Sunspot Cycle Phasing with Conjunctions of Jupiter and Inner Planets.

gep1

A presentation by G.E.Pease

The Sunspot cycle which averages 11 years is still a mystery, with no real conclusive science that has been put forward with any certainty on what controls the varying length of the Sunspot cycle.

Previously in my Neptune/Uranus article we discussed the work of Desmoulins who has graphed the “most aligned days” of Jupiter, Earth and Venus which shows a good correlation with the sunspot record. The two sets of data can drift away slightly but have always kept in sync in the last 400 years. Currently The most aligned days is lagging behind the  Sunspot record slightly and going by past occurrences should catch up during SC24 max. Hung as also done some similar research showing the same result as well as Ulric Lyons who presented his case on this blog last year.

Now we have another study by G.E.Pease which backs up this previous work and provides many diagrams and tables to support the Planet Tidal Theory. The presentation is in powerpoint format and can be downloaded HERE

Desmoulins graph

Desmoulins graph: green peaks =JEV most aligned days

Advertisements

15 comments on “Sunspot Cycle Phasing with Conjunctions of Jupiter and Inner Planets.

  1. Geoff,

    Thanks for providing the well-written background and link for my Powerpoint presentation. My principal motivation for looking at this was mostly Hung’s paper, which you also referenced:
    http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

    One of the important things I noticed when I did this was the large number of these conjunctions that included Mercury, which at perihelion exerts more tidal force on the Sun than Earth.

    The 1970 EVSJ conjunction was interesting too, because Saturn was also in the lineup. Saturn, though a weak solar tide producer, is the fifth most powerful.

    REPLY: Very happy to do so, your Mercury comments are interesting, Desmoulins if I remember correctly discounted Mercury because of the quick orbit time….perhaps wrongly?

  2. Coincidentally, I’ve recently been developing alternate JEV metrics to those employed by Desmoulins. While my attention is presently divided over a diversifying set of vital obligations, I hope to have something to share fairly soon.

    I am also not assuming attention should be restricted to JEV, but since many are already familiar with the picture Desmoulins pioneered, I think we will benefit from comparing & contrasting results arising from different approaches with those that first attracted our attention.

    Looking forward to further discussion (fairly soon)…

  3. This is very interesting, but
    1. Mercury is so fast it will be in one or another conjunction very often.
    2. If there is a Saturn signal here it disproves the tidal theory, it’s just not possible.
    3. Why is the period 22 years when the Ju-Sa period is 20 years?

  4. Thanks to G. E. Pease for including (in the comments of the power-point presentation) a link to the following:

    Semi, P.A. (2009). Orbital resonance and solar cycles.
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0903/0903.5009.pdf

    I have been exploring many of these themes independently, so much of what is conveyed in the paper is familiar; however, figure 72a (in particular) sparks new curiosities…

    REPLY: 72a looks to be right on track with my research, showing the power of the AM wave along with the disturbances. I also see he has done a similar exercise calculating planet AM from both the SSB and Sun centre and adds this interesting comment:
    “Notes to the Table 1:
    (*1) – In the sum there are included 9 planets and the Sun, all with respect to Ssb. The sum is scalar. The
    planets are Mercury, Venus, Emb (Earth-Moon system), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto. It
    does not include asteroids and spin momentum of bodies, namely of Sun.
    The whole sum is almost constant, but there is a small difference of 8.11*10-7
    of the whole. The difference
    from a constant value is mainly caused by performing the scalar sum instead of vector sum, and also it is
    divided between orbital angular momentum of asteroids, trans-neptunians and spin angular momentum of
    Sun.
    (but of these only asteroids were included in ephemerides calculation)
    (*2) – These high swings are at the times, when the Sun is approaching the solar-system barycenter too
    closely, and then the space curvature (not regarded by me), plays a significant role…? No, the Sun is moving
    retrograde at these times and its vector angular momentum is actually negative. There is no negative scalar
    angular momentum, which causes this difference.”

    I notice he is also in the SSB camp as axis point of the outer planets, he has updated his paper since I last saw it and see he has compared Neptunes AM from both axis points which agrees with mine, the long term Nep/SSB graph showing the conjunctions of Uranus every 172 yrs. He makes the statement Neptune orbits the SSB but I cant see his reasoning. I have been thinking longer on the graph lgl produced and also checked the data, the RG distance values are almost identical to the delta values on the observer table, so they are most likely good. Here is the graph showing both again http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nep_ssb_sun_distance_rg.jpg which is posted in comments on the Jovian AM graphs post. lgl argues the fluctuation is the Sun being pushed away by Jupiter as the Neptune does not move in respect to the SSB. But it could be equally argued that the fluctuations is caused by Jupiter moving Neptune away from the Sun which we know also happens. The problem with the Neptune/SSB plot is there are no movements due to planet perturbations , that are known to exist (otherwise it wouldnt have been discovered in the first place). I am still out to lunch on this one.

  5. Geoff: “I notice he is also in the SSB camp as axis point of the outer planets […]”

    Note his comments on Jupiter — interesting in light of the “lessons” we were “taught” during a long WUWT thread in the spring (of 2009). [You may recall doubt being cast on the credibility of the expert with whom I was communicating about Saturn orbital elements at the time.]

    It’s becoming increasingly clear now Geoff.

    In the weeks/months ahead, I’ll be taking an increasingly-detailed look. To see through the distortion (&/or confusion perhaps), all we have to do is keep learning, patiently.

  6. I’ve been taking a look at some of the references given by Desmoulins & Hung. I want to give a head’s up to other investigators:

    The indices used in the following paper are not consistent with the indices used by other JEV investigators:

    Okal, E.; & Anderson, D.L. (1975). Planetary Theory of Sunspots. Nature 253, 511-513.

    They are investigating a different phenomenon. Their attack on others is a straw man.

    [Speculation: Without running more detailed diagnostics, I can’t be sure, but upon a glance they additionally appear to have (accidentally perhaps) equated rotation symmetry with reflection symmetry (which is true only in special cases).]

    At this stage I don’t know the (detailed) history of JEV investigations very well, but considering the (unwarrantedly) confident tone with which these authors wrote, I am left wondering if their communication influenced editors and put a chill on the ambitions of other investigators. (This also makes me wonder what politics were involved.)

    One thing of which I am sure at this stage: All of the JEV calculations I’ve seen so far can be improved upon. If/when I can find the time, I will take my calculations to a higher level of physical precision; this will not change results dramatically, but it will secure more solid footing from which to fend off (potential) straw-man criticisms. The problem with some of the studies is not that they are flawed, but rather that they employed clumsy metrics (…and some critics are naturally eager to dismiss clumsiness, regardless of whether it is on-track).

  7. Here is a variation of Semi’s work. I have added EMB and Venus deviation from average AM around the Sun and there’s a clear pattern appearing. 12 months average at odd solar cycles shows a close to triangular signal and even cycles show a close to square signal, and at solar minimum there is (of course) a transition between the two. (there’s also some other junk, only the first graph is interesting)
    http://virakkraft.com/EMB-Ve-AM-dev.xls

    • Firstly, climate drives volcanoes, not the other way round, they are driven by temperature uplifts after colder episodes.
      Venus greatest elongation (east) with a Jupiter quadriture to the west; 01.04.1996, 20.06.1975, 27.06.1951, 04.07.1927, 21.09.1906, has gone from min to max, and is obviously useless in following the Sunspot cycle. J/E/V syzygies are what are doing it for sure, they cause the magnetic reversal of the sun too. Its not gravitational though.

  8. FWIW, I don’t see the graphs on this page. Attempts to open the link ‘long hand’ and put it in another window (the usual way I get a link to reload a graphic by pasting this http://www.landscheidt.info/sites/default/files/upload/sun_fig5.gif into the browser) give a permissions error:

    403 Permission Denied

    You do not have permission for this request /sites/default/files/upload/sun_fig5.gif

    SO if one is supposed to be able to see the graph, one ought to be able to put the link in the URL field and see it. Or at least have the page display it…

    REPLY: Thanks Chiefio, I had some file corruption awhile back and missed this link.

  9. We do know why the sunspot cycle length varies, big cycles ramp up quicker, and peak early with respect to the tightest J/E/V syzygies, and weak cycles peak later than the tightest alignments. With this insight, it is clear to see that there was no missing cycle in the early 1800`s. Year by year analysis of planetary angular conditions is necessary to evaluate the nature of any given cycle.

  10. 28 Venus/Mercury synodic periods displays an exteremely close match to the average sunspot cycle length, but as the cycles vary in length so much, this is of no use in determining min or max position. Mercury joining the E/V syzygies every 40yrs does increase SSN though, as in C18 and C22.

  11. Pingback: Sunspot Cycle Phasing with Conjunctions of Jupiter and Inner Planets. « Landscheidt Cycles Research :The Supreme Pundit

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