Writing from Australia Ian Wilson will be familiar to Talkshop regulars expounding his interest in astronomical connections with earth. He has three related recent articles and now a summary binding them together. Tim adds, the subject has a long history including false accusations of astrology by detractors; in this linked 1999 paper by a veteran scientist some of the origins and history is briefly mentioned and also that as data and computing power becomes available progress is being made. It mentions El Nino [paper see ref 1]. Strangers may need to get a conceptual understanding of the regular alignment of the earth moon and sun, where self evident effect on earth is the cyclic variation is ocean tidal height.
Over to Ian
1. A SUMMARY OF THE THREE PREVIOUS POSTS
If you are unfamiliar with this topic you may wish to read the following three post in order to understand this current covering post.
- Evidence that El Nino Events are triggered by the Moon – I
I . The Changing Aspect of the Lunar Orbit and its
Impact Upon the Earth’s Length of Day (LOD). - Evidence that El Nino Events are triggered by the Moon – II
II. Seasonal Peak Tides – The 31/62 year Perigee-Syzygy
Tidal Cycle. - Evidence that El Nino Events are triggered by the Moon – III
III. Strong El Nino Events Between 1865 and 2014.
Observations of the Earth rate of spin (i.e. LOD) show that there are abrupt decreases in the Earth’s rotation rate of the order of a millisecond that take place roughly once every 13.7 days. These slow downs in spin occur whenever the oceanic (and atmospheric) tidal bulge is dragged across the Earth’s equator by the Moon. They are produced by the conservation of total angular momentum of the Earth, its oceans and its atmosphere.
An investigation in the earlier posts revealed that:
- a) The lunar distance during its passage across the Earth’s Equator determined the size of the (13.7 day) peaks in LOD (i.e. the magnitude of the periodic slow-downs in the rate of the Earth’s rotation).
- b) The relative sizes of consecutive peaks in LOD were determined by the slow precession of the lunar line-of-apse with respect to the stars, once every 8.85 years.
- c) In the years where the lunar line-of-apse were closely aligned with the Solstices, the ratio of the peaks in LOD were close to 1.0 and in the years where the lunar line-of-apse were closely aligned with the Equinoxes, the ratio of the peaks in LOD were far from 1.0 (i.e. near either 0.5 or 2.0).
These series of posts are based upon the premise that El Nino events are triggered by a mechanism that is related to the relative strength of consecutive peaks in the Earth’s LOD (corresponding to decreases in the Earth’s rotation rate) at the same point in the seasonal calendar [2].
If this premise is valid then we should expect to see a pattern in the sequencing of El Nino events that matches that of the 31/62 year Perigee-Syzygy lunar tidal cycle. This particular long-term tidal cycle synchronizes the slow precession of the lunar line-of-apse [which governs the slow change in the Moon’s distance as it crosses the Equator] with the Synodic cycle (i.e the Moon’s phases) as well as with the seasons?
This study covers all the strong El Nino events between 1865 and 2014. A detailed investigation of the precise alignments between the lunar synodic [lunar phase] cycle and the 31/62 year Perigee-Syzygy cycle, over the time period considered, shows that it naturally breaks up six 31 year epochs each of which has a distinctly different tidal property. The second 31 year interval starts with the precise alignment on the 15th of April 1870 with the subsequent epoch boundaries occurring every 31 years
after that. : –
- Epoch 1 – Prior to 15th April 1870
- Epoch 2 – 15th April 1870 to 18th April 1901
- Epoch 3 – 8th April 1901 to 20th April 1932
- Epoch 4 – 20th April 1932 to 23rd April 1963
- Epoch 5 – 23rd April 1963 to 25th April 1994
- Epoch 6 – 25th April 1994 to 27th April 2025
Hence, if the 31/62 year seasonal tidal cycle plays a significant role in sequencing the triggering of El Nino events it would be reasonable to expect that its effects for the following three epochs:-
New Moon Epoch:
- Epoch 1 – Prior to 15th April 1870
- Epoch 3 – 8th April 1901 to 20th April 1932
- Epoch 5 – 23rd April 1963 to 25th April 1994
[That have peak seasonal tides that are dominated by new moons that are predominately in the northern hemisphere]
should be noticeably different to its effects for these three epochs:
Full Moon Epochs:
- Epoch 2 – 15th April 1870 to 18th April 1901
- Epoch 4 – 20th April 1932 to 23rd April 1963
- Epoch 6 – 25th April 1994 to 27th April 2025
[That have peak seasonal tides that are dominated by full moons that are predominately in the southern hemisphere]
2. Evidence that the Moon Triggers El Nino Events
Figure 1 (below) shows the (mean) absolute difference in lunar distance between consecutive transits of the Earth’s equator, versus the (mean) longitude of the lunar line-of-apse.
Each of the 65 data point in figure 1 represents a six month time interval, with the intervals arranged sequentially across a period that extends from June 1870 to Nov 1902. The 32 year time period chosen is assumed to be reasonably representative of the 149 year period of this study which extends from 1865 to 2014.
Shown along the bottom of figure 1 are the months in which the longitude of the lunar line-of-apse points toward the Sun. This tells us that the line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the Equinoxes when its longitudes are 0 [March] and 180 [September] degrees, and it points towards the Sun at the Solstices when its longitudes are 90 [June] and 270 [December] degrees.
Figure 1
Figure 1 (above) shows that if you were to randomly select a sample of six month time intervals during the years from 1865 to 2014, you would expect that they should (by and large) be evenly distributed along the sinusoidal shown in this plot.
Indeed, if you apply a chi squared test to the data in figure 1, based upon the null hypothesis that there is no difference between number of points within 45 degrees of the time where the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the Equinoxes, compared to the number of points within 45 degrees of the time where the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the Solstices, then you find that:
45 deg. Solstices________33 points
45 deg Equinoxes_______32 points
expected value = 32.5
total number of points n = 65
degrees of freedom = 1
chi squared = 0.015
and p = 0.902
This means that we are (most emphatically) unable to reject this null hypothesis.
El Nino Events During the Full Moon Epochs
Figure 2 (below) shows the corresponding plot for all the El Nino events that are in the Full Moon epochs of the 31/62 year Perigee/Syzygy tidal cycle i.e.
Full Moon Epochs:
- Epoch 2 – 15th April 1870 to 18th April 1901
Epoch 4 – 20th April 1932 to 23rd April 1963
Epoch 6 – 25th April 1994 to 27th April 2025
Figure 2
As with figure 1, if you apply a chi squared test to the data in figure 2, based upon the null hypothesis that there is no difference between number of points within 45 degrees of the time where the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the Equinoxes, compared to the number of points within 45 degrees of the time where the lunar
line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the Solstices, then you find that:
45 deg. Solstices________2 points
45 deg Equinoxes_______11 points
expected value = 6.5
total number of points n = 13
degrees of freedom = 1
chi squared = 6.231
and p = 0.013
This tells us that we can reject the null hypothesis.
Hence,we can conclude that there is a highly significant difference between number of points within 45 degrees of the time where the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the Equinoxes, compared to the number of points within 45 degrees of the time where the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the Solstices. The difference is such that the El Nino events in the Full Moon epochs preferentially occur near times when the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the times of the Equinoxes.
It is obvious, however, that the robustness of this claim of significance is not very strong, simply because of the small sample size. Indeed, it would only take two extra data points in the 45 deg. Solstices bin to render the result scientifically insignificant [i.e. a chi squared of 3.267 and a probability of rejecting the null hypothesis of 0.071]. Ideally, you would like to have at least double the sample size before you would be confident about the result.
El Nino Events During the New Moon Epochs
Figure 3 (below) shows the corresponding plot for all the El Nino events that are in the New Moon epochs of the 31/62 year Perigee/Syzygy tidal cycle i.e.
New Moon Epoch:
- Epoch 1 – Prior to 15th April 1870
- Epoch 3 – 8th April 1901 to 20th April 1932
- Epoch 5 – 23rd April 1963 to 25th April 1994
Figure 3
As with figure 1, if you apply a chi squared test to the data in figure 3, based upon the null hypothesis that there is no difference between number of points within 45 degrees of the time where the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the Equinoxes, compared to the number of points within 45 degrees of the time where the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the Solstices, then you find that:
45 deg. Solstices________9 points
45 deg Equinoxes_______4 points
expected value = 6.5
total number of points n = 13
degrees of freedom = 1
chi squared = 1.923
and p = 0.166
This tells us that we are unable to reject the null hypothesis. However, the El Nino event that has a mean longitude for the lunar line-of-apse of 135.45 degrees in figure 3 could technically be placed in 45 deg. Solstices bin changing the chi squared to 3.769 and the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis to the scientifically significant value of p = 0.052.
Hence,we can conclude that there is a marginally significant difference between number of points within 45 degrees of the time where the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the Equinoxes, compared to the number of points within 45 degrees of the time where the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the Solstices. The difference is such that the El Nino events in the New Moon epochs preferentially occur near times when the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the times of the Solstices.
However, just like the El Nino events in the Full Moon epochs, it is obvious that the robustness of this claim of significance is not very strong, simply because of the small sample size.
Comparing El Nino Events in the Full Moon Epochs with those in the New Moon Epochs.
Figure 4 (below) shows a histogram of the angle between the lunar line-of-nodes and the Sun’s position at the nearest solstice for all of the 26 El Nino events in the study sample. This angle by definition lies between 0 and 90 degrees.
The El Nino events have been divided into two sub-samples, consisting of those that are in the New Moon Epochs and those that are in the Full Moon epochs.
Figure 4
The question is, are the angles between the lunar line-of-nodes and the Sun’s position at the nearest Solstice for the two sub-samples drawn from the same parent population (= null hypothesis).
This can be tested by doing a two-tailed Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test[3] that compares the two sub samples.
If we define the New Moon epoch El Ninos as sample A and the Full Moon epoch El Ninos as sample B, we get:
n(A) =13
n(b) = 13
w(A) = 236
Mu(A) = 175.5
sigma(A) = 19.5
and z = (W(A) – Mu(A))/Sigma(A)
= 3.103
For a two-tailed solution this means that we reject the null hypothesis at the level of p = 0.002 – which is highly significant.
Hence, since we can say from our earlier results that: El Nino events in the Full Moon epochs preferentially occur near times when the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the times of the Equinoxes.
We can now also say that: El Nino events in the New Moon epochs must preferentially avoid times when the lunar line-of-apse points towards the Sun at the Equinoxes.
FINAL COMMENTS:
This study is still a work in progress but already we can make some interesting predictions, which if fulfilled would reinforce the claim that El Nino events are triggered by the Moon.
The first prediction is that because we are currently in a 31 year Full Moon Epoch for El Nino events. Hence, there should be heightened probability of experiencing a strong El Nino in the following years:
- 2015-2016 (see figure 1)
2019-2020 and
2024
as these are the years where the lunar line-of-apse aligns with the Sun at the times of the Equinoxes.
The second prediction is that, starting sometime around the year 2021, we should begin to see El Ninos events that are more typical of the sequencing seen for the New Moon Epochs (i.e. they will be triggered
when the line-of-apse aligns with the Sun at the times of the Solstices). These times could include:
2022-23 (?) and
2027
Of there is always the caveat that we currently moving into an extended period of low solar activity which could reduce the the overall intensity of El Nino events out to at least the mid 2030’s.
1. An older work illustrating a history in the subject, mentions El Nino
Lunar Cycles – 1999, Sanders, Prof. Emeritus Geology, Columbia Univ.
https://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/handle/1951/47766/Sanders_lunar_ms.pdf
2. [N.B. A description of how El Nino events are actually triggered by this mechanism is left to a future paper that will be submitted to a journal for peer-review.]
3. The Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test
Click to access Ch10.wilcoxon.pdf
Article reformatted for WordPress by Tim
Permission see here
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Big thanks to Ian Wilson for his dedication to advancing our knowledge in the face of ignorance and uninformed opposition.
Thanks also to Tim C for a nice formatting job on a big post.
The moon may have some influence but solar trumps it.
I like predictions let us see if it pans out. I will save this.
The first prediction is that because we are currently in a 31 year Full Moon Epoch for El Nino events. Hence, there should be heightened probability of experiencing a strong El Nino in the following years:
•2015-2016 (see figure 1)
2019-2020 and
2024
as these are the years where the lunar line-of-apse aligns with the Sun at the times of the Equinoxes.
The second prediction is that, starting sometime around the year 2021, we should begin to see El Ninos events that are more typical of the sequencing seen for the New Moon Epochs (i.e. they will be triggered
when the line-of-apse aligns with the Sun at the times of the Solstices). These times could include:
2022-23 (?) and
2027
Top heated water is an unstable stratified regime which is little researched.
I have come across research where patterns just like the ocean effects would if presented as an article head graphic would fool readers into thinking it was real. Spontaneous eruptions are a feature. I point out that many systems exist where they are highly sensitive to tiny disturbances and whoosh.
I raise the possibility that some of the big events are there because of a reduction in top heat from solar. This looks feasible during satellite era but less so before.
This does not detract at all from Ian’s work, is additional, complementary.
El Nino is synchronised with both Moon and Sun. If our solar planetary theory is correct, this means the Moon’s apsidal precession rate is influenced by other planets. It is noticeable that Ian’s 31.006yr period is close to being in a 1:3 ratio with the 10.38yr JEV period identified by Ray Tomes and independently determined by Ian himself in his earlier paper co-authored with Waite.
It is also in a very approximate 3:1 ratio with the period of the Gleissberg cycle and approximate 6:1 ratio with the Jose cycle.
This is indeed a courageous prediction (2015-2016 equinox), thank you Ian Wilson and team tallbloke.
Chaeremon: Not necessarily at equinox.
@tallbloke (November 15, 2014 at 6:14 pm) but Ian says so in his Final Comments.
What do you mean? equinoxes (somehow near) in plural is O.K. for 2 years 2015-2016.
?
Thank you Tim for pulling out all the stops and getting this post up. You are one of the unsung heroes of this ongoing adventure. Superb job!
Thank you Rog for hosting a forum that is open to new and potentially interesting thoughts and ideas. It takes great courage to maintain an environment that allows people to safely question the supposedly sacrosanct scientific ideas of our times.
# Salvatore Del Prete: The Sun is the driving engine of the El Nino. It heats the top few hundred meters of the Eastern Pacific ocean during La Nina events – recharges the energy in the battery that powers the next El Nino.
# Salvatore – Yes, I am sticking my head out fro the simple reason, that if I am right, the
2015-2016 event will have potentially devastating effect all around the Pacific basin.
Another unfortunate side-effect of this El Nino event could be a temporary warming of
the Earth that would re-fire the religious zeal of the true-belivers.
# Salvatore – Here is my comment on my own blog post about the predictions that I have made:
It is interesting to note that the 9 year sequencing of El Nino events in the New Moon Epoch that ended around 1994 i.e.
[“The El Nino’s that occurred in 1982-83, 1991-92 and the missing El Nino in 2000-2001,
reappears as an El Nino event around 2009-10.
Hence, it is possible for one or two El Ninos, that you would normally expect to occur in the New Moon tidal epoch, to linger into the following Full Moon tidal epoch (i.e from 1994 to 2025).
Thus there is always a possibility that we would get the following 9 year sequence of El Nino:
1982-83
1991-92
2000-01 – missing
2009-10
around 2018.
Since we know so little about this potential triggering mechanism – anything is possible at this stage.”]
# Rog: This may not be a new idea for you and Oldbrew, but I noticed that:
3/5 th the Perigee Syzygy cycle = Draconic Cycle
31.0 years x 3/5 = 18.6 year
I think this might be useful to someone who can think in 3-dimensions and who has a
sharper brain than my rusty old central processor.
# Tim: Thank you for the historical article – The Lunar/planetary model has many pioneers.
Do you really think we will have a “Strong” El Nino in 2015/16 with the Sun going quieter?
Bloody hell and I always thought that strong El Nino events are triggered by climate scientists.
IW: yes I was aware of the 93 year 3:5 split you referred to.
At 1767 years there are 93 Metonic cycles and 95 x 18.6 years.
Around 1768 years = 89 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions.
# Oldbrew: You’ll have to forgive me but this still fascinates me.
Mean values:
Sidereal month = 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11.6 seconds = 27.321662 days
Synodic month = 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 2.9 seconds = 29.530589 days
Sidereal year = 365.256363 days
The Metonic cycle is a commensurability between the synodic period (i.e. the relative movement of the Moon about the Earth with respect to the Sun) and the sidereal orbital period of the Earth about the Sun.
19 sidereal years / 1.0 Synodic month = 235.006
((19 x 365.256363 days) / 29.53058885 days) = 235.00617(9)
19 sidereal years / 1.0 Sidereal month = 254.006
((19 x 365.256363 days) / 29.321662 days) = 254.00617(6)
In other words, the Moon does 254 orbits of the Earth with respect to the stars while the Earth does 19.0 orbits of the Sun with respect to the stars.
Nearest Fibonacci numbers:
19 = 21 – 2
235 = 233 +2
254 = 233 + 21
A C Osborn:
I refer you to the last two lines of my post:
Of [course] there is always the caveat that we
[are] currently moving into an extended period
of low solar activity which could reduce the the
overall intensity of El Nino events out to at least
the mid 2030’s.
@ Chaeremon says at November 15, 2014 at 6:40 pm
Referring to figure 1 in the main cover page (i.e. the re-blogged post above)
The mean longitude of the lunar line-of-apse (averaged over a six month period)
moves from left to right across the diagram at roughly 20.34 degrees per six months
of time.
This means that it takes 8.85 years (the Cycle of Lunar Perigee) to
cross the diagram once from left to right.
Chaeremon – marked on figure 2 above is the Moon’s position for the 6 month
period centred on March 2015. Imagine it moving at 40.68 degrees in longitude
of the lunar line-of-apse (the value on the x axis) towards the right.
This should give you some idea how long the Moon hangs within +/- 45 degrees
of a given canonical point (e.g. the march equinox which is at 0.0/360.0 degrees).
It can’t be any more than +/- 1.0 years. Hence the 2015-2016 prediction.
Note how close we are to replicating the conditions in 1997. This is because:
1997 + 18 years = 2015
OldBrew: It just occurred to me that connection between the Fibonacci numbers
and the matching of two orbital periods may boil down to an intrinsic property of
Fibonacci numbers (i.e. how they connected by addition and subtraction) and
circular motion.
e.g.
Nearest Fibonacci numbers:
19 = 21 – 2
235 = 233 +2
254 = 233 + 21
@Ian Wilson (November 16, 2014 at 1:01 am):
Yes, I know that X + Saros = virtually the same situation (plus a small shift) but not so for the line-of-apse and line-of-nodes.
B.t.w. It seems my use of ‘courageous’ has a negative connotation in English? This was not intended, instead I can’t wait until the 2015-2016 equinoces arrive, in the positive sense 🙂
Re. Metonic. This cycle has not [so] much to do with cyclicality of nodes or apse. In my approach I use:
10 x revolutions (line-of-nodes) = 21 x revolutions (line-of-apse) = 186 yrs (wrote this @oldbrew some time ago). Note that 7 is also factor, not just 3 and 5.
This relation covers 6 times your 31 yrs cycle, and there is at least 1 month at both intervals ends where syzygy + nodes + apse + seasons are in same phase (i.e. near the same stellar station).
This relation holds good for circa 1 millennium (until the 930th year) with 50 x LNC = 105 x LAC.
Chaeremon: Courageous is fine. As I understand Ian’s proposition, the next notable El Nino will occur in 2015-2016, but not necessarily starting, finishing or peaking at an equinox. The equinox is just a marker which is used to ‘bin’ the data for analysis. Is that right Ian?
Your 930yr cycle is of note. This is close to the period proposed by P.A. Semi as the primary period for the cycle of angular momentum in the solar system.
Chaeremon,
If you have ever had the chance to watch “Yes Minister” and “Yes Prime Minister” you will get a good idea of English meaning of word “courageous” when it comes to decision making, particularly political decision making. However, I got your meaning and I’m encouraged that someone else has the fingers crossed for my 2015-2016 prediction as well.
You make the important point that there is a 186 year cycle that governs the alignment of the lunar line-of-nodes and the lunar Perigee/Syzygy lunar cycle i.e.
10 x 18.6 year (Draconic cycle) = 6 x 31 year (Perigee/Syzygy cycle) = 186 years
However, the 8.8506 year lunar line-of-apse cycle slowly drifts with respect to the above cycles.
21 x 8.8501 year (Line-of-apse cycle) = 185.8542 years
I hope to be able to say something soon about this commensurability:
50 x LNC = 930 years
105 x LAC = 929.3 years
Rog,
Yes you are correct – During the period covering the years 2015 and start of 2016, the slowly drifting lunar line-of-apse will be pointing at the Sun near the time of the March Equinox. It is during those years (and not necessarily at the time of March Equinox) that I predict the El Nino event will start.
IW says: ‘Synodic month = 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 2.9 seconds = 29.530589 days
Sidereal year = 365.256363 days’
So 160 sidereal years = 1979 synodic months
Also: ’10 x 18.6 year (Draconic cycle) = 3 x 31 year (Perigee/Syzygy cycle) = 186 years’
Typo: should be 6 x 31
I corrected Ian’s typo. A while back I found a direct commensurability between one of the Moon’s evection anomalies and Jupiter’s orbit. I think the reason the Moon’s cycles don’t line up more exactly with Venus and Jupiter cycles is because it was perturbed by the cataclysm posited bt Tom van Flandern which occurred several million years ago.
IW says: ‘Nearest Fibonacci numbers:
19 = 21 – 2
235 = 233 +2
254 = 233 + 21’
—————
235 x 21 = 987 x 5
987 is a Fibonacci number.
987 x 5 synodic months = 399 years = 21 x 19.
‘At 1767 years there are 93 Metonic cycles and 95 x 18.6 years’ – earlier comment.
1767 x 7 = 399 x 31
Lunar Draconic Month = 27.212221 days
so node every 27.212221 / 2 = 13.6061105 days
Terrestrial Tropical year = 365.242189 days
harmonic nearest 13.6061105 days:
365.242189 / 27 = 13.52748848 days
beat:
(13.6061105)*(13.52748848) / (13.6061105 – 13.52748848)
= 2341.029988 days
(2341.029988) / 365.242189 = 6.409527865 tropical years
That’s near-resonance with the solar system (both inner & outer).
I’ve pointed this out countless times since Piers Corbyn first woke me up to this several years ago. It’s plain as day in annual aliases of the lunar nodal cycle via NASA Horizons. There seems to be a very strong progress-limiting resistance to broader awareness of this in the solar-climate discussion community.
Thanks Paul. That sounds like a better solution.
Meeus, J.; & Savoie, D. (1992). The history of the tropical year. Journal of the British Astronomical Association 102(1), 40-42.
365.242374 Between two Northward equinoxes 6.4100865
365.241626 Between two Northern solstices 6.407828404
365.242018 Between two Southward equinoxes 6.409011593
365.24274 Between two Southern solstices 6.411191977
Very interesting study Ian, sorry if the translation is not good, but I’m Spanish and my English is not very good.
I made NIÑO analysis from 1541 to the present, a total of 63 events NIÑO, based on degrees declination of the moon, and no NIÑO event has been present in the Central Pacific when the moon reaches its minimum declination will happen March 2015 and September 2015.
It is, but during lunar declination minimum 18º’20 and 18º’14 is not favorable for the NIÑO circulate through the Central Pacific.
Of the 63 events NIÑO I have analyzed, none have been present in the Pacific during these grades lunar declination.
If you can develop events NIÑO 3 times of the 63 events that have analyzed, the year before the moon reaches those grades lunar declination.
And you can also develop events NIÑO 4 times of the 63 events that I have analyzed, the year after the moon has gone from those degrees minimum lunar declination.
Also no weak NIÑO event, as we have now, (November 16, 2014) has come to be in the month that the moon reaches its minimum declination.
Moreover, if there is a high correlation during periods of peak Lunar declination, ie 28º’72 maximum declination is circulating in the Central Pacific NIÑO event.
No I want to say to all this that his theory is correct, I will study it because it is very interesting.
I hope you do not mind, my explanation is only part of the research I am conducting with ENSO NIÑO, and degrees of declination of the Moon.
So I think in March 2015 and September 2015 will not have ENSO NIÑO in the Central Pacific.
Greetings Empar.
PV: ‘That’s near-resonance with the solar system (both inner & outer)’
110 x 6.409527865 tropical years = 441 Venus-Earth conjunctions
(110 = 55 x 2, 441 = 21²)
6.409527865 tropical years x 21 x 5 = 673 tropical years (21 x 32, +1)
Empar Landete,
The beauty of a scientific hypothesis is that is must be compared with observational evidence. Thank you for sharing you alternative hypothesis with us. Time will tell if either of our ideas has any merit.
I would be interested to know what the lunar declination was around May 1997 as it
should be very similar to the declination at 1997.33 + 18.60 years = 2015.93 – that should be in November- December next year.
‘in February 1997, the moon’s nodes had moved westwards from their positions in Figure 2, and lay exactly on the equinoxes. As a result, the moon’s motion in declination was reduced to its minimum, between +18.3 degrees and -18.3 degrees; this is what Thom calls a minor standstill.’
‘The next minor standstill is in October 2015’
http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~fv/sky/standstill.html
Thanks Ian, to accept that there may be alternative ideas.
Ian As you say time will tell whether our theories can be successful, because his theory is on the line of the apses of the moon, and my theory is the degrees of the lunar declination. Which means they can be complementary theories.
You ask me about the lunar declination degree in May 1997:
On 10 -05-1997 Moon was at 18º’33 N
and day 24-05 – 1997 Moon was at – 18º’40 S.
On March 16, 1997 had reached its minimum declination 18º’14 N.
On March 26th 2015, the Moon will arrive at least a first decline 18º’24 N.
On 21 September 2015 the Moon will be at minimum declination 18º S ’14. To then up in the cycle.
On 15 November 2015 the Moon will be at 18º ’34 S.
On November 27th 2015 the moon will be 18º’39 N.
On December 12th 2015 the moon will be 18º’44 S
On 25 December 2015 the Moon will be at 18 ° 45 N
I note that the data of May 1997 are almost the same as in November 2015, only 18.6 years have past, a Metonic cycle.
And in May 1997 began a ENSO NIÑO event in the Central Pacific.
Did you know that in the month of November 2015 we have another in the Central Pacific ENSO NIÑO Think?
For grades coincide lunar declination of May 1997, which began ENSO NIÑO, and now we are in November 2015 in the same grades you can start another ENSO NIÑO … ..
In fact there are ENSO NIÑO that began with the Moon 18º’39 but following the moon was at a low declination year. Not in the same year.
It will be very interesting to observe how both investigations are ongoing.
Regards Empar
I can’t say that I’m impressed much. “El Nino event” doesn’t mean a lot because the Southern Oscillation Index is a continuous range or values and researchers have somewhat arbitrarily said that the SOI averaging above a certain SOI figure for a certain amount of time is labelled an El niNo event or, in the opposite direction, a La Nina event. It could well be that the ENSO would have fallen just short of one of these states and Lunar forces pulled it over the line, or that ENSO was just over the line and lunar forces made it a stronger, hence a “strong El nino event”.
Wilson would probably be better to focus on the SOI value, either US or Troup, rather than some “event”. The US Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) covers more elements than the Troup SOI which is based only on atmospheric pressure in two locations.
Further, one has to be very careful, about what is cause and what is effect. Instead of assuming that winds drive ENSO conditions maybe look it as a pool of warm surface water that would cause convection and therefore cause certain winds. Is the wind really pushing the ocean water and piling it up in the western Pacific or it is that the western pacific is warm and the thermal expansion of water causes the local rise in sea level?
jdmcl,
The start of an El Nino event is determined from the Bivariate EnSo Time Series (BEST) index. This index effectively combines the atmospheric component of the ENSO (i.e. the SOI index) with the oceanic component (i.e Nino 3.4 SST anomaly index). If you are not happy with that you be taking it up with the people that created this index:
Smith, C.A. and P. Sardeshmukh – The Effect of ENSO on the Intraseasonal Variance of Surface Temperature in Winter., International J. of Climatology, 2000, 20 1543-1557.
Ref: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/cathy.smith/best/
If the Moon is only dragging an already pre-existing El Nino condition over the threshold
then it is doing it virtually every case because the sample involved includes virtually every recognized
strong El Nino event [as measured by BOTH the SOI and Nino 3.4 indices] between 1865 and 2014.
In my own experience the MEI index is not very good at identifying the strength of El Nino events. The SOI and Nino 3.4 are a direct measure of the existing conditions in the Pacific basin
where as the MEI index is really a proxy that was designed to measure those conditions when
direct observations were unavailable.
Nowhere in my analysis have I assumed that the winds on their own cause El Nino’s. In fact ,
I have used the BEST index to delineate and El Nino event for the very reason that these events are part of a coupled oceanic and atmospheric phenomenon known as the ENSO.
Ian Wilson (November 17, 2014 at 12:35 pm) wrote:
“The SOI and Nino 3.4 are a direct measure of the existing conditions in the Pacific basin
where as the MEI index is really a proxy that was designed to measure those conditions when
direct observations were unavailable.”
That’s not the MEI I know. Something’s wrong here. MEI subsumes the BEST described here and it’s not a proxy. Be aware that there are 2 MEIs. It appears we’ll have to be more careful with definitions to avoid misunderstandings.
I should clarify further:
It’s easy to devise several MEIs beyond the 2 commonly mentioned in solar-climate discussions. There’s nothing official about the 2 commonly referenced MEIs. They were simply the 2 chosen to be shared by the author. An observation that one MEI or another has or does not have this or that feature does not necessarily extend to MEIs more generally.
The officially sanctioned MEI’s (or Multivariate ENSO Indices) are an amalgam of various indicators of the ENSO state. The parameters that are chosen are designed to be sensitive to the presence of (generally agreed upon) El Nino conditions, as defined for the instrumental era.
Here is the definition given by NOAA:
“The Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) is based upon six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific. These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C). These observations have been collected and published in ICOADS for many years. The MEI is computed separately for each of twelve sliding bi-monthly seasons (Dec/Jan, Jan/Feb,…, Nov/Dec). After spatially filtering the individual fields into clusters (Wolter, 1987), the MEI is calculated as the first un-rotated Principal Component (PC) of all six observed fields combined. This is accomplished by normalizing the total variance of each field first, and then performing the extraction of the first PC on the co-variance matrix of the combined fields (Wolter and Timlin, 1993). In order to keep the MEI comparable, all seasonal values are standardized with respect to each season and to the 1950-93 reference period.”
Ref: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
The index is available for the period from 1950 to November 2014. An extended version o the MEI Index is available at:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/index.html
Paul said:
“It appears we’ll have to be more careful with definitions to avoid misunderstandings:”
I agree with you 100 % and so I will clarify my comments.
The MEI is clearly defined as an amalgam of six indices which are available after 1950. It is extended back to earlier dates (i.e. 1871) by including a fixed subset of these six indices, since not all are
available prior to this date.
All six indices are chosen because of their sensitivity in to ENSO like conditions to various degrees.
The MEI implicitly assumes that the sensitivity of each of the indices remains the same over the period of time that is being considered. In reality, the sensitivity of these indices is calibrated upon the period between 1950 and 1993. Hence, by definition, the extended MEI is a PROXY extension of this assumption back to dates prior to 1950.
My beef with the extended MEI – particular with the attempts by Gergis et al. to extend it prior to the start of sea-surface temperature and pressure records in the 1860’s and 1870’s. Even a cursory comparison with this extended Index shows huge disparities between what the MEI regards as as STRONG El Nino event and what the historical records show.
This makes me tad suspicious of the extended MEI’s ability to determine the real (relative) strength of historical El Nino events prior to 1865.
Paul,
The main reason that I use the BEST Index rather than the extended MEI (post 1871), is the fact that the former is monthly, while the later is bi monthly. Given that I am trying to determine the starting point of historical El Nino events, the BEST gives the best time resolution for the problem at hand.
To be honest, even if I had used the extended MEI index it would have made little difference
to the final result.
Regardless of the Index you use, you still talk about ENSO events. As I said earlier, you shouldn’t talk in terms of such an artificial construct. You’d be better to refer to specific threshold values that you adopt for your discussion.
Also, I see no issue with the possibility that Lunar forces have added to the situation. The LoD has been explored for years and the fact that the LoD increases with “bulging” ocean is nothing new. The late John Daly’s web site, still being updated I believe, has or had articles about it and its possible relationship to ENSO.
Can’t wait ! to read .this when l have time in the coming days
My initial thoughts on predictions l caught a glimpse of..from Ian
The last cold PDO phase spawned zero ..strong …El Ninos. and we are in a cold phase of the ~60-70 yr cycle of the PDO. ( the current warm PDO is an embedded anomaly)
I recently learnt a lesson of sampling .. You can get data matches that align and come to conclusions but as the time series extends these alignments can shift. within thresholds.
How is the moon linked to PDO phases may l ask IAN?
What interests me many orders of magnitude more than ENSO is the thing ENSO bounces around, but that’s a subject for another conversation…
Wolter’s extended MEI is monthly resolution (12 per year) of bimonthly summaries and it’s not based on any assumptions about post-1950 but rather on observations (no proxy) of SST & SLP at the times recorded, so I conclude that some kind of misunderstanding remains at play in this discussion. Wolter’s “extended MEI” is technically a misnomer, as it’s not actually an extension of Wolter’s original MEI, but rather another MEI based on a subset of indices.
As far as I’m concerned the nature of the misunderstanding here is actually inconsequential:
The important thing to note as anyone develops dozens of MEIs from scratch is that they’re all basically the same because stuff’s coupled. I don’t have any issue with the index Ian chose, nor do I have any issues with Wolter’s seminal MEIs. Rather I’m encouraging everyone to develop dozens of MEIs independently from scratch as such an exercise encourages sober open perspective. I don’t regard any MEI as “official” and I don’t regard any agency as having the authority to declare any MEI as such.
Best Regards
I should clarify that BEST is an MEI.
Ian . I am up to part 2 of your summary and have noted the following alignment with your epochs
quote from Ian
A detailed investigation of the precise
alignments between the lunar synodic [lunar phase] cycle
and the 31/62 year Perigee-Syzygy cycle, over the time
period considered, shows that it naturally breaks-up
into six 31 year epochs each of which has a distinctly
different tidal property”…
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/evidence-that-strong-el-nino-events-are_11.html
Ian
Your epochs
Epoch 2 – 15th April 1870 to 18th April 1901
Epoch 3 – 8th April 1901 to 20th April 1932
Epoch 4 – 20th April 1932 to 23rd April 1963
Epoch 5 – 23rd April 1963 to 25th April 1994
Epoch 6 – 25th April 1994 to 27th April 2025
are ~aligned with the JUpiter /saturn beat of 60.9 yr as pe rTom Mangos calculations he gave me
and aligns with Jupiter saturn beat + 0-2yrs during this time period
Jupiter/saturn beat 60.9 yr ( source tom mango)
peak 1872 .. ( 2 yrs into epoch 2)
trough 1902 ( 1 yr into epoch 3 )
peak 1933 ( 1 yr into epoch 4 )
trough 1963 ( right on time)
peak 1994 ( right on time)
Ian said
….” In addition,
it turns out that almost all of these strong tidal events (both
new and full moon) occur in the southern hemisphere.
The pattern that is seen in the seasonal peak tidal events
in epoch 2 (i.e. in figure 6) are also repeated in epochs 4″
and 6.”
—————
wc says
your Epoch 2, 4 and 6 are located in the descending peak to trough phases of the J_S 60.9yr beat
This also coincided with the cooling phases of the AMO but this link could be coincidental as the J_ S 60.9 yr beat shifts in realtion the the AMO/globaltemp ~ 66 yr cycle
I find it interesting that DECEMBER and APRIL are key change over period ( new/full moon marked by your blue and red ink on the circle graph)in your EPOCH mapping
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/evidence-that-strong-el-nino-events-are_11.html
December is often the peak of an ENSO event and l think April/May is the predictability marker for forecasts?
I have some SOI /ENSO graphs that show in fact December and APRIL /MAY are key months for what l termed decision making months. A point at which a bi modal switch goes either SOI POS or NEG. I will try to dig those up for you
Find enclosed SOI time series showing the annual SOI cycle
Bi Modal switching . Noting the critical switch points in the annual cycle
Note the importance of the solstices Dec/Jan July and March/April
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/ENSO#6028440287020032482
TB says: ‘I think the reason the Moon’s cycles don’t line up more exactly with Venus and Jupiter cycles is because it was perturbed by the cataclysm posited by Tom van Flandern which occurred several million years ago.’
The 8.85~ year lunar line of apse cycle lines up with 36 Jupiter-Mercury conjunctions.
1440 J-Me = 354.00657 years = 129301 days
40 lunar @ 8.8504y = 354.016y = 129304 days
(40 x 36 = 1440)
Every 240 J-Me takes just over 59 years (59.0011) and 59 x 6 = 354 years plus 2-3 days.
Ian said
“The first prediction is that because we are currently in a 31 year Full Moon Epoch for El Nino events.”
————-
I need more convincing that we are in an El nino dominant phase since 1994
SOI cumulative epochs suggest not
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/ENSO#6026970273621348882
ONI time series.suggest not. Not convinced we are in a El Nino dominant phase
PDO cycle currently in ~33 yr cool phase
although l have never checked out BEST
Ocean and atmosphere coupling is crucial
Do you have a BEST time series
Some one who might agree with you is RWM who isforecasting a repeat pattern
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/ENSO#5933820519746654530
1882 and 2003 are both comparable epochs in your model.. ( both the commencement of full moon epochs)
2003- 1882 = 120 yrs
120 / 30 yrs = 4 moon epochs/(Jupiter/saturn beat phase)
creepy !!
Paul at November 18, 2014 at 5:09 am
Paul, I think we are in almost complete agreement on this. Thank you for your comments. Always good to hear from you.
Weathercycles said:
[Ian] I need more convincing that we are in an El nino dominant phase since 1994.
Weathercycles,
Full and New Moon epochs are not necessarily associated with El Nino and
La Nino dominated epochs, though I believe that these may also last for the 31 year half
Perigee/Syzygy lunar cycle.
A Full Moon Epoch just represents a 31 year period in which the strongest
two or three tides for any given month in the seasonal calendar are mostly full moons that
occur at or south of the Equator.
Similarly, a Full New Epoch just represents a 31 year period in which the strongest
two or three tides for any given month in the seasonal calendar are mostly new moons that
occur at or north of the Equator.
You are right in pointing out that we had a ~ 30 year period (from 1970 to 2000) where the frequency/intensity of El Ninos dominated over La Ninas. You are also correct in pointing
out that we have entered a ~ 30 year period (from 2000 to 2030) where the frequency/intensity of La Ninas dominated over El Ninos.
It would appear that the boundaries that I have found for the Full and New Moon epochs are six years earlier (1970 –> 1964 where we enter a New Moon Epoch, 2000 –> 1994 where we enter a Full Moon epoch and 2030–> 2024 where again enter a New Moon Epoch).
I think that the six year delay between a flip from a New to Full (or vice versa) epoch to a flip in the frequency of El Ninos and La Ninas may be just caused by the six thermal lag of the oceans.
Weathercycles said:
“Some one who might agree with you is RWM who is forecasting a repeat pattern”
Here is my ~ 9 year year cycle in each corresponding epoch:
A. Full Moon Epochs
1st FULL MOON EPOCH [1870 to 1901]
1877-88 –> 1888-89 –> 1896-97 –> 1905-06 with 1899-1900 as a half cycle
2nd FULL MOON EPOCH [1932 to 1963]
1940-41 –> 1951-52 (weak) –> 1963-64 (weak) with 1957-58 as a half cycle
3rd FULL MOON EPOCH [1993-94 to 2024-25]
1997-98 –> 2006 –>. 2015-16 –> 2024-25 with 2019-20 as a possible half cycle.
B. New Moon Epochs
1st NEW MOON EPOCH [1901 to 1932]
1902-03 –> 1911-12 –> 1918-19 –> 1931-31 with 1925-26 as a half cycle
2nd NEW MOON EPOCH [1963 to 1993-94]
1965-66 –> 1972-73 –> 1982-83 –> 1991-92 with 1987-88 as a half cycle.
John McLean said:
“Regardless of the Index you use, you still talk about ENSO events. As I said earlier, you shouldn’t talk in terms of such an artificial construct. You’d be better to refer to specific threshold values that you adopt for your discussion.”
First, welcome aboard John it always good to get the opinion of a respected pioneer in this field.
You have done a considerable amount of work to highlight how the variation in the frequency and intensity of El Nino and La Nina events potentially influences the world’s mean temperature.
My comments:
Point taken – I think you will find that the rough equivalent is that for the 133 Januaries, the 133 Februaries, the 133 Marches, etc between 1871 and 2005, the extended MEI ranking for each of my El Nino events are those months in a particular year that are between the 105th and 133th strongest MEI index for that month.
ref: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/rank.ext.html
I am more interesting in determining the rough starting month of the El Nino event.
I choose a six month window centered on this starting month to characterize the
lunar conditions that existed at the start of the event.
Yes, John Daley was another pioneer in this field. However, I think that I am being a little
more specific than he is concerning the possible lunar tidal mechanism that might be involved
and I am certainly being more specific when it comes to the prediction of these events.
@Ian who wrote: I think that the six year delay between a flip from a New to Full (or vice versa) epoch to a flip in the frequency of El Ninos and La Ninas may be just caused by the six thermal lag of the oceans.
The nodes and apse (revolving against each other) meet again every 6th year, that are 2190.34347 days mean. I think your observation of a physical phenomenon recurring at this rate deserves more attention, eg. if the oceanic lag you mentioned may rather be the effect.
Ian already has certain bases covered here so rather than aiming to deliver duplication of services (an inefficient division of labor, which is in deathly short supply), I’ll resume exploration of NASA Horizons lunar patterns aiming to supply complementary observations. I began such exploration about a month ago but got sidetracked by curiosity about HL Tauri gap spacing. By the way I have a new HL Tauri gap spacing model beyond the last one I shared, but I’m not going to bother summarizing it as my interest is now drifting elsewhere and time will always be in too short supply to do everything.
One thing I’ll probably do is graph the 6.4 year lunar pattern in NASA Horizons output, as I see this as something the community needs to face and acknowledge. It’s obvious that the majority of solar-climate commentators can’t even imagine it possible to get 6.4 from 18.6. Well, bluntly, this failure needs correction and less delay is better than more. If people keep failing on something this clear cut and simple, we might as well just close shop and take up new, completely unrelated hobbies. It’s a busy week, so it may take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to organize appropriate graphics.
Regards
NASA Horizons Chandler/QBO/polar motion Tip:
=
Ephemeris Type : VECTORS
Target Body : Moon [Luna] [301]
Coordinate Origin : Geocentric [500]
Time Span : Start=1580-01-01, Stop=2120-01-01, Step=1 Y
Table Settings : CSV format=YES
Display/Output : plain text
*******************************************************************************
Revised: Mar 11, 1998 Moon / (Earth) 301
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES:
Radius, km = 1737.53+-0.03 Mass, 10^20 kg = 734.9
Density, gm cm^-3 = 3.3437 Geometric albedo = 0.12
V(1,0) = +0.21 GM, km^3/s^2 = 4902.798+-.005
Earth/Moon mass ratio = 81.300587 Surface gravity = 1.62 m s^-2
Nearside crust. thick.= 58+-8 km Farside crust. thick. = ~80 – 90 km
Heat flow, Apollo 15 = 3.1+-.6 mW/m^2 Heat flow, Apollo 17 = 2.2+-.5 mW/m^2
Mean crustal density = 2.97+-.07g/cm^3 k2 = 0.0302+-.0012
Induced magnetic mom. = 4.23×10^22Gcm^3 Magnetometer moment = 435+-15
DYNAMICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Mean angular diameter = 31’05.2″ Orbit period = 27.321582 d
Obliquity to orbit = 6.67 deg Eccentricity = 0.05490
Semi-major axis, a = 384400 km Inclination = 5.145 deg
Mean motion, rad/s = 2.6616995×10^-6 Nodal period = 6798.38 d
Apsidal period = 3231.50 d Mom. of inertia C/MR^2= 0.3935+-.0011
beta (C-A/B), x10^-4 = 6.31(72+-15) gamma (B-A/C), x10^-4 = 2.278(8+-2)
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
Ephemeris / WWW_USER Fri Oct 10 22:14:56 2014 Pasadena, USA / Horizons
*******************************************************************************
Target body name: Moon (301) {source: DE-0431LE-0431}
Center body name: Earth (399) {source: DE-0431LE-0431}
Center-site name: BODY CENTER
*******************************************************************************
Start time : A.D. 1580-Jan-01 00:00:00.0000 CT
Stop time : A.D. 2120-Jan-01 00:00:00.0000 CT
Step-size : 1 calendar years
*******************************************************************************
Center geodetic : 0.00000000,0.00000000,0.0000000 {E-lon(deg),Lat(deg),Alt(km)}
Center cylindric: 0.00000000,0.00000000,0.0000000 {E-lon(deg),Dxy(km),Dz(km)}
Center radii : 6378.1 x 6378.1 x 6356.8 km {Equator, meridian, pole}
Output units : AU-D
Output format : 03
Reference frame : ICRF/J2000.0
Output type : GEOMETRIC cartesian states
Coordinate systm: Ecliptic and Mean Equinox of Reference Epoch
*******************************************************************************
JDCT , , X, Y, Z, VX, VY, VZ, LT, RG, RR,
*******************************************************************************
$$SOE
$$EOE
*******************************************************************************
Coordinate system description:
Ecliptic and Mean Equinox of Reference Epoch
Reference epoch: J2000.0
xy-plane: plane of the Earth’s orbit at the reference epoch
x-axis : out along ascending node of instantaneous plane of the Earth’s
orbit and the Earth’s mean equator at the reference epoch
z-axis : perpendicular to the xy-plane in the directional (+ or -) sense
of Earth’s north pole at the reference epoch.
Symbol meaning [1 au=149597870.700 km, 1 day=86400.0 s]:
JDCT Epoch Julian Date, Coordinate Time
X x-component of position vector (AU)
Y y-component of position vector (AU)
Z z-component of position vector (AU)
VX x-component of velocity vector (AU/day)
VY y-component of velocity vector (AU/day)
VZ z-component of velocity vector (AU/day)
LT One-way down-leg Newtonian light-time (day)
RG Range; distance from coordinate center (AU)
RR Range-rate; radial velocity wrt coord. center (AU/day)
Geometric states/elements have no aberration corrections applied.
Computations by …
Solar System Dynamics Group, Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Information: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/
Connect : telnet://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov:6775 (via browser)
telnet ssd.jpl.nasa.gov 6775 (via command-line)
Author : Jon.Giorgini@jpl.nasa.gov
*******************************************************************************
=
As the chart sent by Weather Cycles suggest La Nina /cold PDO which has been more prevalent recently should continue to dominate going forward.
The PDO if it stays in a cold phase should not make El Nino’s that common.
“Z z-component of position vector (AU)”
annually aliases 2, 2, 3 pattern at 6.4 year spacing giving QBO/Chandler average.
I’ll regard with suspicion anyone unwilling to acknowledge this.
direction:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
Regards
PV: the nodal period works out to 695 in 12936 years.
12936 = 1617y x 8 = 160000 lunations (rounded up).
1617y = 19999.9914 lunations
12936 offers plenty of scope for shorter periods in years as it breaks down to:
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 21, 22, 24, 28, 33, 42, 44, 49, 56, 66, 77, 84, 88, 98, 132, 147, 154, 168, 196, 231, 264, 294, 308, 392, 462, 539, 588, 616, 924, 1078, 1176, 1617, 1848, 2156, 3234, 4312, 6468, 12936
http://www.free-online-calculator-use.com/online-factoring-calculator.html#calculator
Paul,
I have done everything that you have described above and I have plotted out Z z component versus time. A quick and dirty spectral analysis shows the following periods that seem to apply to you
thesis:
[N.B. Here is a little background first:
Period of the Chandler wobble = beat period of 6.4 years with the Earth’s year
_________________________= 1.1852 years = 432.90 Sidereal days.
For simplicity of argument I will round everything to one decimal place
so this becomes 1.2 years. Multiples of 1.2 years include: 1.2, 2.4. 3.6, 4.8, 6.0, 7.2 and 8.4 years.]
It is important to note, however, that the following observed spectral periods are almost all exact
multiples of 1.1852 and not 1.2.]
The spectral analysis shows (in order of strength) peaks at :
a) 2 x 1.2 years = 2.4 years – a very strong peak
b) 5 x 1.2 years = 6.0 years
c) a cluster of three peaks near 3.1 years
d) 2 x 6.4 years = 12.8 years
e) 2 x 7 x 1.2 years = 8.4 years = 16.8 years
The doubling is understandable since the minimum period, set by the 1.0 year sampling, is 2.0 years, and most of the power is at the 1.1852 year Chandler Wobble period.
Hence, I presume that you are saying that an aliasing (or sampling) of a signal exhibiting a period equal to that of the Chandler Wobble (i.e. 1.1852 years) naturally links to a 6.4 year modulation period which in turn links the planetary synchronization period of 6.4 years. Of course, the signal (exhibiting a period equal to the Chandler Wobble) that you are referring to is the Z motion of the Moon with respect to the plane of the ecliptic.
As a first approximation you might expect the Z motion of the long term motion of the Moon with respect to the plane of the ecliptic to be primarily dominated by the 18.6 year Draconic cycle.
However, this data analysis seems to indicate that it is driven at multiples of the period of the Chandler Wobble, with particular emphasis on:
a) 2 x Chandler Wobble = 2.370 years (rounded to 2.4 years) = QBO Oscillation period
b) 5 x Chandler Wobble = 5.926 years (rounded to 6.0 years) = near the 6.0 year realignment
__________________________________________________ of the line-of-nodes and the
__________________________________________________line-of-apse of the Moon.
when it comes to a process (e.g. the Earth’s climate) that samples this wobble of the lunar orbit on a seasonal annual basis.
Finally, is this the connection between 18.6 and 6.0 years that you are hinting at?
31.0 year Perigee-Syzygy cycle for realignment of the lunar line of apse with the Synodic cycle
18.6 year cycle for tilt of the lunar orbit with respect to the plane of the ecliptic
6.00 year cycle for the realignment of the lunar line-of-nodes with the lunar line-of-apse
31 x 6.0 years = 186.0 year
6 x 31.0 years = 186.0 years
10 x 18.6 years = 186.0 years
Venus-Mercury conjunctions might rate a mention here:
47 Ve-Me = 18.6026y and 3 Ve-Me = 433.7 days = ~1 Chandler Wobble
Ian,
Alert: The envelope has 6.4 (not 6.0) year period.
I summarized Piers Corbyn’s insight on p.14 here when my solar-climate perception was in its relative infancy and then again later on p.5 here when my perception was approaching a state of relative lock down.
It was my recent discovery of Fedorov’s work that inspired me to start systematically hunting through earth-moon aliasing patterns across all available NASA Horizons reference frames. During quick & dirty pilot exploration #1 a crystal clear 6.4 year envelope was easily evident, even to the naked eye.
Regards
Ian, the annual physical aliasing is from the lunar draconic month (27.212221 day wave).
IW
“Of there is always the caveat that we currently moving into an extended period of low solar activity which could reduce the the overall intensity of El Nino events out to at least the mid 2030′s.”
Weakened solar activity increases both the intensity and frequency of El Nino episodes.
Ulrich,
You are correct about the El Nino intensity in low solar activity periods.
Sorry, I was referring to the shorter 93 year periodicity. I find that the
frequency of El Ninos rises, drops away and then rises again over a 93 year
cycle. This is set by the slowly changing alignment between time when the
lunar line-of-apse points at the Sun and the time when the lunar line-of-nodes
points at the Sun.
Whoah! There’s that 1934 thing again! When will the curves go back into phase Paul?
My prediction is 1934 + 93 years = 2027
My instinct is that some of the literature focusing on 18.6 is using incorrect geometry (wrong reference frame &/or rotation frame) and that the correct geometry (for some key processes) is 12.8, 6.4, 2.37, 1.185.
There are discrete changes in circulatory topology over the course of a terrestrial year. Hence there’s physical aliasing.
Put another way:
Circulatory KNOTS are NOT FREE to sample lunar geometry in the same way in the same locations at all times of the terrestrial year.
Due:
More attention to Knot Theory.
There remain at least 2 more stages of tedious exploratory verification before I’ll elaborate much further.
Ian & Rog:
Genuine deep thanks for contributing as you do.
Community Alert:
The IPO spatial pattern narrative being pushed at wuwt is implicitly based on a patently false zero-sum assumption. It can be effortlessly verified that the spatial pattern cycle is coherent with an amplitude cycle. This is hardly surprising (duh!) given the confounding of the spatial pattern with equator-pole gradients. This is a serious error.
These planetary synodics give a framework for the Chandler Wobble.
61 Jupiter-Venus = 100 Venus-Mercury = 161 Jupiter-Mercury = 39.58 years
3 Venus-Mercury = 433.6986 days = 1 Chandler Wobble (CW)
so
100 CW = 183 Jupiter-Venus = 300 Venus-Mercury = 483 Jupiter-Mercury = 118.74 years
Furuya & Chao paper confirms CW as 433.7 +/- 1.8 days.
http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/127/3/693.short
Abstract: ‘The procedures lead to optimal estimates for P and Q. Our best estimates, judging from comprehensive sets of Monte Carlo simulations, are P=433.7 ± 1.8 (1σ) days, Q=49 with a lσ range of (35, 100).’
@Ian who wrote: … the time when the lunar line-of-nodes points at the Sun.
Can you share what reference [calendar] date you use, TIA.
OB, if you dig around you may find an article I once saw that tabulated CW periods estimated by various investigations. The period you’re citing is toward the high end of the spectrum. One thing to watch out for is estimates based on false assumptions. One of the standard inferential assumptions doesn’t hold for CW and most investigators don’t bother with diagnostics that reveal this.
PV: are you sure it wasn’t this study i.e. the one I linked to?
‘Table 1 includes past estimates of P and Q using ILS data,
by Jeffreys (1940, 1968), Ooe (1978), Wilson & Haubrich
(1976), and Wilson & Vicente (1980, 1990)’
I posted that table earlier: November 19, 2014 at 9:46 am
The lowest estimate was 433.0 days.
In NASA Horizons documentation I shared above note carefully “01-01 […] Step=1 Y […] Jan-01 […] Step-size : 1 calendar years”, which physically aliases this pattern.
Extending exploration of annual draconic aliasing to other dates of the year reveals the following sequence of events:
1. Polar motion was synchronized with December solstice draconic aliasing until WWI.
2. Then synchronization briefly tipped towards March equinox.
3. It then gently rocked back through December solstice before tipping very hard towards September equinox in the late 1920s and going right past that to eventually stabilize on June solstice by the mid-1930s.
This sequence is consistent with notes I’ve volunteered in the past on SOI, CET, nutation residuals, & other variables. (It’s also consistent with many other observations I’ve explored privately without having time to volunteer public commentary.)
There’s so much more to say, but there’s never enough time.
Why knot theory?
Due to the fluid & pulsating nature of atmospheric & oceanic circulatory orbits (including turbulent eddy diffusion) we have cause to consider topologically invariant measures of correlation at scales too local to be in phase with global limits.
Conventional inference is encumbered by unrealistic assumptions about the properties of sampling aggregation across knot structures.
Sensible exploration of unknown or vaguely known mesoscale boundaries demands sober consideration of knotting’s effect on aggregate correlation phase.
The mainstream vanguard is mistaking the lunar knot for the solar whole. An order of magnitude more careful attention to sampling aggregation criteria could get them off their misdirected communications strategy (if their integrity isn’t compromised).
Full knowledge of the lunar knot is desirable and perhaps in time the public will be more deeply indulged, but intimate knowledge of lunar knot details isn’t needed to see the solar whole.
The notion of a topologically invariant measure of correlation should be all a sharp reader needs to take from knot theory to avoid being perpetually jerked around on a political yo-yo by ENSO.
Paul,
Before you dismiss the relative importance of the lunar influence upon climate, I suggest you wait for my follow on paper which looks at the causes of the onset of El Ninos. In addition, you may want to wait for the following, which has been accepted for publication at PRP and should appear here shortly:
http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.com/?page_id=47
Are the Strongest Lunar Perigean Spring Tides Commensurate with the Transit Cycle of Venus?
by I. R. G. Wilson
Abstract.
This study identifies the strongest Perigean spring tides that reoccur at roughly the same time in the seasonal calendar and shows how their repetition pattern, with respect to the tropical year, is closely synchronized with the 243 year transit cycle of Venus. It finds that whenever the pentagonal pattern for the inferior conjunctions of Venus and the Earth drifts through one of the nodes of Venus’ orbit, the 31/62 year Perigean spring tidal cycle simultaneously drifts through almost exactly the same days of the Gregorian year, over a period from 1 to 3000 A.D. Indeed, the drift of the 31/62 year tidal cycle with respect to the Gregorian calendar almost perfectly matches the expected long-term drift between the Gregorian calendar and the tropical year.
If the mean drift of the 31/62 Perigean spring tidal cycle is corrected for the expected long-term drift between the Gregorian calendar and the tropical year, then the long-term residual drift between:
a) the 243 year drift-cycle of the pentagonal pattern for the inferior conjunctions of Venus and the Earth with respect to the nodes of Venus’s orbit and
b) the 243 year drift-cycle of the strongest seasonal peak tides on the Earth (i.e. the 31/62 Perigean spring tidal cycle) with respect to the tropical year is approximately equal to −7 ± 11 hours, over the 3000 year period. The large relative error of the final value for the residual drift means that this study cannot rule out the possibility that there is no long-term residual drift between the two cycles i.e. the two cycles are in perfect synchronization over the 3000 year period. However, the most likely result is a long-term residual drift of −7 hours, over the time frame considered.
Ian: You can also cycle the annual aliasing pattern by rolling the start date on a 13.6061105 day cycle. This gives the other compact basis for exploring local circulatory decoherence from global entanglement. I’ve expressed this in a different way the past: It’s a balanced multi-axial differential, so there’s actually no paradox despite common misinterpretations incorrectly suggesting so. I believe the wuwt campaign to be founded (some may say masterminded) on the premise that the average reader will be naturally quite strongly inclined towards the perspective of the “local realist” even though aggregate constraints patently rule out that possibility. It’s a clever strategy in a democracy, but it’s weakness is that it can’t fool those with the capacity to think thoroughly through the philosophical implications of aggregate constraints from the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. Some parts of this note may make more sense in hindsight at some later date, but hopefully the first 3 sentences will make sense immediately. Best Regards.
Ian, I’m well-aware of how to derive the calendar drift cycles firsthand. If you think I’m dismissing the possibility of a lunar role in terrestrial climate then we’re having a (rather substantial) misunderstanding. I’m confident that any such misunderstandings will fade in time. The moon’s a crystal shaping symmetries of solar aggregation, so I would hardly recommend ignorance of its relatively simple properties (which are actually immensely — if not impossibly — complex to most people). I look forward to ongoing exploration & discussion as the weeks, months, & years unfold.
84% of high-frequency daily LOD variation is due to the lunar tropical month.
91% is due to the combination of the lunar tropical month & the lunar draconic month.
Extending the combination to include the lunar anomalistic month increases cumulative accounting to 96%. The role of the anomalistic month is outgunned 17:1.
The 62 year perigee-syzygy-season event isn’t a foundation of a repeating cycle. (Alternatively it’s a cycle that slips after the first cycle. For example, there’s no event at 186.) However, the 31 year (2/3)(node-syzygy)-season events form the basis of an enduring cycle that’s evident out beyond 186 and only gradually weakening without even slipping.
Perhaps nodes deserve most of the attention directed towards perigee.
Paul,
The most significant variation in any monthly period is a pronounced peak in LOD (minus the seasonal trend in LOD) of roughly 1 milli-second, that lasts for a couple of days that are centered on or about the date that the Moon crosses the Equator [see my first post].
The size of these peaks in LOD (minus the seasonal trend in LOD) is directly dependent on the distance of the Moon from the Earth at the time of passage. The reason? Because these peaks in LOD (i.e. slow downs in the Earth’s rotation rate) are cause by the peak of the lunar tidal bulge being dragged across the Equator.
This is the reality. You needed to square this with the statement above to be believable.
Paul,
Here is my take:
The spacing of the spikes in LOD are the aliasing element with respect to the seasonal calendar (i.e. tropical year) and so that’s why the tropical month dominates the variance in LOD. If the spacing (or possibly the variation in spacing) is the dominant factor in forcing the climate then the beating of the tropical month with the tropical year will come into play.
However, if the magnitude of the LOD spikes, or the relative magnitude of consecutive LOD spikes is the more important factor when it comes to climate then the beating of the anomalistic and draconic lunar months with the tropical year will be a more important factor.
Apologies. I’ve figured out how to hit an enduring 31 year perigee pattern using thirds. Perhaps the nodes account for high amplitude 2.37 year variation while distance accounts for 4.5 year variation. Note that 2.37 is nearly a harmonic of half-year aliasing of 9.3 at 9.5 and 4.5 is a harmonic of annual aliasing of 8.85 at 9. It makes intuitive sense that aliased perigee would be a mild amplifier of aliased nodal timing. Someone with a substantial amount of free time could probably build a simple model of this using NASA Horizons output in a single long sitting. I wouldn’t be surprised if NASA JPL already has a classified model of this.
One important concern I’ll raise is confounding of the epochs with solar cycle deceleration.
Thanks Ian for giving cause to explore lunar scrambling of solar pattern in increasing depth.
Paul said:
“The 62 year perigee-syzygy-season event isn’t a foundation of a repeating cycle. (Alternatively it’s a cycle that slips after the first cycle. For example, there’s no event at 186.) However, the 31 year (2/3)(node-syzygy)-season events form the basis of an enduring cycle that’s evident out beyond 186 and only gradually weakening without even slipping.”
My reply:
Good point. I will send you a copy of my paper that highlights this very feature.
Ian Wilson (November 22, 2014 at 6:24 am) wrote:
“The spacing of the spikes in LOD are the aliasing element with respect to the seasonal calendar (i.e. tropical year) and so that’s why the tropical month dominates the variance in LOD. If the spacing (or possibly the variation in spacing) is the dominant factor in forcing the climate then the beating of the tropical month with the tropical year will come into play.”
This gave cause to check and I found by far the tightest low-integer-fractional alignment at 31 year spacing for tropical half-year beats with the lunar tropical month and in second place — also very tight — tropical half-year beats with the lunar draconic month. I had already been planning to look into semi-annual aliasing of Horizons output, so here’s another reason. I’m making little attempt to be precise with words here since there aren’t enough hours away from paid work to facilitate that — apologies for any related miscommunications. I made an effort above to be more tight with some of the language surrounding the graph and Horizons documentation I shared. That stuff is rock solid. The stuff I’m adding later in the thread is basically live-streaming exploration of Ian’s focus on 31/62 pattern, with all of the associated messiness left unfiltered to help keep a conversation about an interesting topic going. I’m not yet convinced that 31/62 is important, but I’m at least getting a lock-down on where it comes from. And who knows where the subconscious mind leads from there following a few sleeps and exposure to (and recombination with) other information.
I’m developing graphical tools that dramatically simplify all of this. With the tools I easily pick out all of the events Ian mentions in a single easy glance. I’m going to strongly suggest to the community that such visual simplification of event series is necessary. Otherwise discussion of event series is far too much of a mess. There’s plenty of scope to extend, refine, and customize the simple tools I’m building. If time permitted completion the aim would be to effortlessly tell whole stories on a single page including a graph telling the whole story all by itself to people with the right background. I’m leaving commentary there for now. Perhaps discussion will resume when Ian’s paper is released.
Regards
Ian:
1 last perigee-syzygy-season update:
Good news.
I’ve refined a prototype visualization tool to the point where it perfectly verifies theory.
Central Limit Lock Down:
26.72660385 years (weaker cycle)
121.5537289 years (strong cycle)
I’ll stop there for now.
JPL Horizons annual aliasing envelopes
RG Range; distance from coordinate center (AU)
30.02778018 years
EC Eccentricity, e
QR Periapsis distance, q (AU)
AD Apoapsis distance (AU)
26.72660385 years
Ian: If you can spare a minute to save me time hunting the net for astronomy definitions, could you generously crystallize how these 2 groups of measurements differ technically? I’ve got a rigid lock-down on the timing aspect of this, but I need to develop a lock-down on astronomy definitions. I’ll refrain from elaborating on the timing aspect until your Venus-Moon paper is released.
Paul,
The elliptical orbit of a body about another (usually much) larger body evolves with time.
Definitions:
1. Periapsis distance: The point of least distance of the orbit of a celestial body from its center of gravitational attraction.
2. Apoapsis distance: The point of greatest distance of the orbit of a celestial body from its center of gravitational attraction.
3. Eccentricity of an ellipse = f /a = SQRT(1 – (b/a)^2)
where f = focal distance = distance from the centre to either of the focii of an ellipse
_____a = semi-major axis
_____b = semi-minor axis
The Earth-Moon system is subject to the slowly changing outside gravitational force of the Sun which slowly changes the shape of the lunar orbit about, depending on the orientation of the lunar line-of-apse with respect to the Earth-Sun line. The slowly changing shape of the lunar orbit is called Evection e.g. this process can led to a change in the perigee distance of the Moon from 356,400 km to about 370,000 km, over a 8.85 year period for a given location in the Earth’s orbit.
Hence, for such a system you need to know the Periapsis distance, Apoapsis distance and eccentricity at each step in time.
Thus, if you choose a geocentric co-ordinate system, QR and AD should be exactly the same as RG (Range) but only at the precise times of Perigee and Apogee. At al other times RG should vary between these two extremes.
OB posted
“100 CW = 183 Jupiter-Venus = 300 Venus-Mercury = 483 Jupiter-Mercury = 118.74 years”
300/183 = 1.64
483/300 = 1.61
mean = 1.625 phi??
What about the other planet duo’s combos? ( permutations/combinations) in relation to the 100 CW ( chandler wobble)
Are their any others that factor so neatly
=
Ian Wilson says:
November 22, 2014 at 5:10 am
Paul,
The most significant variation in any monthly period is a pronounced peak in LOD (minus the seasonal trend in LOD) of roughly 1 milli-second, that lasts for a couple of days that are centered on or about the date that the Moon crosses the Equator [see my first post].
The size of these peaks in LOD (minus the seasonal trend in LOD) is directly dependent on the distance of the Moon from the Earth at the time of passage. The reason? Because these peaks in LOD (i.e. slow downs in the Earth’s rotation rate) are cause by the peak of the lunar tidal bulge being dragged across the Equator.
This is the reality. You needed to square this with the statement above to be believable.
=
Ian Wilson says:
November 22, 2014 at 6:24 am
Paul,
Here is my take:
The spacing of the spikes in LOD are the aliasing element with respect to the seasonal calendar (i.e. tropical year) and so that’s why the tropical month dominates the variance in LOD. If the spacing (or possibly the variation in spacing) is the dominant factor in forcing the climate then the beating of the tropical month with the tropical year will come into play.
However, if the magnitude of the LOD spikes, or the relative magnitude of consecutive LOD spikes is the more important factor when it comes to climate then the beating of the anomalistic and draconic lunar months with the tropical year will be a more important factor.
=
Unfortunately there has been some misunderstanding. I realize you were looking at what is technically known as a partial correlation in the language of statistics. I had an objection to the way you framed the origin of 13.7 as being primarily anomalistic. It’s primarily tropical. It’s only primarily anomalistic given the right tropical & draconic timing — i.e. given that the tropical month is dragging that water across the equator, for sure distance then has a major role in determining rotation rate. We’re not in any technical disagreement. It’s more stylistic concern I suppose about the way you crafted the message, as the single-digit decimal-rounding left me with the impression of ambiguity for naive readers who don’t realize that the main event of water being dragged across the equator is at 13.660791 days (tropical), not 13.777275 days (anomalistic). (You may recall that Tim Channon and I had a very careful look at this stuff 3 years ago. The top 2 anomalistic components Tim detected using his methods (which are very well-suited for these data) were 9.132950896 days and 27.55455 days (not 13.777275 days). Richard Gross’ (NASA JPL) long overview article on Earth rotation gives the same components.)
–
Ian: Thanks for clarifying the comparative differences of the JPL Horizons variables.
There’s much to discuss and I’m a firm believer that cumulative delays of administrative origin can reduce by orders of magnitude how much we achieve in life, but out of genuine respect for differing priorities & perspectives, I choose to refrain from commenting further on 26.72660385 years, 121.5537289 years, & 30.02778018 years until Ian’s Venus-Moon paper is officially released.
Best Regards
high-frequency LOD reminder:
link to incisive video that will help TalkShopper’s prepare to lucidly digest Ian Wilson’s forthcoming Venus-Moon paper
=
Paul Vaughan says:
November 22, 2014 at 4:40 am
84% of high-frequency daily LOD variation is due to the lunar tropical month.
91% is due to the combination of the lunar tropical month & the lunar draconic month.
Extending the combination to include the lunar anomalistic month increases cumulative accounting to 96%. The role of the anomalistic month is outgunned 17:1.
=
Correction (I accidentally looked down the r column rather than the r^2 column):
71% of high-frequency daily LOD variation is due to the lunar tropical month.
82% is due to the combination of the lunar tropical month & the lunar draconic month.
Extending the combination to include the lunar anomalistic month increases cumulative accounting to 93%. The role of the anomalistic month is outgunned 8:1.
supplementary:
(13.660791)*(13.6061105) / ( (13.660791 + 13.6061105) / 2 ) = 13.63
(27.55455)*(13.660791) / (27.55455 + 13.660791) = 9.13
The video linked here is a talkshop must-watch.
[…] how the periodicity of the CW and QBO is linked to cyclic celestial phenomena. Ian also published a series of posts linking ENSO with lunar timings. I observed that the Sun appears to trigger El Ninos too. Rick […]
Another thing to note:
157 full moon cycles (FMC) = 177 years
177 – 157 = 20 = number of 8.85 year lunar apogee/perigee in 177 years
So there are exactly 7.85 FMC in 8.85 years = one FMC less than the number of Earth orbits.
7 x 8.85y = 61.95y
55 FMC = (177y / 157) x 55 = 62.006367y
Cross-check: 62.006367y x 157 = 177y x 55 (= 9735y)
Note: 540 Saros cycles = 9736 years — exactly one more year.
From Ian Wilson’s paper part II:
‘II. Seasonal Peak Tides – The 31/62 year Perigee-Syzygy Tidal Cycle.’
Now the 20.293 year Perigee-Syzygy cycle
will realign with the seasons after:
(3 x 18 FMC) + 1.0 FMC = 55 FMC
(3 x 20.293 yrs) + 1.2174 yrs = 62.006 yrs
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/evidence-that-strong-el-nino-events-are_11.html
20.293y x 157 = 3186y = 177y x 18
PV says: ‘The 62 year perigee-syzygy-season event isn’t a foundation of a repeating cycle. (Alternatively it’s a cycle that slips after the first cycle. For example, there’s no event at 186.)’
There is an event at 186 years: it’s 196 Draconic years (93 EY = 98 DY)
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi
· 6m 6 minutes ago
There is no super nino, or 2 year nino. JAMSTEC blew cfsv2 out and will do so again. La Nada summer 15, La nina 2016
Joe Bastardi of Weatherbell ‘s prediction.
I think Joe Bastardi will be correct.
Thanks Salvatore, I’ll put that on the predictions page.
[…] Ian Wilson has an interesting theory that we may well see an El Nino this winter – just in time for the IPCC COP in Paris to […]
[…] repost of Ian Wilson’s Jan 1st article at his Astro-Climate-Connection blog continues development of his hypothesis that the Moon triggers El Nino events. This is relevant as we are currently on the cusp of El Nino, […]