deleting the posts he does not agree with, that is why you don’t get the full picture.
REPLY: Your deleted comments have been overly aggressive…just answer the question
http://arnholm.org/tmp/landscheidt-spin-orbit-coupling.jpg
Please answer the request in that post.
REPLY: The problem here is that there is no communication going on, perhaps try to move on and add something beneficial to the forum without being obnoxious.
Well, Geoff, there is no communication because you delete my posts and because you refuse to even answer my request. You are indeed the obnoxious one here. Suggesting to “try to move” on at this stage is disingenuous.
What I request is that you accept that your accusation was false and state an apology. Then we can move on.
REPLY: I will repeat my answer from solarcyle24.com….“There is nothing to apologize for. I was simply stating you decided to do your little test of AM, I didnt ask you to do it. I did not say you where the first to suggest spin-orbit coupling as a theory so there is nothing to get upset about. Your demanding attitude is not needed.” If you dont like that response you are not forced to partake in this blog. Any continued demanding of your request will be snipped…its getting boring.
Thank you for the update Geoff. Interesting to see the solar velocity peaks near 1880, 1940, 2000, just happens to correlate with Earth spin, temperature and the PDO. Another one of those strange coincidences of course.
REPLY: I will definitely look at that….you also gave me another idea, what if the acceleration lines up with the Jupiter perihelion modulation, guess what it does. Check out the “what point do the Jovians Orbit” article.
[~snip] boring
In 1989 the sun changed its path around the barycenter as you know. I was surprised that around that event, as pointed out by Leif Svalgaard
“It seems inescapable that the relation between the sunspot number and the microwave flux has changed significantly in recent years”
Also Nicola Scafetta, in his presentation´s 15 slide shows that in sept 29 1989 “the PMOD shifts down Nimbus7 record by 0.86 W/m^2 during the ACRIM-gap”
What do you think about both events?
REPLY: I wouldnt expect any solar changes around 1989 going on angular momentum records other than a gradual decrease in solar activity overall. 1989 had the Sun almost dead centre of the solar system which gives an AM reading of near zero which means reasonably good strength for solar activity. Very high AND very low AM have the same effect on solar activity. The inner loop that 1989 is part of is the standard trefoil pattern, very different to the inner loop we are in today.
Re: See – owe to Rich [post #17]
Thank you for shining some light on the “misunderstanding” (to use a polite term) Carsten & Geoff seem to be having. You illustrate the source of the confounding:
The different variables being addressed are RELATED BY DEFINITION.
I’ve pointed this out in a related discussion on WUWT (indirectly, by suggesting graphing exercises designed to lead investigators to independent insight).
It seems to me that many researchers overlook one of Jose’s (1965) most basic points.
Jose suggested investigating a VARIETY of these related variables; however, many have (for over 4 decades now) limited the search (mainly) to variables Jose graphed. (Could this (at least in part) explain the stall in progress?…)
Jose STRESSED (rather subtly, I admit) that his listed & graphed variables were EXAMPLES, encouraging BROADER investigation. [There are an INFINITE number of functions to investigate (but, of course, not all of them are physically meaningful…)]
–
See – owe to Rich [post #17] said, “There is also the theory and data suggesting that solar maxima are timed according to JEV syzygies, […] , though I am a bit less convinced by that as I don’t understand how the filtering is done on that.”
You can read all of the details – the whole story – here:
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/sunspots/
“Sunspot cycles are they caused by Venus, Earth and Jupiter syzygies?”
by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins (1988, with later updates)
I’ve reproduced the basic pattern he finds by a different method. (For clarity: I’m not drawing any conclusions.)
I recommend reading every branch of Desmoulins’ website in full detail – he is very careful with both methods & communication.
–
Geoff, you’ve made an interesting suggestion that there might be confounding (in the statistical sense) interfering with efforts to understand seasonal variations in LOD.
(For clarity: I’m not suggesting I agree with you, but certainly efforts to consider & investigate potential confounding are to be applauded.)
I see that your graphs all show seasonal variation. Have you extended your investigation to interannual timescales? (This would be one way to probe your musings further…)
Even if you don’t want to get bogged down with the computational details of wavelet analysis, there are some really simple treatments you can give the (monthly, I assume) data – for example:
1) Difference the series.
In Excel, if the time series is in column A:
In cell B2 enter “+A2-A1”.
Copy/paste B2 down column B.
2) Then apply a 12month moving-average.
In cell C8 enter “=+average(B3:B13,average(B2,B14))”.
Copy/paste C8 down column C – and then delete the last 6 column-C cells (i.e. check that the formula in the last (undeleted) column-C cell does NOT refer to any cell below the last cell in column B).
3) Make some simple timeplots & scatterplots.
This will take no more than 1 minute – (feel free to ask for clarification).
–
Re: Adolfo Giurfa [post #36]
It seems you are aware that the sun’s motion relative to the SSB was retrograde around 1990. Other interesting events in 1989:
1) Power grid failure on Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eiskappenman.html
2) ‘Unusual’ solar flares – including ‘unusual’ activity in the fall (…according to what I have read – but I lack expertise in this area — maybe someone else has details…)
(For clarity: I’m not drawing any conclusions – just pointing out interesting ‘coincidences’ that may be worthy of attention.)
REPLY: Jose was the man in my books, and Carl discovered the missing link from his work. I am sure if Jose or Landscheidt were around today they would have made much of his graph. The Desmoulins site is excellent and it will be interesting to see if the 2 phases come back together during SC24. Hopefully he will update his work. I dont have access to the LOD data, but if I get my hands on it I will try your exercise.
Landscheidt was ACUTELY aware of the ‘wiggles’ – as clearly evidenced in his expositions on his mysterious ‘phase reversals’. Also, I have no reason to suspect Jose was not aware of them (particularly since they are easily-discernible in his graphs).
Since the curves are constructed using a weighted average, it is possible to ‘sharpen’ the view of the ‘wiggles’ with a distortion filter. Multi-timescale 3D-color-contour plots are one (fruitful) way to go if you decide to pursue this.
There are other ways to access the details of the wiggles, as I have indicated on WUWT (indirectly). (You may recall I suggested looking at higher derivatives.)
Awareness of the wiggles is nothing new, but certainly sites like yours (drawing attention to graphs like Carl’s) go a LONG way towards spreading the awareness to a LARGER population.
[Landscheidt’s work is out there (i.e. easily-accessible on the net), but it is not going to be clear to everyone in his audience what he was doing with his ‘moving variances’, windowed-integrals of derivatives, etc.]
–
Length of Day (LOD) time series can be obtained as follows:
Annual – RGO – 1623+:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html
Annual – Nasa JPL – 1832-1997:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/series/longterm/jpl_c.eop
Daily – IERS – 1962+:
http://www.iers.org/products/177/11221/orig/eopc04_IAU2000.62-now
More generally:
Earth Orientation Parameters (EOP) series can be obtained via:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/
Important Note:
Measurement methods improved dramatically around 1960.
Strongly Recommended:
Plot the error estimates before working with the earlier data.
If you need help converting the daily data to monthly, feel free to request Excel tips.
REPLY: Landscheidt and Jose were looking at different wiggles, but were close. If they had Carl’s graph all those years ago we would know so much more by now, it has been put on ice for 40 years. I would be interested to see if you can gain any extra detail out of Carl’s work, I am suspicious there might be a chance of some solar reduction around 2045. Thanks for the links, do you know if any of the links are supplying corrected data ie allowances made for the normal tidal affects.
We can agree to disagree about what Jose & Landscheidt knew.
–
The tides show up in the daily LOD series.
Related:
The following article is worth digesting thoroughly:
Harald Schmitz-Hubsch & Harald Schuh (1999). Seasonal and short-period fluctuations of Earth rotation investigated by wavelet analysis. Technical Report 1999.6-2 Department of Geodesy & Geoinformatics, Stuttgart University, p.421-432.
Click to access schmitzhuebsch.pdf
I can provide other references if anyone is interested.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Hi Geoff, please could you do me a favour and plot am over the 1875-2009 period and plonk a couple of linear trends on it from 1875-1935 and 1935-2009. I may have had a eureka moment.
Cheers
Rog
REPLY: Here is the adjusted AM spreadsheet, use column J
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/ssb1873-2013.xls
REPLY: Here is the adjusted AM spreadsheet, use column J
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/ssb1873-2013.xls
Please explain what columns B, C, D, E and I, J represent
REPLY: This is Carl’s original data, B= longitude, C= solar radius, D= AM, E= torque. I is a copy of D, J is a manipulation of I allowing a different method of viewing AM. Weak AM and strong AM (top & bottom of cycles) both account for strong solar cycle modulation. This method matches the weak with strong by assuming 2.0E+47 as the neutral point. ie all figures below 2.0E+47 are inverted.
Geoff, based on what you have described, another useful index you might construct could be arrived at as follows:
1) Difference the series.
2) Take absolute values.
This will leave troughs that may be of interest to you. If you prefer peaks:
3) Take negatives.
Semantic note:
When you say “invert” some might think you mean 1/x, as opposed “-x where x is negative” or |x|. If I understand what you did, you subtracted a ‘central’ value and then took absolute values (i.e. you removed negative signs from negative values). [Note: If the central value was the average, a statistician would call the resulting series of quantities “absolute deviations”. Using the median as the central value would produce “median absolute deviations”.]
Carl, Ian Wilson, & Geoff all had the right idea in following Jose’s advice to investigate alternate indices. Tip: Try wavelet transforms (as suggested by Landscheidt in his later years). My impression is that most people underestimate what can be done with wavelets.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Pingback: Timothy Birdnow » Magnetic Reconnection Events