200 Year Solar Cycle Prediction

Predicting solar cycle modulation using angular momentum is relatively easy, but like any prediction it needs to be tested. Interested parties who rely on solar activity predictions might like to make a copy for future reference and compare with the regular methods of prediction which typically only go out for one cycle, which can hamper long term planning in some industries.

One thing we cannot predict is solar cycle length, so this prediction is more about modulation rather than precise timing of upcoming solar cycles. One other factor in play is whether “Wilson’s Law” will contribute to future grand minima, by 2190 I predict we will know the mechanics of this law. As can be seen here and on the 11000 year 14C graph there are no high solar activity peaks at times of low angular momentum.

There is a possible case for a repeat of the 1870 type reduction in solar activity at 2050, but this time around the disturbance is very weak as the Jupiter/Saturn angles continue to weaken. On most occasions we are presented with 3 disturbances per cycle but in the current cycle we may only get 2, SC28 & SC29 remain the subject of more research.

Below is Carl’s now famous original graph showing angular momentum in a different form. The green arrows showing times of angular momentum disturbance.


26 comments on “200 Year Solar Cycle Prediction

  1. Carl mentions:
    “The angular momentum and torque calculations were done using a simple program I wrote in THINK Pascal running in Classic mode (OS9.2.2) in OSX10.3.9 on a 400 mHz Mac G4 Sawtooth.”

    It would be of interest to see that simple program…
    Please get it for us.

    REPLY: I was also re reading this recently, I am not sure of the state of Carl’s health and do not bother him in respect of his wishes.

  2. We are already in the LANDSCHEIDT MINIMUM. This will be the greatest homage to a wise man and a shame for all those who blamed him of being an astrologist, they not having, of course, his open mindness to recognize cyclicity and beauty in nature.

  3. Adolfo Giurfa said,
    June 9, 2009 @ 4:15 am
    We are already in the LANDSCHEIDT MINIMUM. This will be the greatest homage to a wise man and a shame for all those who blamed him of being an astrologist, they not having, of course, his open mindness to recognize cyclicity and beauty in nature.

    Here is Landscheidt’s ‘prediction’:

    J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res., 1981, vol. 12, number 1, pp. 3-19.
    ABSTRACT. The secular cycle of solar activity is related to the sun’s oscillatory motion about the center of mass of the solar system. Comparatively short periods of revolution with relatively high rates of curvature constitute a potential for crucial values of the time integral of torque AL = J t0 r (t) dt which seem to give rise to a weak but long lasting flow of solar plasma that modulates short-term flow due to the dynamo effect. Relatively strong impulses of the torque A L occur at mean intervals of 19.86 years. Four consecutive impulses respectively define a permanent wave with a quasiperiod of 79.46 years which determines the distribution of positive and negative extrema in activity. Phases of 0° or 90° indicate a potential for peaks and phases of 180° or 270° can lead to troughs. Such potentials are actually released if A L transgresses a definite threshold value. The ensuing interval variations in the secular cycle are verified by records of sunspots and aurorae dating back to the 4th century AD. Rare activity-deficient periods like the Maunder Minimum, which according to Eddy et al. are related to changes in the Earth’s climate, solely occur when AL reaches exceptional values meeting a special criterion. This is confirmed by radiocarbon data going back to the 6th millenimum BC. The next minimum in the 79-year cycle will occur in 1990. It will be more pronounced than the minimum in 1811.”

    1990 was one of the most active years ever…

    REPLY: Much has been learned since Landscheidt’s days, and this 1981 paper is his early work. I personally dont subscribe to his exact methods but we agree in principle. I would love to have a chat with him if alive today. He and Jose are the pioneers in planetary influence theory and deserve recognition for the current grand minimum.

    I wonder at all the attention from Dr. Svalgaard, literally thousands of hours involved (on here and other forums). It shows there is a serious contender to the Babcock-Leighton theories on Solar activity.

  4. REPLY: “I wonder at all the attention from Dr. Svalgaard, literally thousands of hours involved (on here and other forums). It shows there is a serious contender to the Babcock-Leighton theories on Solar activity.”

    Doesn’t this work the other way too. All the attention you are giving this shows that the Babcock-Leighton theory is a serious contender?

    I’m giving it attention, because your claims are characteristic for a whole class of pseudo-scientific endeavors, and because you are particular active in this area. As the Japanese proverb goes: “the nail that stick up, is the one that gets hammered down”.

    REPLY: The Babcock-Leighton theory is a serious contender, it just needs to throw out the “crap shoot” part and come up with a better driver.

  5. There is a progression in Landscheidt’s work. One can trace the development & refinement of his ideas. Landscheidt did not reach a dead end; rather, he died.

    Few would see the things he was (*partially*) seeing, so I am very thankful for his leads, but it needs to be STRESSED that at the time of his death, some VERY substantial loose ends remained – and so far as I can see, no one has (yet) overcome them.

    I am thankful to Leif Svalgaard, whose comments on WUWT have helped me work towards increasingly understanding where Landscheidt was ‘stuck’. I believe it relates (in *part*) to what statisticians call ‘confounding’.

  6. I’m glad you posted this article although the prediction business despite being dubious at times it helps vet out things.

    Interesting to see Lief here. I am beginning to see the disdain some like Anthony have for Landscheidt’s work.

    On the other hand with my experience with statistical methodologies and modeling in Industrial Processes (successful I might add) where adhoc compilations of existing knowledge were used and manipulated to get results … when I see something to me that appears to be an ‘obvious’ causal mechanism … I grab onto it intellectually. Personally all those that waste computational time with the adhoc ‘shaman extrapolations’ of climate are the target of my disdain. Their political and aesthetic, Luddite motivation is naked and repulsive. Landscheidt on the other hand is a breath of fresh air and refreshing careful observation (some call that science).

    Thank you for continuing his work … and I am also convinced this is the Landscheidt Minimum and although he predicted the beginning of this cycle would be in 1990 he also noted, I think in the same paper, that it would be Solar Cycle 23 or 24 that would show the result of the change. He goes on in a later paper paralleling Archibald’s prediction for 2030 to be the trough of temperatures on the Earth. Maybe Archibald borrowed that prediction since I found out recently he studied Landscheidt but didn’t quite tie together the loose ends in his system.

    REPLY: Thanks for the encouragement…there are lots of holes in the currently “accepted” theories on the solar driver, but this grand minimum has them on their toes. Anthony publicly is adverse to anything Landscheidt, which may prove a problem if the tables turn.

  7. Geoff, I think you should be happy about the Jack Eddy ‘Grand Minimum’ idea. For me Jack was comparable to Hubble and Landscheidt comparable to Lamaitre. One purely observed and correlated and the other tried to paint the big picture with causal relationships.

    And who got the Nobel Prize? The guys who accidentally found the residue of the ‘Big Bang’, ‘background radiation’ visible on your old TV set 😀

    Why the guy who pursues the big picture and is disparaged by his own community (for whatever reason) takes so long to be recognized is interesting and a study in itself. I sometimes wonder if they choose that path, at least subconciously. Then there are those who fight this ‘big picture’ but inadverdantly add to it in the end (ie: Fred Hoyle). I wonder if Lief will come to that fate.

    Hey, nobody can take the 172 year refinement of Jose from you!

    To get back on topic. Are your barycentric models purely Newtonian or do you take into affect the effects of Space Time in your calculations of the ‘center of mass’. Sorry if you already tackled this and I missed it. Not my area of expertise but recently I have found Gravity (the shape) to be entirely fascinating. Excellent lecture series on MIT’s site (and youtube), and it amazes me that I understand the math almost better than when I needed to.

    Oh, and again … keep up the good work.

    REPLY: I am not happy about the white wash going on at WUWT…its far from a fair scientific blog. Carl’s data is the basis, and is based on JPL data and Newtonian physics. There has been some questions recently on how Carl calculated his figures (which elliptical plane was used), which is just a smoke screen. Carls work has been 3 way cross checked and I am completely confident in his work. His data file is available from this site and can be cross checked by anyone who might have concerns.

  8. I didn’t mean to suggest the Newtonian orientation calls any of Carl’s calculations into question, far from it. I was more interested if anyone had looked at analyzing this effect from a ‘gravity field’ perspective. Maybe conbined with our incremental understanding of the corona et cetera it would flesh out some interesting questions. The fact we are in a Landscheidt Minimum is in my mind irrefutable given some of the latest observations.

    There are some interesting complications that evade me at this hour which could help our friend Lief fill in the energy transport model confirming the causality observed by Jose, Landsheidt and the many admirers of the Planet>Sun>Earth / Barycenter Solar Variation / Climate ‘school of thought’. That reminds me, I was going to ask that professor at MIT a question about light and gravity.

    I’m sorry if I have a less ‘invested’ view of the politics among colleagues and am just happy to see the truth advanced by whatever crack there is in the prevailing dogma.

    Without the high drama of the religious dogma of AGW invading the circle of science, there is sure a lot of politics involved in this relatively quiet corner of human thought and observation. I guess we can’t escape being social beings or making purely aesthetic judgements as we find on WUWT and other blogs that appear to be ‘open minded’ at first …

    REPLY: I know you wern’t calling anything into question, sorry if it seemed that way. I am not exactly sure what you mean by “gravity field” perspective.

  9. Geoff, I’ve been digging through some files I built while investigating Earth Orientation Parameters (EOP). I found a variable I constructed that matches the ‘wiggles’ in Carl’s graph.

    Question: Have you ever reconstructed Landscheidt’s ‘finger cycles’ (from scratch – or using Horizons output)?

    REPLY: Sounds interesting, feel free to show us. In answer to your question no, do you think it would show anything, my thoughts are the detail would be lost but maybe the trend would be easier to see. Maybe your the man for that job?

  10. I may be mixing terms between systems. Still learning. What I meant was looking at the barycenter using Einstein’s equations …

    And then relating that to different Solar phenomena as has been done here using the standard reference via Newtonian equations. For instance I recently came to understand Mercury, being so close to the Sun, has motion and an orbit that is more accurately explained with Einstein’s equations … ie: the error using Newton is actually measurable.

    REPLY: I thought you may have been, Einstiens addition to Newtonian physics is a small fraction needed to explain missing arc seconds in mercurys perihelion precession. I believe this is already built into the JPL data and in reality for our kind of work is nearly meaningless. That kind of precision is simply not needed.

  11. The ‘finger cycles’ bring out more detail. There is more than one way to construct them – and it is not difficult to construct them using Horizons output – [only takes a few minutes in Excel]. Btw: This led me to new insights on Shirley 2006.

  12. Thanks for putting up with my uninformed questions. That is what I thought, the precision is not needed in this calculation but I wonder if it would explain some things in the Sun itself. Most of what I see is either first principles stuff that is distant in helping us understand ‘systems’ .. like what I see briefly skimming through Lief’s stuff … or ‘broad stroke’ connecting the dots analysis.

    What I love about Landscheidt, Carl’s and your work is there is a cycle, a plausible causal connection and all that is missing is the mechanics of the relationship. We know other tidal systems and how the interaction works … its just the mechanics in the Sun and energy transport around the Solar System that really needs to be nailed down. I think this ‘Grand Minimum’ will turn a lot of people to filling in these blanks even if it takes some time for all this work to become part of an officially recognized understanding of this ‘natural system’.

    When I did a bit more analyzing a particular industrial process with a genius friend of mine, when we established/found a causal relationship that fit known knowledge about the ‘boundary conditions’ the statistical analysis to that point would go in the garbage, the physical model would then force the ‘multivariable linear regressions’, ‘neural networks’ and … the model always worked better. Can you imagine if this work was put in the center of an ‘ad hoc’ model for solar activity and weather on all the planets and then the holes in were filled in with the methods I’ve mentioned and it was tuned with feedback from Earth and across the solar system … it would be a wonderful thing. I would love to see what that model would say …

  13. Thinking about my mixing metaphors in my previous comment on Gravity …

    I had to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MWNs7Wfk84 again. Amazing video and I would have to say I find it almost as good as the Philosopher commentary on the first ‘Matrix’ or History Channel’s ‘Beyond the Big Bang’.

    Wouldn’t it be cool if ‘within our Solar System’ a phenomena was observed that cinched ‘tidal models’ of solar activity, ‘solar forced’ climate models, and established physical phenomena corroborating ‘string theory’ with certain effects with that MASSIVE (spacetime bending) object in our solar system … THE SUN.

    The more I look at light vs gravity and Einsteins Field Equations, I see the pairing of Electricity and Magnetism … maybe something in our experience is blinding us to the answer.

    Hey, then again it could be just my mind working off a couple extra night shifts 😀

  14. When Landscheidt said “The next minimum in the 79-year cycle will occur in 1990” I am sure he was referring to the beginning of the irregular motion of the sun around the barycenter. I.Charvatova says:
    “The Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton prolonged minima of
    solar activity coincide with the intervals of disordered solar motion.
    The Sun moves along a trefoil (along one of the loops), over 50 (10)

    Figure 02 in her paper shows 1985 to 2040 as the start and end of this “disordered motion”

    REPLY: The disordered patterns occurred around 1970 and the latest begins at 2005. The pattern only lasts for about 9 years and coincides with N/U/J together and S opposing. Landscheidts predictions are more on the macro level, he didnt have the graphs we have today which can predict solar slowdown to the solar cycle. He was close but his prediction is based on different information.

  15. Cautionary note for readers:
    Adolfo & Geoff are using different definitions of ‘disordered’.

    More generally:
    I would say semantics [& alternate quantification methods] are likely interfering with:
    a) assessments of what various authors know/knew.
    b) comparisons of the works of different authors.

    REPLY: I am talking about the inner loop path of the Sun which is substantially altered(bigger loop) during times of disorder.

  16. Geoff, I was surprised that you did not inquire regarding my comment about Shirley (2006). Suggested: Use Horizons to vary observer-position on the sun while looking at the SSB.

    Landscheidt had his moving-variance methods for bringing out ‘hand’ & ‘finger’ cycles, but I do not recall him mentioning the existence of separate (& overlapping in time) sets of finger cycles. [If anyone has related info: thanks if you share.]

  17. len said, “Hey, nobody can take the 172 year refinement of Jose from you!”

    In 1985 Charvatova [then known as Jakubcova] & colleagues published this result:

    “The period of 178.55 years, given by Jose [3], was not discovered. Instead, we found a period of 171.78 +- 4.77 years, which corresponds to the synodic period of Uranus and Neptune (theoretical value 171.39 years).”

    Bucha, V., Jakubcova, I., & Pick, M. (1985). Resonance frequencies in the Sun’s motion. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 29, 107-111.

  18. Paul Vaughan said ““The period of 178.55 years, given by Jose [3], was not discovered. Instead, we found a period of 171.78 +- 4.77 years, which corresponds to the synodic period of Uranus and Neptune (theoretical value 171.39 years). Bucha, V., Jakubcova, I., & Pick, M. (1985). Resonance frequencies in the Sun’s motion. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 29, 107-111.”

    Ouch … but it is still a corroboration of a fantastic reality versus a badly constructed fantasy (ie: popular science warmist fiction) …

    REPLY: I ‘m sure if we went far enough back the period would average the Neptune/Uranus conjunction, when I looked back over 6000 years it became obvious the 178 year period was not right, but worked for the last 400 years or so.

  19. Whether you see ~172 or ~179 depends on what you look at. It gets a little technical. The ‘wiggles’ have S-N spacing (which becomes crystal clear if you adjust the curves for weighted-averaging distortions). 5 of these make ~179. Charvatova looks at this from a spatial perspective in one of her relatively recent papers. I prefer working with indices – but really these are just different perspectives on the same thing. Sometimes looking at something from different perspectives improves awareness. You will note in Charvatova’s publication that after a number of 179’s there is an adjustment phase – something which dovetails with what Geoff is saying.

    REPLY: Its all abit academic I think, the crux of the matter is that the 172 year period is only a guide, its a central point of opportunity. Every 172 years 3 chances (on average) for grand minimum come along, the middle chance usually being the strongest that lines up with 172 years. The chance either side can also go off like it did in the Wolf, Sporer and Maunder which tends to upset any exact kind of 172 year pattern matching. I am saying the most likely chance or strongest lineup comes along every 172 years, but there are chances 40 years either side also. Jose worked on the theory that the planets returned to the same position every 178.8 years, but that only worked over a short time frame in my research.

  20. Using notation from:

    Geoff, you are describing (3/2(J,S),3/2U). For anyone who appreciates the significance of high frequency (J,N), it is a small acoustic step to the 2287a period in:

    REPLY: Those higher frequencies tend to work better at higher levels I think, the last graph of Carl’s you posted is very similar to Landscheidts torque graph but I think that level is too high. Carl’s further work of unlocking the lower detail is where the action is in my opinion.

  21. Pingback: TWAWKI » Cold times ahead folks – get ready!

  22. Fascinating read. Looks like many good minds at work. The question that sticks in my mind after reading the posts is, would a red dwarf with 7 planets alter any of the calculations? Another question >>> does such an event cause problems within your observations? The current speculation about this dwarf sun appear to be leaving the arena of speculation and entering the field of reality, with NASA and others at JPL and MIT finally coming on board with their past speculation being now turned to scientific certainty.

    How does this event now closing in on us affect the scientific study. It seems to me an event like this would give pause as many calculations would be adversely affected. It appears this one in 3657 year event will cause and is causing dynamic changes to our universe and indeed our planet right now.

    I am hoping my comment herein will give some cause to investigate the issue of a dwarf star/sun and pour extremely cold water on it. In other words I’m hoping it’s a fabrication and our normal planetary cycles are what is affecting us. Be well. Ill look for a reply.

    • I doubt if there are any new bodies to be found in our solar system that are of a reasonable size. The path of the Sun would be affected and currently everything adds up exactly as expected.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s