I thought Svalgaard thought any correlations to orbital periods was a load of rubbish. Can't remember where he said it, but I'm pretty sure he did.
And I'll say it again. Careful analysis of the last 11,000 years of cosmic rays [and thus solar activity] shows that there is no periodicity to the occurrence of Grand Maxima [and thus Minima], therefore these cannot be controlled by [very closely] periodic planetary alignment, and that is apart from the physical considerations that don't support the notion on grounds of energy.
I haven´t got so far to study supercycles yet, but I have this feeling/bias: there is no strict supercycle, or it is very complex or partial random.
For example the Uranus-Neptun synodic period is 171 years, and it does not resonate with the Saturn-Uranus synodic period of 45,4 years.
So far my data indicates a tendency of a supercycle of ~15-17 solar cycles. This supercycle consists of "skipping one Jupiter-cycle". I have described how Jupiter makes the solar minima happen at two preferred time-intervals. But after some 11-13 solar cycles this mechanism is overwhelmed (why?) by the need to make shorter cycles, and the solar minima happen at the unfavorable interval that i call group-C.
After translating through group-C, the minima are again fixed into the preferred groups A-B. This whole cycle seems to be around 165-190 years. However, unless SC23-25 are very long, we are now about to fall out of the group A-B just after some 5-6 solar cycles. That would mean that we get no low SSN-period through this ABC-supercycle. Unless the supercycle is real and has some bias to extend over 15-17 solar cycles, and gives us many long and weak cycles over the coming ~70 years...
----------------- I will continue to examine the planetary connections. My intuition says -first look at the dominating planet Jupiter -then look at Jupiter combined with the second dominating planet Saturn -then look at Saturn combined with the third dominating planet Uranus -finally look at Uranus combined with Neptun
But hey, my intuition may be wrong, so at least I´ll also be checking Sa and JuUr
wow, I might have to change the way I am thinking... the average monthly SSN during Saturn period of 29,46 years showed a pretty clear pattern, and it looks similar to that one of Jupiter. Similar pattern around the perihelion (and +/- 120deg)... Tilmari may have led the way after all...
While looking for statistical pattern matching of various periodocities is interesting. You will find that unless you show a mechanism for the correlation then you will get the same reaction as people trying to draw a link between the sun and climate. After all they called Landscheidt 'an astrologer' - for showing correlations such as the ones you are finding.
The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be. Douglas Adams
well I am doing this just for fun, so i don´t mind being called an astrologist First I have to work out the correlations, then maybe focus on the mechanism...
Here is a bunch of new plots if any interested:
First the Jupiter-cycle contribution. This is probably the most important one... and the one with the highest correlation at the moment.
Then the second most important, the Jupiter-Saturn cycle. This one´s correlation is really on the way down, which often is associated with weak cycles
The Saturn-cycle also showed up to be important, and similar in nature to the Jupiter-cycle (consists of 3 subcycles)
Saturn-Uranus also seems to have a say
Finally a combined cycle of Ju, Sa, JuSa, JuUr and SaUr. This one has a total correlation of 0,52 - but sometimes it breaks totally down. What happens??? Seems like that for every ~9 solar cycles, one JuSa-cycle must be skipped (else the SC would average 10 years and not 11). When this happens, everything gets a bit unstable. So why does it happen? Must be the longer Jupiter-cycle that fights for a 11,86 year cycle. But that one also has to give up one cycle about every ~16 solar cycles. Seems the solar cycle is less vulnerable to that as the SC moves through green group-C. Actually this makes JuSa dominate and provide strong solar cycles.
then I would like to focus on the Jovian cycle. Like Tilmari I think that may be the key to the solar cycle...
First the average monthly SSN during the Jupiter period of 11,86 years
-this cycle is actually consist of 3 different cycles, the ones I call group A, B and C:
Here are the cycles divided into these 3 groups:
-todays SC23 in RED. Most probably we´re at the minimumm right now, but an extended low into the A-group is possible...
-these are result of one Ju-cycle being skipped. This happened ~1920-1950 and ~1740-1770.
Finally the solar cycle timeline with the cycles divided into classes (correlation test below the sunspot-curve).
-at the end of SC23 you may notice that the green C-correlation had a try a little while ago, but now it is the yellow A-correlation that is climbing. An anomalous jump from B to A could happen again like SC4-5. But most probable we´re seeing a normal B-group cycle...
And whats up with the perihelions? Similar effect from Jupiter and Saturn - just different time-scales...
hmmm again my intuition is sending some signals...
The whole deal... solar cycle... it is all about timing and some kind of present momentum.
The dominant drivers are Jupiter and Saturn and their periods of 11,86 years and 29,46 years. The average monthly SSN for Jupiter- and Saturn-period indicate some kind of three-fold mechanism, or three favorable waves within the cycle. For Saturn this means a desire of three solar cycles each period, and for Jupiter it means three possible solarcycle configurations within the Jupiter-period (A, B and C).
This results in a struggle between 11,86 years and Sa/3=9,82 years. As the largest and nearest to the sun, Jupiter is expected to dominate this struggle. Of some magical reason, the Golden ratio conjugate or Fibonaccinumber 0,618 comes into play. Add 9,82 with 0,618 times the difference 11,86-9,82 and you get 11,08 - the average solar cycle length.
Now both planets have to compromise... as neither got their favorable solar cycle length. The supercycle where all cycles are back in sync is ~177 years: 18 cycles of Sa: 18x9,82=176,8 15 cycles of Ju: 15x11,86=177,9 16 solar cycles: 16x11,08=177,3
This means that through one supercycle, Jupiter must sacrifice one cycle, and Saturn must squeeze in two cycles.
When Jupiter gives away one cycle, this happens by moving through the green C-group. This temporary capitulation of power allows Saturn to dominate and favors strong and short solar cycles.
When Saturn has to squeeze a cycle, it is a more noticeable event. This allows Jupiter to gain strong control, and favors long and often very weak cycles. This happens normally in the middle of an interval of A- or B-group solar cycles.
It is therefore now an anomaly that SC19-21 went through the yellow A-group and directly into B-group, without Saturn squeezing a cycle. The consequence should either be that we are up for a long stay in B-group cycles, and will see two Saturn-cycles be squeezed through the period. Or we will have an anomalous case like SC4-5, where it moved from B-group back to A-group by an extremely long solar cycle. Could be SC23... could be SC24...
Hey, where is my whiskey... not every day I solve a mystery of the universe -now why does the 0,618 come into play? -and what kind of momentum dictates the strength of the solar cycle? -and are there larger supercycles present?
Obs: when observing sunspot numbers, you may not see the 177 year supercycle, because the cycle is not strictly tied to SC-strength but rather the duty of sacrifice and squeeze.
The result should however be similar, but due to different momentum-conditions and possibly some randomness, every supercycle will look different. The length for example may be 15SC and the next one 17. Looking at data back to year 1600, and depending on definition of start- and ending-point, I get supercycles of 15 and 17, and SC23 is number 8 in todays cycle. Or by other definition I get supercycles of 15 and 16, and SC23 is number 5 in todays cycle.
The most noticeable events will be the low periods surrounding the squeeze of Saturn-cycles. The time between these events may vary within the supercycles, and the minima of one supercycle should be closer together than minima of different supercycles. The two minima may even merge into one prolonged depression (?). And that could also be my forecast... not only the economy is into depression?
Interesting graph, but it leaves some unanswered questions: What is the abscissa parameter? Something measured in years? Years starting from when? The ordinate values seem to be MeV, okay, good; but what is phi? What's that dark grey line? Is the horizontal black line a linear regression? What's the other grey line? Is that also phi? Or is it a weighted time average of phi? Where is the graph attribution? Yes, I must agree. As it stands, there's no danger of this graph being mistaken for rocket science.
nobrainer i am too fascinated by Jupiter-Saturn to give Uranus-Neptun the credit But there may be an interesting pattern in my data: Seems like the deep minima occur around Uranus-Neptun conjunct, but why did not SC 21-22 follow this rule? They should have been weaker... are we now getting a delayed effect, and why?
Now, I think the sacrifice and squeeze mechanism dictates whether cycles are strong or weak, and for example Uranus-Neptun may be one strong contributor of momentum that guides within what strength-interval a cycle will fall.
Uranus-Neptun now favors weak cycles, but so far we have not had a Sa-squeeze and therefore this low-potential has not revealed itself. Should happen at SC24, unless UrNe are getting too distant again...?
My BIG question is why we didn´t see a Sa-squeeze around SC21? Clearly the Sa-correlation still was too great to give up control. The long SC20 did start a process, but was not followed by more long cycles. Rather we had more short cycles to let Sa keep partial control. The very short SC22 was the last "desperate" attempt from Sa, before giving up in SC23. This is somewhat similar to SC4. Very short cycles seem to happen either just before a Sa-squeeze, or during the Ju-sacrifice (in C-group).
anyone familiar to the stockmarket and technical analysis? Here is a "technical analysis" of the solar cycle length! (assuming an average length of 11,08 years, and plotting solar minimum in years distance from the accumulated average length)
As Tilmari has written "the short cycles of the 20th century has created a debt that must be paid"
Bigbud...there is a simple explanation for your questions. Clear your head and read carefully, it will be worth it (i know whats it like )
No doubt J+S are the main forces behind the angular movement of the solar system but they are not in time with sunspot cycles....that is very easy to check and your graphs show it.
They are the main engine driving the system and their angles are very important but see them as detached from the sunspot cycle (unless of course timo turns out to be right). N+U are the boosters to this engine but if the boost comes at the wrong time ie when J+S are opposing, the sun is expecting a low angular momentum but it doesnt happen...this sends the polar strength to near zero and we have grand minima....if its strong enough this can hang around for at least 2 more cycles irregardless of what momentum is around (perhaps its like starting a huge flywheel, who knows why).
There are 3 phases to this 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 (always because of the extra momentum created by N+U coming together) 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 the remaining partial line up and if that is strong enough we get more grand minima action. The sporer and maunder got all 3 phases but the dalton only got 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) but it sure slowed things down but you can see the momentum still in the system affecting SC21,22,23. SC24 i am predicting will go into grand minimum as the angular momentum looks to be stronger and the timing is right (very much like 1790) but we might only get the optimal lineup making it the weakest grand minimum in the last 1000 yrs and perhaps the last for a long time.
So N+U are in total control and thats also why we have no high sunspot peaks when they are opposed (well almost, in 1882 the solar system ganged up on U). I plotted angular momentum in real time over the past 300 yrs to compare it with the sunspot cycles..obviously we need to discount that momentum for grand minima events (what it might take for the tipping point is my next area of research, but J+S angles will be a big part of it)