|
Post by nobrainer on Jun 13, 2009 2:24:44 GMT
Leif, This paper by Tlatov and Markarov studies the variation in rotation periods of the solar surface. www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_22.pdfIt seems that at Rmax of even solar cycles the low latitude photosphere speeds up and the mid-latitude photosphere slows down. In odd numbered cycles the low latitude again speeds up but to a lesser degree, and the mid-latitude also speeds up. What do you make of this? By the way, thanks for posting the Babcock 1961 paper on your website. edit: Had "odd" and "even" reversed. Fixed. Thanks for the paper...another one to file under "solar rotation"
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Jan 23, 2009 7:09:36 GMT
All this is very well, and I am sure that the planets have an observable effect on the solar cycle, its length, shape etc. But there is something else, far bigger that drives the grand maxima & minima. These may persist for 3-7 cycles. If the planets were the only factor, then we would expect to see a much more regular pattern over the millennia, but we don't. Instead, we see (over 1000's of years) large fluctuations in the sun. It is a variable star after all. I remain a skeptic about the planets being the main driver of the sun's output. There are very good reasons why we see fluctuations over the centuries, and is all to do with Jupiter and Saturn. Angular momentum varies for the same reason with N+U acting as the controller. In the last week there have been amazing discoveries matching angular momentum and the 11000 yr C14 graph. Way to big to discuss it all here, read my article here. landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/95
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Jan 21, 2009 2:30:05 GMT
Jose's 178.8 cycle only works back a few hundred years, I have plotted the last 34 grand minima and the cycle so far is coming out at 172 years, close to the N+U period. I have plotted the grand minima and maxima against the 11000 yr C14 graph and it lines up perfectly, but need to do further work. I have a WIP document here for those interested. landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Jan 2, 2009 10:48:55 GMT
Not sure if this will help...but all the data represented in Carl's graph on the site i manage comes from ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons ..they seem to be the reliable source.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Dec 30, 2008 10:50:00 GMT
There is some argument for tidal effects inside of Jupiter, with sysygies of J+E+V lining up very nicely with solar cycles...plus they stay in sync which is pretty compelling. Hung has a paper on the NASA site and a french guy called Desmoulins have done some interesting work. But the real power I believe is as nautonnier states it which goes far beyond simple perihelion effects.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Dec 29, 2008 4:50:32 GMT
Here's a very crude look at some of the angles taken 2 years before the best initial partial line ups occur for the Maunder/Dalton and SC20. full size chart here users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/JSangles.jpgI think timing might also be a big factor, if its midway thru the J+S & J/P opposing cycle compared to top or bottom it will be stronger. Also at what stage in the solar cycle may also be a factor.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Dec 28, 2008 18:25:36 GMT
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) link to full size graph here users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/ultimate_graph2.jpgalso check this graph....shows the torque in the system at N+U+J and S opposing every time. 1790, 1830, 1870, 1970, 2010 are all N+U events. users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/ssbtorque1740-2070.jpgIts heavy going but all the details are here landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Dec 28, 2008 2:46:12 GMT
Its not rocket science....when Neptune and Uranus come together the Sun slows down. The study Leif refers to in my opinion is flawed, 14c not accurate over that timescale and the study completely misses the Dalton. The trick with finding a pattern to match the solar cycles is just that, it must match. Two similar cycles will go out of step very quickly. Here is another study using 14c and 10be from ice cores. I can see a very regular fluctuation.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Dec 27, 2008 1:47:24 GMT
It takes a little while to get your head around it...but basically the wave pattern (momentum) is controlled by J&S. J+S on the top of wave (strong) and J opposing S on the bottom (weaker).
That strength or weakness is directly controlled by N+U. When N/U are opposing each other everything is balance, but as they start to come together they dramatically change the effect on the Sun (more or less momentum), possibly altering rotation speed and cycle strength.
Your work with J/S angles is relevant (verifies alignment strength) and could be used to predict the strength of grand Minimia cycles perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Dec 27, 2008 1:06:36 GMT
bigbud...have a closer look, there is no doubt in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Dec 26, 2008 22:12:50 GMT
I couldnt be more wrong...thanks bigbud you have given me the clear head to see what modulates the solar cycles....it is Neptune and Uranus controlling Jupiter and Saturn. Its been before my eyes all the time. the graph shows it all landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2008/12/sunssbam1620to2180gs1.jpgIts about rotational speed of the sun, which is affected by the Angular Momentum of the Jovian Planets. Neptune and Uranus are the controllers of the 2 main drivers creating Angular momentum, as simple as that. The sunspot cycles curve follows that control. They can add or take away that momentum. landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58Geoff Sharp
|
|
|
Post by nobrainer on Dec 26, 2008 11:49:53 GMT
Solar cycle modulation, what an interesting topic, the so called most knowledgeable speculate its randomly generated from within. You would not expect the wave like patterns if it was random surely? I have done some work on Neptune & Uranus....but I am not sure if they are involved with modulation, perhaps more likely a cause of Grand Minima I suspect. I have just recently plotted angular momentum graphs on the Sun back to 900AD, and every occurrence of N+U has resulted in lower sunspot activity, maybe even during the medieval warm period which was a time of very usual line ups. I have an article posted on a blog I am looking after, with the latest results...check it out, we may have some similar theories. There is a link on the blog to a missing SC4 paper, that you may find interesting, also N+U were doing there thing back then....just like now. Geoff Sharp landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58
|
|