quikchaos.com

COSMIC CYCLES REFERENCE

The Cosmic Cycles tool is a mathematical visualization and educational tool. It is not a scientific forecasting engine.

The convergence score shows where multiple cycle positive phases overlap. This is a defined mathematical metric - not a validated predictor of real-world events. The chart superimposes 22 periodic signals from unrelated physical systems onto a common timeline. The resulting pattern is interesting to explore, but it does not constitute a forecast or discovery.

Key limitations:

  • Most cycles are modeled as sinusoids for simplicity. Several (Schwabe, ENSO, Bond events) are quasi-periodic or chaotic in reality.
  • The tool is most accurate near the present (2000 CE). Short-period cycles lose validity within decades; long-period Milankovitch cycles are valid over millions of years.
  • The overlapping pattern of 22 cycles does NOT reveal hidden predictions. Volcanic eruptions, wars, and climate catastrophes are not caused by cycle convergence.

LUNAR CYCLES

Lunar Perigee Precession (8.85 yr)

TypeApsidal precession of the Moon's orbit
Period8.8504 years
PeriodicityTruly periodic
Physical effectAffects tidal range
Sinusoidal modelAppropriate

The Moon's orbit is an ellipse, and the point of closest approach (perigee) slowly rotates around Earth. One full rotation of the perigee takes 8.85 years. This modulates the strength of perigean spring tides.

Saros Eclipse Repeat (18.03 yr)

TypeCommensurability of synodic, draconic, and anomalistic months
Period6585.32 days (18.03 years)
PeriodicityDiscrete recurrence
Physical effectProduces eclipse families
Sinusoidal modelSimplification - see note

The Saros is a discrete recurrence, not a continuous oscillation. The sinusoidal model used in the tool is a simplification. Each Saros series produces an eclipse every 18.03 years, shifting roughly 120 degrees in longitude. The cycle arises from the near-coincidence of 223 synodic months, 242 draconic months, and 239 anomalistic months.

Lunar Nodal Precession (18.61 yr)

TypeRetrograde precession of the lunar orbit's ascending node
Period18.6129 years
PeriodicityTruly periodic
Physical effectAffects declination range of the Moon and tidal amplitude
Sinusoidal modelAppropriate

The plane of the Moon's orbit is tilted about 5 degrees to the ecliptic. The line where these planes intersect (the nodes) rotates retrograde with a period of 18.61 years. At major lunar standstill, the Moon reaches its maximum declination; at minor standstill, the minimum. This modulates tidal amplitudes globally.

Metonic Cycle (19.00 yr)

TypeCalendrical commensurability - 235 synodic months = 19 tropical years
Period19.00 years
PeriodicityResonance condition
Physical effectNone - lunar phases repeat on the same calendar dates
Sinusoidal modelSimplification - see note

This is a resonance condition, not a physical oscillation. Nothing sinusoidally varies with a 19-year period. The Metonic cycle describes the fact that 235 synodic months (new moon to new moon) is almost exactly 19 tropical years, so lunar phases repeat on approximately the same calendar dates. It has been used for calendar construction since Meton of Athens proposed it in 432 BCE.

SOLAR CYCLES

Schwabe Sunspot Cycle (11.0 yr)

TypeMean sunspot cycle
Period~11.0 years (individual cycles range 9-14 years)
PeriodicityQuasi-periodic
Physical effectSolar irradiance variation, geomagnetic activity, radio propagation
Sinusoidal modelRough approximation - see note

The sunspot number curve is asymmetric: fast rise (~4 years), slow decline (~7 years). A sinusoid is a rough approximation that accumulates phase error within 2-3 cycles. Grand minima (Maunder 1645-1715, Dalton 1790-1830) are NOT predictable from this model. They arise from nonlinear dynamo processes in the solar interior.

Hale Magnetic Cycle (22.0 yr)

TypeFull solar magnetic polarity reversal
Period~22.0 years (two Schwabe cycles)
PeriodicityQuasi-periodic
Physical effectMagnetic field reversal, cosmic ray modulation
Sinusoidal modelRough approximation

The Sun's magnetic field reverses polarity roughly every 11 years, so a full magnetic cycle takes about 22 years. The same quasi-periodic caveats as the Schwabe cycle apply. Named after George Ellery Hale, who discovered the magnetic nature of sunspots in 1908.

Gleissberg Cycle (88 yr)

TypeAmplitude modulation of the Schwabe cycle
Period80-100 years (quasi-periodic)
PeriodicityQuasi-periodic
Physical effectLong-term solar activity envelope
Sinusoidal modelSimplification - see note

The Gleissberg cycle describes how the amplitude of successive Schwabe cycles waxes and wanes over roughly a century. Physically, this should be a multiplicative envelope (modulating Schwabe amplitude), but the tool models it as an additive sinusoid for simplicity.

de Vries / Suess Cycle (210 yr)

TypeSolar activity cycle detected in cosmogenic isotope records
Period205-210 years (quasi-periodic)
PeriodicityQuasi-periodic
Physical effectModulation of galactic cosmic ray flux reaching Earth
Sinusoidal modelReasonable for the proxy record

Detected in cosmogenic isotope records (14C, 10Be). One of the more well-established long-period solar signals, but still quasi-periodic. First identified by de Vries (1958) and Suess (1980).

Eddy Cycle (1000 yr)

TypeLong-period solar activity cycle in cosmogenic isotopes
Period~1000 years
PeriodicityQuasi-periodic, less well-established
Physical effectLong-term solar activity modulation
Sinusoidal modelSpeculative at this period

Named after Jack Eddy, who studied the Maunder Minimum and established that solar variability is real. A ~1000-year periodicity appears in cosmogenic isotope records, but it is less well-established than the Gleissberg or de Vries cycles. Some researchers consider this part of a broader spectral feature rather than a distinct cycle.

Hallstatt Cycle (2300 yr)

TypeVery long solar activity cycle in 14C records
Period2200-2500 years
PeriodicityQuasi-periodic, poorly constrained
Physical effectGrand minima clustering
Sinusoidal modelVery rough approximation

Detected in 14C records. Only 4-5 complete cycles fit within the Holocene proxy record, so the period is poorly constrained. First identified by Damon and Sonett (1991). Named after the Hallstatt culture period, which happens to fall near one of the apparent cycle boundaries.

PLANETARY CYCLES

Jupiter-Saturn Conjunction (19.86 yr)

TypeSynodic period of Jupiter and Saturn
Period19.859 years
PeriodicityTruly periodic (orbital mechanics)
Physical effect on EarthNegligible - Jupiter's tidal force on Earth is ~10-7 of the Moon's
Sinusoidal modelAppropriate

These "great conjunctions" have been tracked since antiquity. Jupiter and Saturn appear close together in the sky roughly every 20 years. While the orbital mechanics are precise, the physical influence on Earth is negligible.

Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune / Jose Cycle (178.7 yr)

TypePeriod of solar barycentric motion
Period178.7 years
PeriodicityTruly periodic (orbital mechanics)
Physical effectDisputed - see note
Sinusoidal modelAppropriate for the orbital component

The Sun orbits the solar system's center of mass with a ~178.7-year modulation driven primarily by Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune. The claimed link to solar activity (Charvatova/Jose hypothesis) is not accepted by mainstream solar physics. The Sun's convective zone is too massive for planetary tidal effects to modulate the dynamo.

Jupiter-Saturn Triangle (59.58 yr)

TypeRotation of great conjunction positions through the ecliptic
Period59.58 years (3 x 19.86)
PeriodicityTruly periodic
Physical effectNone independent of the conjunction cycle
Sinusoidal modelAppropriate

Three consecutive great conjunctions rotate through approximately 120 degrees of ecliptic longitude, forming a triangle pattern. The full triangle takes about 60 years to complete. This is a geometric consequence of the synodic cycle, not an independent phenomenon.

CLIMATE CYCLES

Bond / Dansgaard-Oeschger Events (1470 yr)

TypeQuasi-periodic abrupt climate shifts in the North Atlantic
Period~1470 years
PeriodicityDebated - possibly stochastic
Physical effectAbrupt warming events (rapid onset, gradual cooling)
Sinusoidal modelPoor - these are abrupt events, not smooth oscillations

A ~1470-year periodicity found in North Atlantic ice-rafted debris (Bond et al. 1997) and Greenland ice cores. Ditlevsen et al. (2007) argued the spacing is consistent with a stochastic process. The mechanism is unknown. These are abrupt climate shifts (rapid warming, gradual cooling), NOT smooth oscillations. The sinusoidal model is a very rough approximation.

ENSO Envelope (5.0 yr)

TypeEl Nino-Southern Oscillation
Period2-7 years (broad spectral peak, ~5 year center)
PeriodicityChaotic and quasi-periodic
Physical effectGlobal weather pattern shifts, tropical Pacific SST anomalies
Sinusoidal modelExplicitly a rough approximation

ENSO is driven by ocean-atmosphere coupling in the tropical Pacific and is fundamentally unpredictable beyond roughly 1-2 years. The 5-year sinusoid used in the tool is a rough center-of-spectrum approximation. Real ENSO events are irregular in timing, amplitude, and character (El Nino vs La Nina are not symmetric).

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (25 yr)

TypeMulti-decadal SST pattern in the North Pacific
Period20-30 years (quasi-periodic)
PeriodicityQuasi-periodic - debated as true oscillation vs red noise
Physical effectPacific salmon runs, drought patterns, hurricane tracks
Sinusoidal modelRough approximation

A recognized climate mode first described by Mantua et al. (1997). Decadal-scale shifts in North Pacific SST patterns. Some researchers question whether it is a true oscillation or low-frequency variability. The 25-year period is a representative midpoint of the 20-30 year range.

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (70 yr)

TypeMulti-decadal SST oscillation in the North Atlantic
Period60-80 years (quasi-periodic)
PeriodicityQuasi-periodic - debated
Physical effectEuropean climate, Atlantic hurricane frequency, Sahel rainfall
Sinusoidal modelRough approximation

Detected in SST records by Schlesinger and Ramankutty (1994). A 60-80 year oscillation correlating with European climate and Atlantic hurricane activity. Mann et al. (2020) questioned whether the AMO is a true internal oscillation or a response to external forcing.

EARTH CYCLES

Chandler Wobble (1.186 yr)

TypeWobble of Earth's rotation axis
Period~433 days (1.186 years)
PeriodicityStochastically excited, variable amplitude
Physical effectSmall latitude variations (~0.7 arcseconds)
Sinusoidal modelPoor - amplitude varies and was nearly zero around 2005-2006

Discovered by Seth Carlo Chandler in 1891. The wobble is stochastically excited by atmospheric and oceanic processes, and its amplitude varies unpredictably. A fixed-amplitude sinusoid cannot represent this behavior. The wobble was nearly undetectable around 2005-2006.

Axial Precession (25,772 yr)

TypeLuni-solar precession of Earth's rotation axis
Period25,771.5 years (IAU)
PeriodicityTruly periodic
Physical effectPole star drift, seasonal shift relative to orbit
Sinusoidal modelAppropriate

This is the "pole star drift" - Polaris will not always be the North Star. Earth's rotation axis traces a cone with a period of about 25,772 years. For climate forcing, what matters is "climatic precession" (~21,000 yr), which combines axial precession with orbital apsidal precession.

Climatic Precession (21,000 yr)

TypeCombined effect of axial and apsidal precession on insolation
Period~21,000 years (~19 and ~23 kyr components)
PeriodicityTruly periodic
Physical effectControls timing of perihelion relative to solstices - drives ice age insolation forcing
Sinusoidal modelAppropriate

The actual Milankovitch precession forcing that appears in paleoclimate spectra. Climatic precession combines the ~25,772-year axial precession with the apsidal precession of Earth's orbit to produce dominant periods near 19 and 23 kyr. The tool uses 21 kyr as a representative single period. This is arguably more climatically relevant than axial precession alone (Hays, Imbrie, Shackleton 1976).

Obliquity Cycle (41,000 yr)

TypeVariation of Earth's axial tilt
Period~41,000 years
PeriodicityTruly periodic
Physical effectAxial tilt varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees
Sinusoidal modelAppropriate

A well-established Milankovitch parameter described by Berger (1978). The tilt of Earth's axis oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. Higher obliquity means more extreme seasons in both hemispheres. The current tilt is about 23.44 degrees and decreasing.

Eccentricity Cycle (100,000 yr)

TypeVariation of Earth's orbital eccentricity
PeriodMultiple components at ~95, ~100, ~125, and ~413 kyr
PeriodicityTruly periodic (superposition of several terms)
Physical effectModulates total annual insolation and precession amplitude
Sinusoidal modelSimplification - the tool shows only the ~100 kyr component

The dominant "pacemaker" of Pleistocene glacial cycles. Earth's orbital eccentricity has multiple spectral components; the tool models only the ~100 kyr term. The "100 kyr problem" - why glacial cycles lock to the weakest Milankovitch forcing term - remains one of the major unresolved questions in paleoclimatology.

VALIDITY RANGE

Not all cycles in the tool maintain accuracy over the same timescales. The sinusoidal model diverges from reality at different rates depending on the underlying physics.

Planetary, Milankovitch, LunarTruly periodic - valid over millions of years. Orbital mechanics is well-constrained.
Hallstatt, Eddy, de VriesValid within the Holocene (~10,000 years). Large phase uncertainty beyond proxy record boundaries.
Gleissberg (88 yr)Valid ~400 years back (telescopic era), ~100 years forward. Period is loosely constrained.
Schwabe, HaleValid ~50 years back, ~20-30 years forward. Phase accumulates error within 2-3 cycles.
ENSO, PDO, AMO, Bond eventsThe sinusoidal model is a rough approximation at any timescale. These are chaotic or stochastic systems.
Chandler WobbleValid ~10 years in either direction. Amplitude is stochastically excited and varies unpredictably.

CONVERGENCE SCORE

The convergence score at any point in time is the sum of all positive-phase cycle values, weighted by the selected mode. When multiple cycles happen to be in their positive phase simultaneously, the score is high. When few are positive, the score is low.

This shows mathematical overlap, NOT physical conjunction or prediction. Superposing unrelated physical phenomena (polar wobble + orbital eccentricity + sunspot number + ENSO) has no established scientific predictive value. The cycles operate through completely different physical mechanisms at completely different scales.

Historical events overlaid on the chart are provided for context and interest. They do not imply that cycle convergence caused those events. Correlation in a chart is not causation - especially when 22 overlapping signals virtually guarantee that some cycles will be in positive phase during any historical event.

WEIGHT MODES

The tool provides four weighting modes that change how each cycle contributes to the convergence score.

Physical:Physical impactWeights cycles by their measurable physical effect on Earth. Milankovitch cycles and tidal forces score highest. Cycles with negligible physical forcing (Jupiter-Saturn conjunction, Metonic) score lowest.
Cultural:Cultural visibilityWeights cycles by how noticeable they are to human observers. Eclipses, sunspots, and ENSO score highest. Long-period Milankovitch cycles (invisible on human timescales) score lowest.
Combined:Physical + CulturalTakes the maximum of Physical and Cultural weights. A cycle matters if it has real physical forcing OR is culturally visible - whichever is greater.
Raw:Equal weightAll cycles weighted equally (1.0). Useful for seeing pure mathematical overlap without any interpretive weighting. Every cycle contributes the same amount to the convergence score.

NAVIGATION

Back to Cosmic Cycles tool  ·  Ecosystem