Sunday, April 22, 2012

Why Does the Solar Cycle Keep Re-synchronizing Itself With the Gravitational Force of Jupiter That is Tangentially Pushing and Pulling Upon the Venus-Earth Tidal Bulge in the Sun's Convective Layer?

The Planetary Spin-Orbit Coupling Model:

is based upon the idea that the gravitational force of Jupiter
acts upon the Venus-Earth tidal bulge that periodically
forms in the convective layer of the Sun. The cumulative effects
of Jupiter's gravitational force (acting on the tidally induced
asymmetry) produces a tidal torquing that systematically
slows and then speeds up the rotation rate of a thin shell of the
Sun's convective zone. The model proposes that it is these
changes in rotation rate that modulate the level of activity of
the sunspot cycle and possibly produce the torsional oscillation
that are observed in the Sun's convective layer.

The blue curve in figures 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d, shown below, is
the time-rate of change of the gravitational force of Jupiter,
tangential to the Sun's surface, that acts upon the periodically
induced tidal bulge produced by the alignments of Venus and the
Earth every 1.599 years. The brown curve is simply the 1,2,1
binomial filtered version of the blue curve. Superimposed on
each of these figures are green vertical lines showing the dates
of solar minimum.

Figure 1a shows the period from 1740 to 1820, figure 1b the
period from 1810 to 1890, figure 1c the period from 1880 to
1960, and figure 1d the period from 1950 to 2030. The cycle
number for each solar sunspot cycle is displayed in each of the

Note: The vertical axis is the time-rate of change of the
gravitational force of Jupiter, acting tangential to the Sun's
surface, that pulls and pushes upon the periodically induced
tidal bulge produced by the alignments of Venus and the Earth.
The units are metres per second^(2) per 1.599 years and it is
assumed that Jupiter's gravitational force is acting upon one
percent of the mass of the convective layer of the Sun
(=0.02 % of the mass of the Sun).

Figure 1a  

Figure 1b

Figure 1c

Figure 1d

Collectively, figures 1a  to 1d can be used to establish 
two very important rules:


In all but two cases between 1750 and 2030, 
the time of a solar minimum is tightly synchronized 
with time that the change in the gravitational force 
of Jupiter, acting tangentially on the Venus-Earth 
tidal bulge, is a minimum.   

The two exceptions to this rule, are the minima at
the start of cycle 4 (see figure 1a) and cycle 23
(see figure 1d). In each case there is a clear loss
of synchronization between the rate of change of
Jupiter's tangential acceleration and the timing of
the first minimum for that solar cycle. The loss of
synchronization is in the sense that the sunspot
minimum takes place more than ~ 3 years earlier
than the zero point in the change in Jupiter's
tangential acceleration.

The thing that makes cycles 4 and 23 stand out
from all the other sunspot cycles is the fact that
they are amongst the longest sunspot cycles
between 1750 and 2012, with cycle 4 lasting 13.7
years and cycle 23 lasting 12.4 years. Additionally,
both of these cycles were long lasting because the
decay of each from their respective maximum
sunspot number was considerably longer than normal.

It also important to note that Cycle 4 was followed
by a two weak solar cycles (cycles 5 and 6) known
as the the Dalton Minimum. Many now believe that
the same thing is happening again with Cycles 24
and perhaps cycle 25 being historically weaker than

Note: There is a weak loss of synchronization for
the first minima of cycles 14, 15 and 16, with
re-synchronization occurring for the first minimum
of cycle 17. This corresponds with a series of
weak solar cycles which is sometimes called the
Victorian minimum.


On the two occasions where synchronization is
significantly disrupted ( > 3 years - at the start 
of cycles 4 and 23), the timing of the first sunspot 
minimum of the next cycle immediately 
re-synchronizes with the timing of the minimum 
change in Jupiter's tangential force acting upon
Venus-Earth tidal bulge (NB There is a correction 
to this rule in comment 7 below).

This raises the important question:

Why does the Solar sunspot cycle re-synchronize itself
with the gravitational force of Jupiter that is tangentially
pushing and pulling upon the Venus-Earth tidal bulge in
the Sun's convective layer?

The simplest explanation is that tidal torquing of Jupiter
upon the Venus-Earth tidal bulge must play a role in
determining the long-term changes in the overall level of
activity of the sunspot cycle.


  1. Excellent work! And it sets a question by offering a scheme with plenty of falsifiable content. And demonstrates that the facts fit the thesis over a long period.

    I'll repost this at the Talkshop for discussion.

  2. Thanks Ian, I have been waiting to see if the JEV tidal lineups would re synchronize after 2000 which is not shown on Desmoulin's graph, you have now shown that it indeed it does. This is now a stronger correlation between JEV and solar cycle length. Do you have a theory on what causes the synchronization weakness close to the U/N conjunction? The tidal forces of the remaining 3 would be out of the question even allowing for a perturbed Jupiter orbit one would think?

    Looking at the solar torsional oscillation diagrams there appears to be a 17 year torsional flow on the surface but only 11 or so years are used by a cycle that lines up with JEV. I wonder if there are any other effects that might be either side of the JEV tidal function that might explain the 17 year jet streams observed?

  3. Hi Ian,

    You can find the answer to your questions here...(see lower) i also have a calculation excell file for this... If you send me an email i can send it to you... patrick.geryl add

  4. Patrick,

    The question that I was asking was rhetorical. However, thanks for you link, I will try to follow it up.

  5. Geoff,

    The two side-band periods produced by the modulation of the 19.858 year J/S synodic period by the 171.39 year U/N synodic period are:

    (19.858 x 171.39)/(171.39 - 19.858)= 22.46 yrs

    (19.858 x 171.39)/(171.39 + 19.858)= 17.80 yrs

    The latter side-band is the physically preferred one since the J/S Synodic alignments are retrograde and the U/N synodic alignments prograde.

    I have long suspected that the 17.80 yr period might be the one governing the longer 17 year torsional oscillation cycle.

  6. An interesting point to note:

    The first solar minimum in the telescope era was the first minimum for Cycle -12 starting 1610.8,
    The corresponding zero acceleration was in ~ 1611.5 (a difference of 0.8 years, which is probably
    about the size of the errors involved in setting the date of this minimum)

    This means that by ~ 2021 there have been 37 VEJ cycles each of 11.07 years length.

    1611.5 + (37 x 11.07) = 2021.1

    Hence, if solar cycle 25 has its first minimum in the start of 2021, it will show that solar cycle
    has re-synchronized itself to a 11.07 year period VEJ cycle over a ~ 410 year period.

    If the first minimum of cycle 25 occurs in the start of 2019, it will show that solar cycle
    has re-synchronized itself to a 11.02 year period VEJ cycle over a ~ 410 year period,

    1611.5 + (37 x 11.02) = 2019.24

    If the first minimum of cycle 25 occurs at the beginning of 2023, it will show that solar cycle
    has re-synchronized itself to a 11.12 year period VEJ cycle over a ~ 410 year period,

    1611.5 + (37 x 11.12) = 2022.94

    Thus, a first minimum for SC 25 that occurs between 2019.24 and 2022.94 (i.e. ~ 2021 +/- 2 years) will indicate a re-synchronization to a VEJ cycle length of 11.07 +/- 0.05 years over a 410 year period.

  7. The first minimum for SC 23 occurred at 1996.5 (June 1996) while the zero acceleration took place at 1999.7 (20/08/1999), which is ~ 3.0 yrs.

    However, I have corrected one error in my first post. The first minimum for SC 24 took place 2008.9 (December 2008) while the zero acceleration occurred at 2010.8. Hence, I am not correct in saying that (in the case of the SC 23 loss of synchronization) the re-synchronization has been fully completed by the start of the next cycle (SC 24). It will be interesting to see if full re-synchronization takes by 2021.

  8. I think your comment on your new article sums it up nicely. There is a possibility that there are two forces that govern solar cycle length. I can't see how the outer 3 have any effect on tidal forces or changes to the inner planets over the short time frames involved, but agree there may be another factor every 172 years when U/N are together via AM effects that also contribute or alter the solar cycle length. Just like climate where two forces need to be taken into consideration...the PDO and solar together.