question

What modulates our Sun? The majority of science work on the principle that the Sun is self modulating and each solar cycle is a product of a random number generator. There are others that suspect the Sun is modulated by the planets with a special emphasis on Uranus & Neptune. Thanks to Carl Smith who has recently left us we have new knowledge that significantly adds to Jose, Landscheidt & Charvàtovà's work.

Geoff Sharp

Neptune and Uranus Control Grand Minima & Solar Modulation?

Share

Original article date: Nov 6th 2008

a

 

Some time ago while researching some of my interests in areas such as meteorology, the cosmos and perceived man-made global warming I came across Carl's website and in particular a very interesting graph which Carl Smith created showing an extension to Dr. Landscheidt's work. After studying Carl's graph it became apparent to me that Neptune & Uranus are responsible for Solar Grand Minima as well as Solar Cycle Modulation. In this article I will present Solar System Charts and Sunspot charts which correspond with some of the Angular Movements below in Carl's graph.

ssb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The basic theory on how Neptune & Uranus control Solar Grand Minima and Solar Cycle Modulation is as follows: Shown in Carl's graph is a wave modulation mainly created by Jupiter & Saturn together (top of wave)and Jupiter & Saturn opposing (bottom of wave) which effectively is the momentum engine of the Sun, the top of the wave is strong, the bottom is weak (weaker means stronger cycle). Every 179 yrs Neptune & Uranus gather behind Jupiter (the largest gravity source besides the Sun) giving it extra momentum force and IF Saturn is on the other side of the Sun, the "down" cycle is shortened and not as weak because of the reduced momentum to Saturn....this coincides every time with less sunspot activity for the last 1000 yrs at least. Just discovered in an extension I recently finished to Carl's graph back to 900AD is another line up that also causes Grand Minima before the Medieval Warm Period, over time Jupiter and Saturn gather on the other side of Neptune & Uranus causing disturbance at the top of the "wave" and substantially shortening the "up" cycle. Neptune and Uranus are the controllers of the 2 main drivers creating angular momentum, they can add or take away that momentum. The sunspot cycle modulation follows that control or momentum curve as shown in a graph later in the report. I believe we can now confidently predict Solar Grand Minima and Solar Cycle Modulation strength.

fig1.jpg 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig.1 shows the 2 planetary positions that create the majority of angular momentum in our solar system. "A" corresponds with the bottom of the wave in Carl's graph and "B" with the top of wave. The resonance created from large strength in "B" and near zero strength in "A" as Jupiter & Saturn balance each other out.


  fig2.jpg  

Fig.2 shows the 2 planetary positions capable of creating Grand Minima. "A" robbing Saturn at bottom of wave and "B" robbing Jupiter/Saturn at top of wave. Both positions responsible for the recurring "camels humps" in Carl's graph 

 

Sun - SSB angular momentum 900 to 1640 graph Sun - SSB angular momentum 1620 to 2180 graph Carl's original graph above.

 

Carbon 14

Carl’s graph is a representation of the suns angular momentum as affected by all planets of our solar system. The interesting features in particular is the camel shaped humps (green & red arrows) that occur every time during Grand Minima and more recently (967, 1005, 1290, 1470, 1650, 1790, 1830, 1970 & 2010). Researching the planetary positions I found a recurring pattern, it seems that Neptune and Uranus aligning with Jupiter and Saturn opposing (doesn't have to be in perfect alignment) creates a disturbance which changes the regular pattern. This disturbance coincides with the Dalton, Maunder, Sporer and Wolf and Oort minimums. In the past we had a build up of solar cycle strength immediately before Grand Minima which is due to the extra momentum in the system from N+U. When we get a Grand Minima event, the next 2 cycles after are always very weak even though Angular Momentum is strong, this phenomena is still a mystery but perhaps it simply takes time to "restart the system". There are 3 phases to consider but only if the angles of J+S are favorable as N+U start to come together( and I am just discovering that it doesnt happen often, 1280 to now is truly a golden period), basically we have a strong lead up of solar peaks before grand minima event then if the partial line up (1st phase) is strong enough we have grand minima like we did for the Dalton, Maunder, Sporer and maybe Wolf. Next we have 2 cycles of very reduced activity followed by the optimal lineup of N+U+J with S opposite which starts the cycle again until we get the remaining partial line up and if that is strong enough we get more grand minima action. The Sporer and Maunder experienced all 3 phases but the Dalton only endured the first 2 (the J/S angles are now weakening) and thats why we didnt get a grand minimum in SC20 (first phase, partial lineup). The Oort minimum steps away from the usual pattern because of the weaker lineup of J+S, but shifts to the alternate line up of N+U & J+S opposing . The Neptune/Uranus factor is a lot weaker around the time of the Medieval Warm Period (Jupiter & Saturn not aligning) with very little disturbance (not unlike the overall weakening trend we are starting to experience now), but still I predict a weak solar grand minimum (see prediction at end of report). Compare Carl’s Graph to the solar system views below, especially 1651, 1830, 1790 and (2010 near end of report). Note: Solar system views dont take into account the slight elliptical orbits present in the system that do contribute to the overall momentum modulation.

1830view.jpg. 1790view.jpg  

This view above also coincides with my birthday The chart below shows the partial line ups that can cause a Grand Minima Event and if not a large degree of reduced solar activity.

1970view.jpg sunspot.jpg

 

Here is a graph I made showing sunspot peaks plotted against calculated cycle angular momentum and the obvious correlation. No allowance made for inertia or grand minima effects (history shows the cycles stay low for 2 cycles regardless of momentum after minima event).

ultimate_graph2.jpg

This graph answers lots of questions, but also creates some new ones. Why doesnt the Dalton continue in 1830. Did SC11 cause SC12 to be reduced (SSB graph shows disturbance). Some might ask why the angular momentum is so high in 1880 right near the opposition of N+U? Answer: All planets create angular momentum and in 1882 they are nearly all lined up except U. Most notable is that there are no high peaks during times of reduced momentum. UPDATE Ian Wilson's latest paper now addresses these questions, see link here http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/01/11/does-a-spin%E2%80%93orbit-coupling-between-the-sun-and-the-jovian-planets-govern-the-solar-cycle/ The Neptune, Uranus factor could be effecting the Sun is several ways, perhaps causing a slowdown in the rotational difference at the high and low latitudes thereby reducing the input to the solar dynamo. There are several papers that discuss this observed phenomena during past minima and I am currently researching the differential latitude speeds but finding the data hard to come by. Its also been noted the Solar polar magnetic strength is substantially reduced at present which could be as a result of the rotation change if it is occurring. There are at least 2 papers that talk about a “phase catastrophe” during the Maunder and Dalton minima implying either a period when the solar poles are both the same polarity for an extended period or the cycle goes to 22 years instead of 11, I also think its highly possible that both poles could fluctuate between positive and negative through the entire cycle if the new polar inflows are not strong enough to change the polarity. This could also dramatically slow down the production of sunspots. As can be seen from the graph below with normal fluctuations and a low solar pole strength that would certainly be possible. It would be interesting if possible to see the polar strength of 1790 but it has only been accurately recorded since 1967, but notice the low polar strength pre 1970 in Dr. Svalgaards' graph of the MWO data. http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf

polar.jpg mwo.jpg

Other points of interest to the theory is SC4 (1788 peak) that lasted perhaps 16 years and is questioned by I. G. Usoskin, K. Mursula, and G. A. Kovaltsov at http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2002GL015640.pdf as being 2 cycles recorded incorrectly (records before 1850 are considered shaky). The planetary lineup of that period is very similar to today and their revised sunspot group SC4 could mirror SC24.

lostcycle.jpg

The chart below kindly supplied by Carl shows angular momentum from 995 - 2895. The green arrow represents the optimal line up of N,U,J with S opposite . The Oort minimium steps out of line as the line up goes out of sync, the planets dont quite come back exactly the same each 179 yrs and it seems from the Wolf until now is a window of line ups that might take 1000's of years to return, during the medieval warm period J+S were poorly aligned as the phase gradually shifted. The MWP could be stated as a phase transition period, further bolstering the theory.

995-2985.jpg Carbon 14

The C14 chart from Wiki shows via the green & red dots the same position as above as the green & red arrows in the SSB graphs. The green dots represent the N/U disturbances and as can be seen the previous minima began at the partial line up stage and except for the Dalton continued thru the optimal alignment and on to the remaining partial line up in the phase before returning to "normal". 1970 failed to be strong enough to start a Solar Grand Minimum explaining the extra heat in the system, SC21,22 & 23 were let off the hook this time. So the typical pattern as can be seen in Carl's graph above is partial/optimal/partial, but the ideal time for this being between 1280-1830, before and after this period the Jupiter/Saturn alignments begin to weaken and shift. Grand Minima conditions DO NOT occur every 179 years but only if Jupiter & Saturn are in the right position.

As you can see we are due for a slow down if we follow the same pattern but perhaps not as big a slow down as past minima.

Prediction: Some points to digest, the strength of the Neptune/Uranus influence seems to be waning, in the past 4 grand minima the Sun went into Grand Minima on the partial lineup of Neptune/Uranus as can be seen in the C14 Wiki graph and the green squares (also look at the 995-2985 graph showing the changing trend). This time around we past that stage (1970) without falling into grand minimum and the Dalton minimum shows a weakening trend coming out of minimum not long after the best lineup of Neptune/Uranus (1830) at the time.

Based on this information I predict a short Grand minimum beginning during Cycle 24 which may possibly look like the end of SC23 or be a very low peak in its own right lucky to rise above 50 SSNmax, followed by another low peak. The SC24 peak is particularly hard to predict, the planetary alignments suggest early 2010 or early 2014 but the sunspot peak (see below in Desmoulins and Hung's graphs) is currently running ahead of the alignments by at least 3 years (Neptune/Uranus doing their thing). Going on history the SC24 peak may get back into line with Desmoulins plot like it did in 1805, if so Feb 21 2010 is looking like a good date, if not early 2014. UPDATE... Ian Wilson's latest paper has raised some doubt in my prediction, he has noticed Grand Minima or low cycles always have the conjunction of Jupiter & Saturn before solar cycle max, SC24 needs to have its peak after 2011 to fall into this category, it will be interesting to watch.

ssnprediction.jpg  

There is still a chance that SC24 could look like the end of SC23 like it may have in SC4...this is new ground and if so that will push out or perhaps add another small cycle. Click on the chart to view an expanded version from 1700AD-2070AD

  2010view.jpg  

Note the alignment on Feb 21 2010 (also coincides with my birthday) Both Cycles coming together J+V with E apposing and N+U+J with S opposing. (See the J+E+V cycle below)


 The SSB and Solar System data has been cross checked.

The Solar System Viewer can be seen at: http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html Could Tidal forces control the 11 year sunspot cycle? Here are 2 pieces of work that look at smaller 11 year cycles (approx) that theorize on Jupiter/Earth/Venus rotations that line up with sunspot cycles. Here NASA has reported on possible links between sunspot cycles and the planetary movements http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330 EDIT: The NASA paper basically looks at the Heliocentric sysygies of Jupiter, Earth and Venus and how they line up with sunspot peaks. Jean-Pierre Desmoulins has also done some great work on his site http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/sunspots/ where you can view this graph below showing that alignment (green peaks are J+E+V most aligned with the Sun and solar cycle peaks shown in red). Notice how the alignment gets slightly out of sync around 1790 and now, when out of sync we experience much less solar activity...Neptune and Uranus are close together at these times possibly dragging the sync out of line but it should return like it did in 1805. Certainly worth further investigation.

sun_fig5.gif


jevsysygies.jpg  

The table is a plot of J+E+V alignments with each date corresponding with the green peaks on Desmoulins graph above. The odd cycle numbers are J+V with E opposing and even is J+E+V aligned. The G/O rule keeping mainly true. These alignments naturally include the Sun. A Similar graph from the NASA paper below.

nasa.jpg

The compelling evidence is that both graphs plot 2 cycles that although slightly different in length remain in step with one another.

Comments

Hi, I do not fully understand

Hi, I do not fully understand why Uranus and Neptune excert such a strong effect on the Sun. Another thing which I would like clarified is the planet's distance from the Sun, its Angular Momentum and its consequent effect on the Sun. If there was a Jupiter where Mercury is, and a Jupiter where Neptune is, which would have the greatest effect on the Sun (in terms of the forces/processes which ultimately drive solar activity)?

 

Hi, your question is a timely

Hi, your question is a timely one. There is an article on exoplanet hosting stars that shows how different our solar system is to those that have been observed in the referenced paper. The position and size and amount of planets is crucial in determining the barycentric pattern. AM is a product of mass x distance x velocity, if Jupiter was in the Mercury position there would be a terrific tidal effect but the AM of Jupiter would be a lot lower. Uranus and Neptune being further out gain more AM by distance, their affect mathematically doesn't compare with Jupiter & Saturn but between them they contribute a little more than half of Saturn's AM. This is enough AM to modulate the overall AM as U/N come together and go apart, but importantly when they are together we see the disturbance to the normal J/S controlling pattern or AMP event. The Sun is in a rhythm or ordered pattern most of the time, but that is thrown out of balance when U/N gang up together.

Thanks, oh so Jupiter and

Thanks, oh so Jupiter and Saturn perturb the Sun frequently/rhythmically, and the Uranus/Neptune conjunction adds even more "umph" to the J/S pattern, consequently causing a Grand Minimum. Obviosuly there are phase changes with planet angles/positions.

Here is a great website which

Here is a great website which shows the Angular Momentum values of all the planets and the Sun:

http://www.aspden.org/books/2edpoc/2edpocap5.pdf

Now we have a theory of the

Now we have a theory of the Unified Field, then:

So we can play calculating the actual energy emitted by the whole emission system of the Earth, by using the Unified Field equation:
E= (Sin y + Cos y)(V/D).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
Where Gravity= Sin Y= 0.981
Rest of the Field=Cos Y =0.019, where it is = 0.19 Nm
V=Earth velocity around its axis in m/s
D=Earth Diameter.
And, of course, the result is in Joules/second.
Now, you can have, also in consideration the Moon which "sucks" at perigee and emits at apogee:
Moon (a) at eccentricity=0,026           
-2,24915291288904 Nm
Moon (b) at eccentricity=0,077           
+9,40962149507112 Nm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39678117/Planets-Moon-Field

The JEV theory seems to

The JEV theory seems to suggest that the effects on the Sun are mostly tidal, but tidal effects are far too small/superficial to affect the solar dynamo? What do you think governs the main 11 year solar cycle? Jupiter/Earth/Venus cycle, the Jupiter orbital period or the Jupiter-Saturn cycle?

To be honest I have no idea,

To be honest I have no idea, the JEV theory seems to be the one that has a chance and after SC24 we may have more of an idea. No other area of science has come up with a reasonable hypothesis to my mind. I think solar modulation and cycle length are not related.

I am not happy with the JEV

I am not happy with the JEV theory (although I can't really judge), because even tidal effects on Earth caused by a relatively large and close Moon only have small, superficial effects. Having said that, the Sun is different to the Earth, not having any solid parts for one thing! I would have thought the Spin-Orbit Coupling Theory involving Jupiter and Saturn would be a more viable theory, but the timing eventually diverges from the solar cycle. In Ian Wislon's paper, a "phase lock" and "phase catastrophe" were mentioned, and a 178.8 years cycle of orbital resonance, the same as 8 Hale cycles and 9 Jupiter-Saturn synodic periods. Do you think this makes up for the imperfect timing? But even the JEV theory doesn't display a perfect correlation. Perhaps the 11 year solar cycle is something internal to the Sun, or perhaps from somewhere else in the galaxy. But the 11 year solar cycle is the only cycle which consists of a flip of the magnetic poles? The longer cycles are all modulatory (am I right?) to the 11 year cycle. Perhaps something else causes the 11 year magnetic cycle, and the timing in relation to the Jupiter-Saturn (but also Uranus-Neptune) cycle modulates its strength? I'm guessing without scientific knowledge here! As you have said somewhere else before, AM due to the Gas Giants primarily seems to affect solar cycle modulation and Grand Minima, which is probably more important to research anyway, since those variations dictate the climate changes. Please tell me if I'm wrong!

REPLY: Your thoughts are close to mine, two distinctly different process. The torsional oscillation flows shown via Doppler imaging hold the secret to the 11 yr cycle, but what drives those flows is a mystery. BTW there is no 178.8 year cycle, the cycle only holds true for the last few hundred years, but there is a 4628 year cycle where the outer planets return very closely to their original positions. This is 27 cycles of the Uranus/Neptune conjunction.

 

 

Many thanks go to Carl's brother Dave for providing the Domain, Server and Software.