Landscheidt Cycles Research

Predicting solar cycle modulation using angular momentum is relatively easy, but like any prediction it needs to be tested. Interested parties who rely on solar activity predictions might like to make a copy for future reference and compare with the regular methods of prediction which typically only go out for one cycle, which can hamper long term planning in some industries.

One thing we cannot predict is solar cycle length, so this prediction is more about modulation rather than precise timing of upcoming solar cycles. One other factor in play is whether “Wilson’s Law” will contribute to future grand minima, by 2190 I predict we will know the mechanics of this law. As can be seen here and on the 11000 year 14C graph there are no high solar activity peaks at times of low angular momentum.

There is a possible case for a repeat of the 1870 type reduction in solar activity at 2050, but this time around the disturbance is very weak as the Jupiter/Saturn angles continue to weaken. On most occasions we are presented with 3 disturbances per cycle but in the current cycle we may only get 2, SC28 & SC29 remain the subject of more research.

Below is Carl’s now famous original graph showing angular momentum in a different form. The green arrows showing times of angular momentum disturbance.

Its been a long time coming, but this graph is an easier way to appreciate the effect the outer planets have on our Sun. This is the same information Carl used in his now famous graph, but instead of a sine wave we have the absolute power shown in a conventional form. Angular momentum can be measured in different ways leading to confusion. Now we have a reliable power guide directed at the Sun from the Jovian planets.

Source: Carl’s JPL data assuming 2E+47 as a zero point and inverting all points below.

This next graph shows the sunspot cycle superimposed on the angular momentum strength…showing strong correlations. Notice how after a sudden slowdown the high angular momentum peaks are not fully utilized.

UPDATE 11/05/09:
The same graph but with the solar orbital velocity as it orbits the SSB overlaid. This shows the connection between Angular Momentum and the fluctuating speed of the Sun as it orbits the solar system barycenter, this orbit path being controlled by the outer planets. Conservation of angular momentum has consequences.

Below: This time I have compared the Sun’s velocity with the typical AM graph as per Carl….the altered velocity obvious at 1650, 1830 and 2010 which also correspond with radical Solar path changes caused by the outer planets. The Sun’s orbit speed is surprisingly slow and goes from around 30 km/h up to around 60 km/h (100% increase) when Angular Momentum is at its highest. This still allows the Sun to move over 1.5 million km from the SSB over 5 years. Note when the two lines diverge there is a corresponding slow down in solar activity.

This graph showing the velocity of the Sun is a product of Angular Momentum (red line = velocity). Interestingly velocity can exceed AM and also not use the full potential of AM. A conservation is required? Is there another force involved that modulates the usage of AM?

Now the question is, are there any other consequences, is the changing velocity also changing the rotation speed of the Sun as well. I have been searching for solar rotation rates but it seems we are unable to record this presently, there are no fixed points on the surface of the Sun which has a highly movable outer layer. The idea of a solar rotation change due to the planets is highly speculative, but until we can get an accurate measurement of solar rotation it cant be ruled out. If we could record the solar rotation accurately this discussion would be over…but we CAN record the rotation rate of Earth, and I postulate on the following with some brain food…… The Earth’s rotation rate is calculated by recording the Length of Day which shows our longest days (slower speed) are always in January. Theories suggest this is because of weather patterns that always occur in January but it also coincides with our planets fastest velocity which shows a very regular pattern each January.

Interesting pattern similar to the Jovian orbits…expecting earths orbit to follow the same trend.

Length of day graph from USNO showing the yearly rotation speed pattern of our planet. The slowest days are in January each year, which coincides with our closest approach to the Sun in our slightly elliptical orbit.

This is an intriguing question, I have read many different opinions but nothing to clearly substantiate their claims. Others in the Scientific arena when pressed are afraid to give an answer. Checking the JPL data which is an ephemeris produced by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory shows that Jupiter certainly doesn’t orbit around the SSB (although at first because of an error I made, it looked as if it did) and probably orbits around the Jupiter/Sun barycenter. After checking the Jupiter/Sun distances (which I will refer to as the radius vector which is quite different from the semi-major axis) through JPL it became obvious there was a substantial variance each orbit that was measured each time in the same place. Originally I saw this as an opportunity to look for a solid link between Angular Momentum and the Solar modulation re the planets, but soon discovered Jupiter and all the other planets have a modulating Perihelion/Aphelion distance. The quest was on the find out why and involved many weeks searching for any data I could find. Others on this site got involved and I even emailed an Astronomer but to no avail, very sparse detail available. Dr Svalgaard suggested it was a result of planetary perturbations and while correct his understanding was also far from complete. Below is an account of the progress along with what I think is the complete answer to what perturbs Jupiter and how.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————
My research shows the Jupiter/Sun distance varies on average 300,000 km each orbit of Jupiter. Check graphic above.
The Earth is seen to orbit the Sun directly. If we use NASA’s JPL data it shows the Earth/Sun distance is varying by 0.0001AU per year (approx 15000 km). The AU measure is the average distance between the Sun and Earth. If we measure The Earth to SSB (solar system barycenter) distance it shows a much larger variance.
What I have done is measure the Jupiter/Sun distance at exactly the same point in the elliptical orbit of Jupiter each 4331.572 days, this should isolate any aphelion/perihelion changes. I also measured the Jupiter/SSB distances.

As can be seen in the first graphic there is a large variance each orbit between BOTH measurements (Sun & SSB). This makes it hard to pinpoint any point of orbit, although the variances seem smaller on average with the Jupiter/Sun data. I also compared the Heliocentric longitude (angle away from Sun) and found each Jupiter/Sun reading had an angle of 359 deg, but the solar position at perihelion does return very closely to the same position each orbit.

The above graph was made from reliable data by blogger JimP (thanks for the spreadsheet). Once blown up it shows some remarkable detail. It shows the Perihelion distance (closest point) for each Jupiter orbit over 400 years. There is a definite pattern, what causes this modulation? The movement between the closest and furthest perihelion is 1.2 million km’s , the Sun is capable of moving 1.5 million km’s from the barycenter, Neptune’s radius vector moves by 1.4 million km. Importantly the corresponding movement at the other end (aphelion) is the same value on each orbit but in the opposite direction, if one end shortens the other end lengthens.

Jupiter/Sun distances 1600-2020 with Jup/Sat conjuncture, Jup/Sat opposition and Jup/Sat quadrature (square) positions plotted for every third occurrence. Note the phase change around 1880. If the Variance in distance is caused by angular momentum J/S conjunction & J/S opposition both produce high angular momentum. Regular reader lgl and myself suspect the other Jovians need to come into the equation, but what is needed is a new method of displaying angular momentum other than Carl’s graph. A total strength with both J/S conjuncture and J/S opposition shown as high points instead of a sine wave is required, manipulation of the current JPL data via a spreadsheet can do it. Update: There is a new article covering this.

Saturn/Sun distance showing the same 60 yr pattern as Jupiter. After 1880 they are in unison with Jupiter but not before. There is a reason for these fluctuations but I have not found any literature on this phenomena.

UPDATE 13/05/09:

This diagram has been adapted from “Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development” Alexander et al. Bailey has been criticized for claiming the Sun-Earth distance varies by the Sun-SSB distance, although not correct there is a fluctuation caused in the same manner as per Jupiter but to a smaller degree….0.0001 AU.

UPDATE 27/05/09: Here is another suggestion Dr. Svalgaard has provided to explain the modulating Jupiter Perihelion.

“The general principle is that to change the orbit, you have to apply a force along the orbit, so Saturn’s effect is largest when it is ‘to the side’ (approximately quadrature I think the astrological term is), rather than in conjunction. All of this has been understood for 250 years, and there are no other forces involved. Saturn doesn’t ‘push’ (gravity is attractive, not repulsive). And the Sun is not ‘dragging’: the force is always along the line connecting two bodies.
To recapitulate how Kepler’s second law works: To move an orbit out a bit (increase perihelion distance if you are near perihelion), you apply a force along the orbit in the same direction as the movement of the planet, e.g. by Saturn being ahead of Jupiter. That force produces a ‘delta-v’ (google it), which ‘lifts’ the orbit a bit out of the gravitational well, to another (higher) orbit, where it actually moves slower than before. Because of the periodic movements, the lifting is counteracted over time by a similar but oppositely directed movement, so that the semi-axis stays constant. This takes a couple of orbits to accumulate, so you have to consider the integrated effects over many years.”

There is substantial merit in Dr. Svalgaard’s rejigged explanation, but there still remains some pertinent questions. The explanation works well for perturbations occurring in the 1/2 to 3/4 region before Perihelion, but perhaps not so well in others. Dr. Svalgaard explains its a matter of the smaller background oscillations that make it hard to track the source of the perturbation. This is plausible but maybe a little weak and may be the reason it is near impossible to find any reliable data on this topic via the web. In particular I have questions why the “force along the orbit” fails to work when Jupiter approaches Perihelion and actually looks to have an opposite effect. Remember, when Jupiter & Saturn are in conjunction the Perihelion distance is at its shortest, but as you can see in the following diagrams the substantial pull along the orbit fails to elevate Jupiter’s orbit to a higher state.

The red dots signifies Perihelion in this 1762 example:

I wanted to see the perturbation affects plotted with successive orbits to see how the planets contribute to Jupiter’s orbit changes. Although fairly easy when you know a couple of tricks (thanks to Dr. Svalgaard) this task took me many days. I plotted the JPL data into excel and once the orbit was expanded to a size too big to display here it was easy to see each individual orbit. I was lucky with my data selection because it included a very strong perturbation of the 1987 Perihelion. The orbit has Jupiter doing a fly past Saturn, Uranus and Neptune before Perihelion which manages to take it away from its more normal path by 6 million kilometers. Once Jupiter passes all 3 planets its orbit is dramatically “braked” which brings it back into line around Perihelion, but still manages a very long perihelion distance. This is a good example of the perturbation theory in practice.

The corresponding planetary view shows the relative positions of planets which line up with the above average perturbation.

So do we have a situation where the perturbation theory works in some parts of the orbit only? Could other forces be overriding this perturbation? The orbit changing mechanics have been described as speeding up the planets velocity (I have serious reservations that this occurs) which raises it up the gravity well to a higher orbit before settling into a slower overall velocity.
————————————————————————————————–
UPDATE:After much research I think I finally have the cause for Jupiter’s Perihelion distance modulation….and it surprising how little is known or published in this area. The above example is not worded very well and leads you to think an acceleration lifts the orbit higher then slows the velocity (that’s at least how I read it), from what I now understand it actually happens in reverse…the acceleration moves the orbit closer (following Kelper’s 2nd Law) but then unlike a rocket using boost, Jupiter is then immediately subjected to deceleration from Saturn’s gravity which slows velocity in turn lengthening the radius vector or raising Jupiter to a higher orbit. As Jupiter moves further away from Saturn the Sun takes over and reins in its sibling and waits for the next perturbation. So now it becomes obvious, and completely explains why a Jupiter/Saturn conjunction causes a short Perihelion, Jupiter is always in acceleration mode during this lineup which causes it to move closer and the plotted orbit agrees. Also of note, Neptune and Uranus also help out and can be strong when together as we see elsewhere on this site.

The orbit spreadsheet is able here: http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jup_orbit1940-2009.xls

Click on images for a larger view.

Some may be aware I have been trying to track down if we are experiencing any change to the differential rotation rates of the Sun. If angular momentum changes can be tied to solar differential rotation rates, we might have a solid causation. Solar differential rotation can be measured in different ways but basically, different parts of the Sun rotate at different speeds, keeping in mind the Sun is not a solid object. The equator rotation rate is around 27 days, with the poles at around 34 days, as seen from earth. But there is a lot more to consider, if we look at the solar equator there is another speed difference showing the possible rotation speed of the Sun. Recently I heard back from Dr. Rachel Howe from NOAO who specializes in this area, and the results were quite amazing.

Her hot off the press paper here:

The graphic above is a Doppler image from GONG which shows the regular patterns of the changing rotation speed of the Sun with the yellow sections being the fastest. The image is taken at 0.99R which is around 7000Km beneath the top of the Convection zone. It is thought these patterns (darker zones mostly) are generated at the Tachocline (a thin sheer layer between the radiative core and the Convection zone at around 0.71R) and they spiral out to the top of the Convection zone and are subject to spin momentum like a garden sprinkler. As we go deeper, like the graphic below (0.99R to 0.84R) the patterns break up, which is not what I would expect. The overall scale of the pattern seems to remain but loses clarity. Perhaps this is a condition of going deep with Doppler equipment or maybe the frequency is a lot higher as we go down?

Dr. Howe’s paper suggests that the travel time interval from Tachocline to the solar surface is around 2 years and, as we will see, these Doppler patterns align very closely to the sunspot butterfly image when overlayed. If so, then sunspot activity is a historical account of what happened at the Tachocline 2 years ago.

In the next graphic we go back further and it displays an apparant rotation change. During past grand minima, observations suggest a faster rotating Sun, as can be seen at the equator. After 2000 there is a greater acceleration occurring, but we need to keep in mind that the surface is not static.

Also noted is the much longer length of cycle 23 (96- ?) compared to cycle 22 (86-96). So here we see two direct links to the highly possible effect from Angular Momentum created by the Gas Giants, increased rotation rate and the stretching of the cycle length as the Sun takes its abnormal path every 172 years.

The last time this occurred was in SC4 just before the Dalton Minimum and the retrograde motion we are now part of is very similar to SC4. On average the retrograde orbit (purple) is around 9 years, SC23 & SC4 have orbits of over 11 years.

Below is a graphic I produced by rescaling the SIDC sunspot butterfly plots then overlaying over Dr. Howe’s graphic, as can be seen there is a direct correlation between the two sets of data. It is thought the sunspots are created at the poleward edge of the fast and slow zones (yellow /green), but I am sceptical. The slower zones are what travel all the way to the Tachocline (its like a "brakes on" feedback) and we might have to possibly shift the overlay to the right to allow for angular momentum as the Doppler image is taken from 7000Km below. I have asked Dr. Howe her opinion.

Animation: Dr.Howe’s diagram with the SIDC butterfly sunspot scatter with re scaled X & Y coordinates to match..

You can see in the pattern why early cycle sunspots appear at high latitudes then gravitate to the equator. Looking at butterfly graphs of solar activity, they suggest the majority of sunspots occurring between -40 & +40 latitude, ruling out the dark blue/blacks areas at high latitudes.I speculate they are reserved for Coronial Mass Ejections. The purple arrows show where a "flow" starts.

Some more speculation:  Some suggest the modulation of a sunspot cycle is governed by the strength of the solar poles, which are a late product of the previous cycle (this product can also be severely downgraded as seen in SC19) . Maybe the poles are a player, but not the main influence as the main source of power is coming from the Tachocline. This is where the poles eventually get their flow from. But it may explain why we have a weak cycle after a grand minima cycle, as the following cycle after could have very low pole strength.

Worth saving and blowing up to see the detail.

Angular Momentum could vary the speed of the outer convection layer of the Sun, creating less torsion on the Tachocline sheer layer, resulting in reduced solar activity 2 years later. The Doppler diagrams will reveal some of this as we move forward and I believe these diagrams are an invaluable tool and would greatly appreciate access to this data easily, like the WSO polar strength graph and watch each move through the cycle. I informed Dr. Howe of this, lets hope it gets something going.

Geoff Sharp.

Click on the graphs for a full sized view and then magnify.
New Blog theme is width expandable.

Graph 1. shows how the power of Angular Momentum matches up with the movement in the 11000 year 14C graph. Each high point on the 14C graph lines up with the regular high points on the Angular Momentum charts. Even more importantly, each Grand Minimum also lines up with the Grand minima type disturbances on the Angular Momentum charts. Strong Angular Momentum gives us strong Grand minima and also the high peaks on the 14C graph. Weak Angular Momentum gives us weak results, and lots of shades of gray in between.

Graph 2.This graph shows all the angular momentum disturbances taken straight off the angular momentum charts showing each individual Type “A” & “B” disturbance as well as each non Grand Minima angular momentum high, each green or red square corresponds with grand minima type angular momentum that comes along roughly every 172 years, these disturbances line up with almost all downward trends.. Its a wave of power over the centuries, with very strong correlations on each peak and trough and shows how the changing angles distribute the phases of type “A” & “B” disturbance. Type “B” normally produce weaker Grand Minima, but also spread out the available opportunities (more than 3 red or green squares) each 172 yrs avg. Other observations show during times of weak angles the Sun is able to recover quickly from the slowdown and doesn’t look to remain in Grand Minima mode for several sunspot cycles as we observe recently. Remember as in 1790, Grand Minima can occur on the disturbance or just after. I recommend saving this file and enlarging to see the full detail.

Graph 3. Excel spreadsheet graph using original Solanki data. Outstanding correlation of deep grand minima and high strength Type”A” angular disturbance signified by green arrows. -585 event not complying with “Wilsons Law” on first 2 occasions. (see below) Spreadsheet available at http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/solanki_sharp.xls .UPDATE 11/03/09: Dr. Svalgaard could not find fault with the original JPL data (angular momentum) and the Solanki 14C data, along with my placement of that data.

Graph4. Showing each individual angular momentum disturbance (green/red) and how they sculpt the 14C silhouette. Now that I have the actual figures there is some subtle difference from my original graph. A very common occurrence over the centuries is Solar activity peaks happening just after angular momentum peak and DURING a period of angular momentum disturbance just like we had at the start of the Dalton around 1790. It may be a matter of timing, determining whether grand minima starts on the disturbance or the cycle after? Its obvious the Sun is agitated on a regular basis in the past, because the Dalton finished early and we missed grand minimum at SC20, we have experienced a prolonged era of solar activity in recent times.

Graph5. New compilation of Solar Proxy records showing a very good match between 14C & 10Be. Angular Momentum Disturbance Strength curve in purple showing another very good match. The Holocene Solar activity and Temperature a direct result of Angular Momentum?

Does Angular Momentum drive the 11000 year 14C (carbon 14) graph which is backed up by the 10Be graph (Beryllium-10), my evidence strongly suggests so. If a theory on what controls the output of the Sun doesnt show a very strong correlation with the 11000 year 14C graph it cant be taken seriously, it is the best record of solar activity we have before the 1700′s. I have looked at that 14C curve and wondered whats behind it for months, and now I believe we have the driver. Basically these 2 isotopes are used as proxy records to measure the output of the Sun over 1000′s of years, and before 1700, is the only source of data to record solar activity. 14C & 10Be are laid down in ice core and tree data and both follow the same trend. Usoskin and Solanki et al has provided in a recent paper HERE, a graph that displays past grand minima based on 14C records (kindly alerted to me by Dr. Svalgaard). But I believe Usoskin set the bar way too low, ignoring events such as the Dalton minimum (Usoskin determines grand minima is >15 SSN). Although I don’t agree with Usoskin’s methodology or outcomes, I do thank him and Solanki for providing the graph. Note: If you havent read my basic theory on grand minima here is the link which will put things in perspective. http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/11/06/are-neptune-and-uranus-the-major-players-in-solar-grand-minima/

(more…)

This Paper by I. R. G. Wilson, B. D. Carter, and I. A. Waite is now available free onliine. http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf

Abstract:We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial
rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the
barycentre of the Solar System.We propose that this synchronization is
indicative of a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the
Jovian planets and the Sun. However, we are unable to suggest a plausible
underlying physical cause for the coupling. Some researchers have proposed
that it is the period of the meridional flow in the convective zone of the Sun
that controls both the duration and strength of the Solar cycle.We postulate
that the overall period of the meridional flow is set by the level of disruption
to the flow that is caused by changes in Sun’s equatorial rotation speed.
Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate
are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the
barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow
is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (?22.3 yr), the overall
178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the
19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.
——————————————————————————————–

Some very interesting sections of this paper discuss changes in angular momentum and solar equatorial rotation change. I would like to see more work in this area, as there is scant amount of detail available on my searching. There must be someone working on comparing current solar differential rotation with other periods?

In another section the paper acknowledges the work done by Fairbridge & Shirley 1987 in using all of the Jovian planets to calculate angular momentum but unfortunately dont include Neptune & Uranus any further. I believe Fairbridge & Shirley were SO close in 1987 but failed to see the absolute importance of Neptune & Uranus…they had a graph like Carl’s but didnt cross check it against the planetary line ups. Incredible that they went so far but didnt go the extra step. Its now some 22 years later.

But the most important discovery by Wilson et al in this paper in my view, is their “phase locking” theory. Grand Minima type events (SSN less than 80) have happened in the past when the conjunction of Jupiter & Saturn happens before that cycle’s maximum, implying a mechanism of catch up, keeping the Jupiter/Saturn sysygies in line with solar cycles. I refer to this in other articles as “Wilson’s Law”. If SC24 peaks after March 2011 it will fit that criteria as well as SC25 if it peaks after Nov 2020. This phenomenon has always happened at or just after the “camel hump” disturbance on Carl’s graph, and begs the question: Does this phenomenon happen as a result of the major disturbance to the angular momentum or is that just coincidence? To test this I might plot all the sysygies and cycle max’s on Carl’s Graph.

UPDATE: below is a graph showing J+S sysygies with sunspot peaks, Note: pre 1700 solar cycle maxima is derived geomagnetic aa proxy figures, click on the graph for a larger image.

Ian’s work has answered some of my questions and explains why 1830 didnt invoke further Grand Minimum action, also why 1880 (SC12) was low during higher angular momentum, Its obvious if the aa records are correct that we have a higher frequency of early J+S sysygies with the higher angular momentum caused by N+U.
Black dots are J+S together, Blue dots J+S opposed, and Red dots are solar cycle maxima…..reduced solar activity occurs if we get a black or blue dot in between cycle minimum and before cycle maximum

Geoff.

Ian Wilson, highly respected Australian scientist working in the area of planetary influence on solar activity has provided us with his paper outlining his theory on some possible drivers of solar grand minima. This area of science seems to be on the fringe where no matter what funds are available no real knowledge can claim with total confidence how the next cycle will pan out, let alone when the next Maunder type minimum might happen, its an open arena waiting for a credible explanation.
Landscheidt Cycles welcomes Ian’s paper which can be accessed through this link:http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/wilson/Syzygy.pdf
Below is a graph from Ian’s paper showing the heliocentric latitude of Venus (solid line) and the mean distance of Jupiter from the Sun in astronomical units (dashed line), we welcome constructive debate.

Thanks to Carl for the kind words and I hope you overcome your challenge. I and many others thank you for setting up this wonderful site and for extracting some extra important data from Dr. Landscheidt’s work.

I am looking forward to contributing to this alternative view on how we interact with the cosmos. I will be reporting on news and scientific papers concerning planetary involvement connected with influencing the Sun and the global climate. Carl’s work has inspired me, and this first article is a work in progress report that was born by his SSB graph which showed to me the importance of Neptune and Uranus. We are living in exciting times and may witness a brand new area of science, especially if we DO experience a Grand Minimum beginning with Solar Cycle 24.

———————————————-

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 this 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.

The basic theory on how Neptune & Uranus control Solar Grand Minima and Solar Cycle Modulation is as follows: Shown in Carl’s graph below 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.

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.

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

Note: Click on the graphs to view a full size image.


Carl’s original graph above.