Scientist Paul Pukite has built a simple model involving Total Solar Irradiance , the Chandler wobble and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation which does an impressive job of emulating the Southern Oscillation index from Darwin and Tahiti. Here’s the result:
Abstract
The El Nino southern oscillation (ENSO) behavior can be effectively modeled as a response to a 2nd-order Mathieu/Hill differential equation with periodic coefficients describing sloshing of a volume of water. The forcing of the equation derives from QBO, angular momentum changes synchronized with the Chandler wobble, and solar insolation variations. One regime change was identified in 1980.
Keywords: ENSO, El Nino
PACS: 92.05.Df, 92.10.am, 92.70.-j
The full PRL submitted paper is here.
So, here’s the challenge. If we can predict TSI, the Chandler wobble and the QBO, we can predict ENSO with some level of confidence. An exciting prospect. Ian Wilson has already pointed the way with his article last year showing 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 Salvador made great progress with solar prediction in his PRP paper.
Now we need to pull these threads together and develop our own model emulating and predicting CW and QBO. Then using Paul Pukite’s model we can potentially predict ENSO.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
I say give us the predictions for ENSO going forward for the next 10 years.
My prediction is it will not play out. It is not going to be that simple.
The model forecasts that the existing cycle, 24, will end
in 2018.
From the prp paper above.
This will be wrong in my opinion. I do not expect solar cycle 24 to end until late 2021. The maximum is still going on and we are almost 7 years into this cycle which started Jan. 2008.
Hi Salvatore: When the Sun goes into grand minimum, all bets are off for prediction. Anything could happen. There may be a lull in 2018 followed by an increase again. If that happens, we won’t know whether or not to call it a ‘solar cycle minimum’ until around 2025.
When the Sun goes into grand minimum, all bets are off for prediction.
That is for sure.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50#comment-1192
Rog, this is very close to where I am at when it comes to the climate .
As Salvatore notes indirectly, science “truthiness” is all tied to predictions. Predictions, however, kill future research grants as they provide a pass/fail ability for your competitors to stop your work in favour of theirs. Didn’t mean a damn for Ehrlich/Holdren, but they were getting their “grants” from the non-technical, emotionally available, private public purse.
Notice that WUWT does not provide predictions. He/they are all about establishing uncertainty. The politically safe way of stopping your foes. But if this is truly a scientific argument (which it is not, depressing enough to say), prediction would be front and centre on both sides.
CW & QBO are periodic, so what problem is there predicting them?
Reminder:
Piers Corbyn showed us years ago how CW arises from the lunar draconic month and the terrestrial tropical year.
NASA JPL knew too. They just weren’t spelling it out in public.
Latecomers have jumped on the bandwagon during the past few years. Glad to see everyone catching up.
Btw: As a courtesy I’m restraining myself from saying more about lunisolar timing until Ian Wilson’s Venus-Moon paper is released, at which time I’ll be prepared to share some dreadfully simple attractor frequency algebra & illustrations. OK, biting my tongue now…..
“When the Sun goes into grand minimum, all bets are off for prediction. Anything could happen.”
Estimating where the next sunspot minimum and maximum will occur from the planetary ordering is feasible. Forecasting where the next minimum will be is important for ENSO because of the big drop off in the solar wind around a year after each sunspot minimum.
With the weakest part of this solar minimum happening between late 2015 and 2024, the frequency and intensity of El Nino episodes and conditions will be increasing.
A few observations.
1 – Typo just above Figure 3. Should be “1976/1977 Pacific Ocean climate regime change”. Personally I suspect the change was in May 1976 when, very unusually, the Southern Oscillation Index was close to zero for three successive months. That marked a serious turn-around in ENSo conditions. Calculate the running sum of the SOI starting in, almost any year prior to that (1950 is a good choice for start point) and you’ll see what I mean.
2 – Okay so the TSI should be lagged by 10 years, but why? All we have is an interesting correlation; we need a mechanism to go with it too.
3 – I’ve sometimes wondered if the ENSO is controlled by how (and how much) water disperses from the western Pacific. Others have suggested a link between solar activity and earthquakes, so just maybe there’s a link.
4 – White and Lui’s paper “Non-Linear alignment of El-Nino to the 11yr solar Cycle” (GRL, vol 35, 2008) might also be relevant. (I see the references are in alphabetical order except for the last named one and four untitled URLs.)
Ulric: Yes, big el ninos can occur when the Sun is weak. Ocean heat content will diminish as a result and surface cooling will follow. The reverse of the 1975-2005 warming.
Paul: Thanks for holding back.
jdcl: Why the decadal lag? A few people have been musing on that question this year. Did you catch David’s ‘climate notch’ posts over at Jo nova’s site?
I think the lag is due to the inertia in the earth’s oceans.
The four untitled URLs are the datasets
jdmcl says:
“Okay so the TSI should be lagged by 10 years, but why? All we have is an interesting correlation; we need a mechanism to go with it too.”
I don’t think that is OK at all. While there is a real time correlation with the solar wind speed that is very interesting that can also explain the multi-year La Nina episodes, like the one that fueled the 1976 climate shift.
tallbloke says: November 29, 2014 at 10:20 pm
“jdcl: Why the decadal lag? A few people have been musing on that question this year. Did you catch David’s ‘climate notch’ posts over at Jo nova’s site?”
“I think the lag is due to the inertia in the earth’s oceans.”
OK Roger, good thought!
Please consider mine. Aperiodic relocation of angular momentum over all masses in this Solar system. How that may resolve to temperature, I have no clue!
BTW Do not rise quickly from the binoculars! I am practicing “parting” shots! 🙂
I really can’t see a TSI signal being exhibited in ENSO 10 years after that TSI signal entered the ocean. That rather large oceanic capacitor there will smooth it completely flat. The only thing thing that can control its output is a real time signal, not something that happened a decade before.
A link to a video recommended to everyone aiming to be ready to efficiently digest Ian Wilson’s forthcoming Venus-Moon article.
Had a brief discussion with Paul about this a month ago at “And then there’s” . The fit is impressive. Maybe too good. The question in my mind is whether his approach contains an autocorrelation backfeed. I asked him to predict this upcoming season but he demurred, wanting me to do it myself.
Sorry Paul, it is your toy, you fly it, but you need to fly it forward.
“Special thanks to Dan Challou, the El Nino study group at The Azimuth Project, and commenters at the ContextEarth blog.”
Had to google “The Azimuth Project”.
They try to help civilization prepare for big threats, but their list omits asteroid impacts.
Suppose a One World Government implements every policy dreamed of by AW activists.
Then suppose one day that great power falls during a war. (Such things have happened in history.)
Suppose sheer survival of that intense war demands total disregard for the environment and only nature’s most vicious predators and most vile parasites survive.
Perhaps protecting the world from AW requires eternal, uninterrupted power.
Two days before the resistance takes back power a massive asteroid strike destroys all life on Earth. The impact could have been predicted by all the brainpower at Azimuth, had they not been distracted by the politics of the day. Maybe they could have figured out how to save us…
— —
jdmcl (November 29, 2014 at 10:00 pm) presciently noted:
“White and Lui’s paper “Non-Linear alignment of El-Nino to the 11yr solar Cycle” (GRL, vol 35, 2008) might also be relevant.”
That paper came to mind as soon as I saw this post.
Quite curious that Pukite doesn’t even mention (???) White’s ENSO models….
— — —
As I’ve said before: I’ve built comparable models using wavelets. It’s possible to achieve arbitrarily high r^2 with such models. I’ve never bothered sharing such exploratory models. They’re misleading.
Regards
tallbloke says (November 29, 2014 at 10:08 pm) wrote:
“Paul: Thanks for holding back.”
Just think of the compounding of such delays. Was it Einstein that said compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe? With all the unnecessary, cumulative administrative delays slowing civilization down, there’s solid reason to wonder if we’ll be ready in time.
Looking forward to discussing Ian’s Venus-Moon paper. It will be a heavy discussion….
Best Regards!
Surely the change in height in the Pacific Ocean, often claimed to be due to winds but perhaps due to thermal expansion of the ocean, would be enough to induce a wobble (and a change in Length of Day).
Paul: My Venus-Earth-Moon paper has been published. A link and a summary of the paper is given on my site [http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/] . Thanks for the video link.
Paul said: “Piers Corbyn showed us years ago how CW arises from the lunar draconic month and the terrestrial tropical year.”
I also made that connection [independently] in 2008. I claimed an interaction between the Draconic year (TD = 346.6200 days) and the sidereal year. Paul correctly pointed out that I should have used the Tropical year rather Sidereal year.
Unfortunately, I could not get my paper into the peer-reviewed journals – so I published it on line in 2010 at:
Wilson, I.R.G., 2011, Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation
Rate Externally Driven and Do They Affect Climate?
The General Science Journal, Dec 2011, 3811.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3811
If you are interested please read pages 26 and 27 just prior to the conclusions.
For the those who lead less stressful lives – here is a short extract:
Dissipation processes associated with wobble-induced deformations of the solid Earth should cause the Chandler wobble to freely decay on a timescale of about 30-100 years (Plag et. al. 2005), unless some force is acting to reinvigorate it. The fact that there has been no noticeable decay in the Chandler Wobble has raised questions about the source of excitation for the wobble. Gross (2000) proposed that the wobble was excited by a combination of atmospheric and oceanic processes, with the dominant excitation mechanism being ocean-bottom pressure fluctuations. The Chandler Wobble also suffers from a sinusoidal variation in its amplitude that has a period of roughly 6.4 years (Kosek 2005). The amplitude modulation period of 6.4 years is most likely just a beat period produced by the interaction the annual oscillation and Chandler Wobble (Kosek 2005).
The “Grand Cosmic Conspiracy” model raises the possibility the source of excitation for the Chandler Wobble might have an extra-terrestrial origin. It is possible that the 6.40 year realignment period for the terrestrial planets has interacted with the sidereal orbital period of the Earth/Moon system over the eons, to produce a side-lobe modulation that it has slowly nudged the precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit towards its current value. Hence, we now have a precession rate that produces a 2nd harmonic for the maximal changes in tidal stresses that varies on a time scale of
1 ¼ TD = 433.2751 days
= 1.18622 years.
The fact that 2nd tidal harmonic is so close to the nominal 433 day period of the Chandler Wobble, suggests that the variations in lunar tides produced by the precession of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit could, in fact, be the source of the ocean-bottom pressure fluctuations that are thought to be responsible for the excitation of the Chandler Wobble.
Of course, all of these remarkable “cosmic coincidences” would actually make more sense if they were the result of fossilized synchronizations produced by past resonances between the precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit and the sidereal periods of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter.
Rog, Paul, John (jdmcl) and other contributors,
A. Definitions:
1. The perigee end of the lunar line-of-apse realigns with the Sun roughly once 411.7844(3) days = 1.1274 sidereal years. This is called the Full Moon Cycle.
[quoted current value = 411.78443029 days (411 d 18 h 49 min 34 s) (at the epoch J2000.0)]
2. Estimates for the best period for the Chandler Wobble (CW) vary between about 430 to 434 days
with likely mean values ranging from 431 to 433 days, over decadal time scales.
Reference: http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/as/j2014/presentations/gross.pdf
3. The ascending node of the lunar orbit realigns with the Sun roughly once every 346.6200(7) days = 0.94897(7) sidereal years. This is called the Draconic (or Eclipse) Year (TD).
[quoted current value = 346.620075883 days (346 d 14 h 52 min 54 s) (at the epoch J2000.0)]
1 ¼ TD = 433.2751 days = 1.1862 sidereal years = CW
B: A value of CW = 433.7 days [towards the high end of the estimated range] gives:
(433.7 x 411.78) / (433.7 – 411.78) = 8145.7249 days = 22.30 years
which very close to double the mean Schwabe Cycle length of 11.1 years.
[alternatively using CW = 433.28 days you get (433.28 x 411.78) / (433.28 – 411.78) = 22.72 years]
This suggest that the realignment time of the Chandler Wobble with the precession of the lunar-line of apse (with respect to the Sun) has a natural ~11 year Cycle.
If this ~ 11 year re-alignment cycle peaks at solar minimum (i.e. is 180 degrees out of phase with the Schwabe Sunspot cycle) and it is responsible for the sequencing of El Nino events then you would get a natural ~ 11 year lag between the sunspot cycle and the changes in the Earth’s mean temperature.
Solar Peak in Sunspot Number –> ~ 5 years to the peak in 11 year re-alignment cycle [that influences the sequencing of El Nino events] –> ~ 6 years between the El Nino/La Nina events and the response of the World’s mean temperature caused by the oceanic lag.
i.e. 5 + 6 years ~ 11 years.
Just a speculative thought.
C. Connection to the inner planets
TCW = 1 / [ 1 − [(1/SVE) − (1/SEMa)] ] = 1.186249 sidereal years = 433.285(1) days
where the following values have been used:
Synodic_VE = 1.5987 = 1.599 (3 dp) sidereal years using TV = 224.70069 days
Synodic_EMa = 2.1354 = 2.135 (3 dp) sidereal years using TM = 686.9600 days
Connection to Jupiter
Sidereal period Jupiter’s orbital period from GSFC Ephemeris:
TJ = 4332.6 days
10 x TJ = 433.26 days =CW
Predicting ENSO from the Sun?
Doesn’t this fossil fuel-funded study know that the “science is settled”?
IW says:
‘Of course, all of these remarkable “cosmic coincidences” would actually make more sense if they were the result of fossilized synchronizations produced by past resonances between the precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit and the sidereal periods of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter.‘
As a rule of thumb, 3 Venus-Mercury = 1 Chandler Wobble and 5 Earth-Mars = 9 CW
Since 50 Earth-Mars = 9 Jupiter you have: 9 J = 50 E-Ma = 90 CW
Of course that won’t be 100% true but pretty close to it.
Today I don’t have time to launch into a technically-detailed discussion of Ian’s new paper, but there is one longstanding discrepancy which I now choose to point out explicitly so the community can begin considering it with due care.
Although they are close (not equal) in period, the Chandler Wobble timing suggestions put forward by Ian Wilson and Piers Corbyn differ conceptually.
Ian’s suggestion is summarized above and TalkShopper’s have seen it countless times, so I suspect it looks very familiar by now.
For those who may somehow have managed to remain unfamiliar with Piers Corbyn’s suggestion, a reminder that I’ve outlined it, elaborated on it, and expanded it:
• on p.14 here
• on p.5 elsewhere
A lot of issues are piling up demanding that Ian, I, & others address them, but unfortunately that’s all the time I can spare today.
Ian Wilson,
Note the Venus transit cycle is much closer to 243 sidereal years than 243 tropical years.
Re this: ‘Since 50 Earth-Mars = 9 Jupiter you have: 9 J = 50 E-Ma = 90 CW’ (4 comments back)
8 Jupiter = 100 Draconic years (1:12.5 ratio)
Paul,
Please do not assume that what I proposed in 2008 is fixed in stone and that these are my views on this topic from now until hell freezes over. I do not do that to you so please do not put words in my mouth.
Ulric,
I wrote roughly a page of response to your most recent comment and then accidently hit a CTR V – I did not discover CTR Z before it was too late.
In summary, my comments were that you are not dressing the conclusions of my paper. I make no assumptions about whether or not the 243 year Venus transit cycle is closer to a whole number of sidereal or tropical years. I am simply looking at drift of this transit cycle compared to the drift in the peak lunar tides on a give day in the Tropical year.
jdmcl said:
“Surely the change in height in the Pacific Ocean, often claimed to be due to winds but perhaps due to thermal expansion of the ocean, would be enough to induce a wobble (and a change in Length of Day).”
The “best” conventional explanation as to why the Chandler wobble is maintained over time is that there are long-term pressure variations at the bottom of the Earth’s oceans. Little or no effort is made to investigate what might cause these pressure variations.
Gross, R.S., 2000, The excitation of the Chandler wobble, Geophysical Research Letters,
Volume 27, Issue 15, p. 2329-2332.
Paul,
I think what I am trying say is that if we are fortunate enough to move onto a Workshop post to discuss my latest paper [and this is entirely up to the inclination and generosity of our host ]. I would appreciate it if the immediate implications of the paper are discussed. What I would like to avoid is a situation where the entire discussion is dominated by a wide ranging discussion of a holistic world -view of what drives the climate on the Earth. I am ready to admit though that I may be playing the role of King Canute in trying to command the tide from coming in.
If my work inspires you to expand the frontiers of our understanding of climate [and I am confident that many of you views and ideas will do just that], it would be far better if they were expounded upon in a following post of your own. I for one would be extremely eager to see such a post and I know that I would not be alone.
These are my ideas, but what actually happens, of course, is wholly up to Roger and Tim.
[Reply] Gents, we are at your service, just let us know how you’d like to proceed. – Rog
For anyone who has not read the text links given in Paul’s post above at November 30, 2014 at 5:28 pm. I would highly recommend them as they give great insight about the underlying driving mechanisms for the Chandler wobble and the QBO.
Thanks oldbrew for highlighting the commensurable ratios that contribute to the planetary climate link:
I not sure who first proposed the following:
TCW = 1 / [ 1 − [(1/SVE) − (1/SEMa)] ] = 1.186249 sidereal years = 433.285(1) days
but seems to me to be a sure-fire way of stating that the connection between the planetary motions and the Earth’s climate.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3811
Let us have some climate predictions based on this research.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50#comment-1192
I embrace this approach and will continue trying to predict the climate based on this approach.
I say good luck to Ian and Paul and others on their various approaches which I have many problems with.
Ian: If my work inspires you to expand the frontiers of our understanding of climate [and I am confident that many of you views and ideas will do just that], it would be far better if they were expounded upon in a following post of your own. I for one would be extremely eager to see such a post and I know that I would not be alone.
These are my ideas, but what actually happens, of course, is wholly up to Roger and Tim.
[Reply] Gents, we are at your service, just let us know how you’d like to proceed. – Rog
Ian Wilson says:
“I am simply looking at drift of this transit cycle compared to the drift in the peak lunar tides on a give day in the Tropical year.”
As long as you realise that the Venus transit doesn’t return on the same day of the tropical year 243 years later.
Another lunar link: 16 CW is about half a day less than 1 Metonic cycle (~19 years).
Also 619 CW = 735 years so twice that is 1470 years which is a well-known cycle.
Here is a link to one of several azimuth threads where Paul Pukite is commenting as webhubtelescope.
http://azimuth.mathforge.org/discussion/1471/qbo-and-enso/#Item_0
In an earlier one the commenter, Dara, takes him soundly to task for his machine learning approach.
Ulric,
Thanks that’s an important point to note.
If I may disagree with Doug, science has nothing to do with certainty nor with prediction.
Science has one role only: discovery of law.
We need to have a fairly technical discussion about lunar cycle timing. A workshop format sounds appropriate. The potential for misunderstandings is very high. Due to overriding factors such as constrained availability, I suspect the discussion will take more than a month. If we start the discussion right away, I suspect the potential for misunderstandings could be even higher. I want to be very careful. A few more days — or maybe a few weeks — might be enough. On the other hand perfectionist delays cause severe inefficiency, a most unwelcome plague. Somewhere in between lies the sort of balance I trust Tallbloke to strike.
Everyone: In my opinion this is Ian’s most treasured contribution to date. Please treat it with care and respect. I look forward to emergence from any miscommunications fog we need to weather on our course towards superior cross-disciplinary vision.
Sincere Best Regards
Paul,
It would be good if Roger and Tim could be sensitive to the time constraints on your ability to respond. My suggestion is that the first blog post start with a re-blogging of the post at my site. At the point that this re-post starts to generate an excessive emphasis upon one (or more) of the respondents concerns, then a new overflow blog post should be started that is based upon a workshop-like format.
I would like to make one important point before the discussions begin.
It is very likely that the lunar orbit partakes in the ~ 26,000 year precession of the Earth’s rotation axis with respect to the stars. When this ~ 26,000 year precession is couple with the ~ 71,000 year wobble of the Earth’s orbit (with respect to the plane of the ecliptic), it produces the well known ~ 41,000 year nodding of the Earth’s obliquity (i.e. tilt of the rotation axis with respect to the plane of the ecliptic). Hence, it is very possible that what I have really found in my paper is that the ~ 26,000 year precession of the Earth’s axis of rotation with respect to the stars is synchronized with the fixed ratio of the orbital periods of the Earth and Venus i.e. 395 orbits of Venus = 243 orbits of the Earth. Support for this proposal is provided by the fact that it takes ~ 41,000 years for the calender dates for the transit of Venus to cycle once through the seasonal (tropical) year.
Of course, even if the above is true, it does not distract from the point that the peak tides experienced here on the Earth appear to be linked to commensurable ratios of the orbital periods of the Earth and Venus.
A possible point of agreement in the coming debate:
I think that this current post by Paul Pukit very conclusively shows that the SOI index is primarily determined by a forcing that is related to the QBO and Chandler wobble. I also think that Paul Vaughan has shown that the QBO and Chandler wobble are the result of a coupling between the tropical and semi-tropical year and the Nodical/Draconic lunar cycle.
Paul V. has shown that:
Tropical year = 365.24219 days
Draconic (nodiacal) month = 27.212221 days
Half of the Draconic month = 13.6061105 days
1. The QBO Period
The sub-multiple of the tropical year that is nearest to the draconic month = (365.242190/13) days = 28.095553 days
(28.095553 x 27.212221) / (28.095553 – 27.212221) = 865.521002 days = 2.36972 tropical years
2. The 6.4 year envelope to the Chandler Wobble
The sub-multiple of the tropical year that is nearest to the semi-draconic month = (365.24219/27) days = 13.52748852 days
(13.6061105 x 13.52748852) / (13.6061105 – 13.52748852) = 2341.031097 days = 6.409530884 tropical years
3. The Chandler Wobble
The sub-multiple of the semi-tropical year that is nearest to the semi-draconic month = (182.621095 / 13) = 14.04777654 days
(14.04777654 x 13.6061105) / (14.04777654 – 13.6061105) = 432.7604643 days = 1.184858913 tropical years
I believe that this is probably a reasonable explanation of what is happening. Though I would add that the 6.4 year envelope to the Chandler wobble is most likely linked to the 64 year synchronization period for the three major inner planets via the equation:
Period of CW = 1 / [ 1 − [(1/SVE) − (1/SEMa)] ] = 1.186249 sidereal years = 433.285(1) days
where SVE and SEMa are the synodic periods of Venus/Earth and Earth/Mars, respectively.
Ulric Lyons says (November 30, 2014 at 1:19 am) … The only [thing] that can control its output is a real time signal, not something that happened a decade before.
This is an eminently suitable observation. Let’s add to that: on the many ENSO / ONI diagrams (El Niño and La Niña Years and Intensities) we haven’t seen ramp-up time signal (attack) which later flattens (release).
Am I mistaken that instead we see more or less always sinusoidal perfect curves. This may be due to resolution / scaling of the diagrams, but appears quite artificial (sinusoidal) the way it looks.
Ian: I’ve been assuming everyone’s deeply familiar with the Mayan calculations I summarized in the table at the top of p.18 here.
Unfortunately we’re at very high risk of misunderstanding it seems.
What I want to discuss is:
1.927867112
3.855734225
26.72660385
30.02778018
121.5537289
243.1074578
all in tropical years
Note the absence of 31 & 62. You’ll find these periods in the NASA Horizons lunar output we recently discussed on your Talkshop ENSO thread. As far as I understand, you already have (or at least had) the output on file. Your paper was timely because it caused me to make it a priority to work out the attractor frequency algebra. I don’t expect any debating. I just expect we’re going to have a discussion that will raise awareness.
The credit for the CW / QBO / polar motion calculations I fleshed out goes to Piers Corbyn. I honestly suspect this stuff is common knowledge in some circles, for example at JPL. We’re rediscovering wheels that are destined for more rediscovery. And its a more than worthwhile exercise.
Best Regards
Also:
3.917872487
3.79553624
2.077740537
tropical years
Everyone can follow the recipe I outlined with Jan. 1 as an example:
I briefly glanced at that output in October. There were 121.5, 27, & 30 year envelopes (important: no 31 & no 62) that captured my attention, but HL Tauri sidetracked my focus until Ian’s ENSO articles gave cause to resume lunisolar exploration.
To say Ian’s Venus-Moon paper was a timely clue is a severe understatement. Coincidence that 2 synchronized patterns came to my attention back-to-back in the space of a month?? I don’t think so….
I suggest everyone explore annual aliasing for:
Dec. 21
Mar. 21
Jun. 21
Sep. 21
I’ve developed some visualization tools that OB in particular will like. They’re backed by dreadfully simple attractor frequency algebra. That’s what we need to discuss.
Regards
I have yet to see all of these mechanical solar system dynamics proposed be reconciled into a coherent x pattern which will give an x consistent result in the climate over a given x time UNLESS EXTREME LATITUDE is given in space ,time and synchronization to all of these mechanical solar system dynamics (so many of them ) in order to make them fit into a resultant climate or resultant result which could effect the climate.
Not to mention this data seems to be subject to the initial state of the climate -how close the earth is to glacial/interglacial conditions or land sea arrangements along with random terrestrial events which seemingly influence what influence these mechanical solar system dynamics have upon the climate rather then the other way around.
This data is based on so many calculations that have to be EXACT SPANNING 1000’s of years in time. Any error no matter how small could change the entire outcome.
Finally this approach as to why the climate changes does not (for me) explain all of the sudden dramatic climate changes. Younger Dryas for example.
I respect all of the efforts which are magnificent but this approach just falls short because their are to many parts that have to fit just right and it seems like they always have to be adjusted to the climate rather then the climate adjusting to them.
My approach is much more straight forward and is easily verified or proven wrong in that I use x solar parameters(secondary /primary effects)which will give an x range climate result when combined with the Initial State Of The Climate, Milankovitch Cycles , Geo magnetic Strength of Earth’s Field.
My approach also take into account thresholds that can come about if the phase of the items I think control the climate are deep enough in degree of magnitude and duration of time.
Your approaches are mechanical while my approach other then Milankovitch Cycles is more based more on parameter change of the items that(I think) control the climate.
This is just my two cents and I may be proven wrong or right in what I just expressed.
I will sent an article which shows more of where I am coming from.
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/ice-age-began-just-months/
This is a prime example of where I am coming from . The approaches I see here do nothing (FOR ME) to explain this which is shown to be the case from Ice Core Analysis.
Again this is just my opinion and I am sure many agree and disagree with it.
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/climate-change-drastically-mere-decades-humans/
This is the one I wanted to send.
I say give a climate forecast based on your thoughts as to what makes the climate change for the next 30 years or so.
HERE IS MY CLIMATE FORECAST AND WHY . THANKS.
Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.
CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.
CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.
I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
I’ve dug through my files and determined the date when Piers Corbyn spelled out (very specifically) CW timing: Nov 29, 2009.
In circles such as the Russian HydroMet Office, I suspect such knowledge is commonplace (Sonechkin, Sidorenkov, etc.)
I agree fully with Ian’s comment (November 30, 2014 at 7:35 pm):
“What I would like to avoid is a situation where the entire discussion is dominated by a wide ranging discussion of a holistic world -view of what drives the climate on the Earth.”
I’ve never seen any convincing empirical evidence of a decadal lag in sun-climate relations. SCD & RI are correlated with climate at zero lag, explaining all and leaving only ENSO variance.
There are various papers discussing a ‘lag’ of one solar cycle length. Whether they are correct is another matter of course.
Example: ‘Solar Activity and Svalbard Temperatures’
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2011/543146/
old brew I do not agree with the paper you just sent other then in a general sense.
If you read my climate forecast you will see why.
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/15161/
oldbrew you may be interested in this video. it is quite good.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-sun-has.html?spref=tw
oldbrew yet another take which I do not entirely agree with . Lag time 40 years much to long in my opinion.
the last part of my climate forecast should read while the atmospheric circulation remains meridional.
Paul said:
“I’ve dug through my files and determined the date when Piers Corbyn spelled out (very specifically) CW timing: Nov 29, 2009.”
My reply:
I wrote the 2010/2011 General Science Journal paper that discussed this very topic in 2008 but could not get it published in a peer reviewed journal. This very paper was discussed in 2008 Paris conference proceedings which were eventually published one year later in late 2009.
N.S. Sidorenkov & Ian Wilson. The decadal fluctuations in the Earth’s rotation and in the climate characteristics. In: Proceedings of the “Journees 2008 Systemes de reference spatio-temporels”, M. Soffel and N. Capitaine (eds.), Lohrmann-Observatorium and Observatoire de Paris. 2009, pp. 174-177
Indeed, a reference to this paper in the 2009 Potsdam conference proceeding which was published
a roughly a year after the Postdam conference in 2010:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010EGUGA..12.9559S
specifically refers to my 2008 Paris conference proceedings (which was published in 2009).
10. Wilson, I.R.G., (2010), “Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation Rate Externally Driven and Do They Affect Climate?”, Global Change, in press
This shows that the paper had been submitted for publication to the journal Global Change at the end of 2009 and we were awaiting and outcome from the Global Change Journal in early 2010 [it was not considered for publication].
My work was done completely independently of Pier’s work and at least a year before he passed on his unpublished work to you.
Salvatore Del Prete said:
“This is a prime example of where I am coming from. The approaches I see here do nothing (FOR ME) to explain this which is shown to be the case from Ice Core Analysis.
Again this is just my opinion and I am sure many agree and disagree with it.”
Salvatore, I would appeal to you to bring this discussion to the upcoming work shop that hopefully will follow the re-blogging of the post about my latest paper. Each of us has our own pet theories as to what drives climate on different time scales.You have put forward a comprehensive model that deals with all aspects of climate over at least the last 3.0 million years. That discussion is very different to one about the factors forcing climate over the last say 150 years, as different forcing factors have
different relative effects depending on the time scales considered.
You list the following factors that determine climate:
I. Initial State Of The Climate
II. Milankovitch Cycles
III Earth Magnetic Field Strength
IV Solar Variability
V. Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
VI. Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
VII. Volcanic Activity
VII. Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible/Long wave UV light
VII. Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different.
Already, I have direct scientific evidence that you are wrong on at least one aspect of your model but I will leave that discussion to upcoming workshop post.
Ian, this is why this subject is so hard to get a handle on. I am not surprised you find faults with my model.
.
What I have found present amongst all of the skeptics is that the only two items they agree on is global man made warming does not exist and CO2 has nothing to do with the climate. The skeptic’s however all agree to disagree as to what makes the climate change and how it may change going forward. .
If you have a climate forecast for the next 30 years I would like to see what it is.
I would be happy to join the work shop discussion going forward. take care
Paul Vaughan,
I found the average QBO to be nearer 2.333 years. In which case 147 tropical yrs = 63 QBO and 124 CW.
147 – 124 = 23, and so 147 / 23 = 6.3913 years.
typo.. 147 tropical yrs
[amended – mod]
How many predicted the EL NINO this year? Weak yes but it is present.
Paul, I don’t get why in your QBO calculations that you divide the tropical years by 13 and 27 for a “nearest harmonic”, it seems rather arbitrary. Did that really come from Piers?
I must say that I was never at all impressed with his beat period calculations, like the fatal flaw in his ~58yr climate envelope; B = n – 2 x H. The claimed ~58yr beat period is derived from 9.3yr lunar and 11.1yr Schwabe, ignoring his own magnetic Hale cycle rule in the calculations, and being near 5 Schwabe cycles.
page 22: http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews13No43.pdf
My view is that the more recent observed ~69yr global surface temperature envelope is the result of period returns of specific planetary configurations in an event series. It is not a cycle as such and therefore physically cannot form beat frequencies with another known cycle. Hale or Schwabe does not help define it in any way. Such that these events are all about the longer term changes, and the solar cycle frequency itself has nothing to do with it, except for the occurrence of solar (grand) minima.
A main feature of this 69yr envelope in global surface temperatures is the AMO, lunar cycles won’t have anything to do with the forced changes in AMO mode.
Salvatore
I predicted weak El Nino conditions developing in the first half of the year, but getting driven back during July and September by stronger solar conditions, and developing again late in October and through November.
What is your forecast for ENSO going forward to 2015? Will prolonged weak solar (I think will happen going forward from here) keep future El Ninos’s at bay?
This solar cycle 24 looks to be a record long cycle as the maximum( although weak) keeps going on and on.
Observation
The PDO although it is suppose to be in a cold phase according to many has remained in a warm phase for may months. I am surprised about the length of this warm phase within the cold phase of the PDO..
I think prolonged solar conditions(over years) promote La Nina although when the sun is in a more or less normal cycle El Nino may respond to weak solar conditions within the cycle while vice versa for La Nina.
Ulric , do you agree?
should have said prolonged minimum solar conditions in the above post.
No the reverse, El Nino is a negative feedback to episodes of weaker solar forcing, with a large physical overshoot, i.e. it temporarily raises the mean global surface temperature. The same with the AMO but over longer time scales.
Salvatore said:
“How many predicted the EL NINO this year? Weak yes but it is present.”
Please read:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/evidence-that-strong-el-nino-events-are_13.html
It makes predictions about strong El Nino. Roughly speaking, in terms of the MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index), a given month in the seasonal calendar qualifies s a strong El Nino month if the following criterion holds:
“for the 133 Januaries, the 133 Februaries, the 133 Marches, etc between 1871 and 2005, the extended monthly MEI ranking for a given month must be between the 105th and 133th strongest MEI index for that month.”
The El Nino event must satisfy this criterion for four or more consecutive months to be considered a STRONG El Nino event.
ref: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/rank.ext.html
The 2014 El Nino event does not meet the necessary criterion to be qualified as a STRONG El Nino event.
However, I am predicting that there is an increased likelihood of a STRONG event some time in 2015 (or possibly early 2016).
Ulric,
Beat periods are useful to those that understand their limitations. Beat periods must always be tied to the underlying physics. They are often misused when they are used as a numero-logical tool.
The are applicable to cyclic phenomenon that have a potential physical link e.g. the synodic periods of the planets.
It is important to remember that their greatest use is as an exploratory tool.
Ulric Lyons (December 2, 2014 at 2:15 pm) wrote:
“Paul, I don’t get why in your QBO calculations that you divide the tropical years by 13 and 27 for a “nearest harmonic”, it seems rather arbitrary.”
That’s anything but arbitrary.
It’s purely systematic.
That’s how you calculate the slipping rate.
It’s the exact same thing machinists do.
I’ve long suspected that people don’t and/or can’t understand this and/or just have never seen a few simple examples that would ease intuition. I know for sure that Ray Tomes understands it, based on comments I’ve seen from him, but I’m not sure if his awareness extends to hierarchical application.
It’s not enough to just look at beats. Awareness of the full picture also demands attention to events. The reason to look at beats is to define the statistical attractor. Keep in mind that all of the mainstream people investigating climate, orbital resonance, etc. use statistics. If they don’t understand how event series bases translate into stats, sensible interpretation of stats isn’t readily feasible. Blind faith in statistical inference even when statistical model assumptions are violated is a brutally hardcore (and patently unjustifiable) mainstay of academic culture. It’s important to understand that this is cultural. It’s not logical. They have some careful philosophical reflection to do moving forward if/when they become more willing to be less lazy and more sensible. This isn’t to say statistical inference isn’t useful. It’s about being aware of and admitting its limitations.
I have tools that look at both the event series and the stats. My aim is to understand deeply what is going wrong with mainstream interpretation by becoming increasingly aware of how their (blind) statistical model assumptions are violated. You can assume that’s what’s on my mind when I go on about aggregation criteria. What I’m trying to do is a lot more nuanced than what seems generally recognized. You can be sure that I now have the conceptual awareness and tools to concisely visually summarize every event series you write about. You can also be sure that I know how to derive from beat theory the stats the mainstream will see with their naive summaries of event series. Climate commentators motivated by politics will obviously totally hate what I’m doing because they realize there’s no way to translate it into a simple administratively defensible message for brainless consumption by followers harshly obsessed with left-right political axis loyalties.
You and I and Piers Corbyn all disagree on the source of the 60ish year wave. I’m confident in my assessment (SCD). I respect that you & Piers Corbyn each hold your own differing views. I’m decisively not interested in debating, but I always watch for new ideas and generally speaking my mind may be open to changing or adjusting at some later date if/when the right combination of awareness finishes taking full, mature shape.
Regards
Ian & others,
Request:
Please explore NASA JPL Horizons annual lunisolar aliasing and discover the following envelopes:
38T-2Y-A
19T-Y-A/2
23T-4Y+2A
4T-3Y+5A/2
D-13T
2D-26T
27T-2D
6T-Y+A/2
12T-2Y+A
where
T = 1 / 365.242189 days
D = 1 / 27.212221 days
A = 1 / 27.55455 days
Y = 1 / 29.530589 days
Note that there’s no 31, nor any 62.
There’s much more to discuss. This is a beginning.
Regards
Translating into frequency algebra:
Ian Wilson started thinking this ~2008:
C = 4(D-Y)/5
Piers Corbyn pointed out this in 2009 to aid a discussion of polar motion patterns:
C = 2D-26T
where
D = lunar draconic month frequency
Y = lunar synodic month frequency
T = terrestrial tropical year frequency
C = Chandler wobble frequency
True or False?
a) 4(D-Y)/5 ≠ 2D-26T
b) 4(D-Y)/5 = 2D-26T
I’m quite curious to know what each and every Talkshop regular is thinking about this.
I similarly provoked with Hale (Channon) vs. Jupiter-Saturn (Scafetta) ~bidecadal timing. I noted timid &/or absent response. I suspect the same can be expected here & now. It’s worth contemplating today and moving forward even if nothing gets said or decided by individuals here & now.
Regards
Of course, 31yr is just 416 nodal and 411 anomalistic, it’s not tidal. Nor is 93yr, while 93*4 is, which is how I corrected Tony Phillips on the solstice eclipse date:
Ulric Lyons says (December 2, 2014 at 4:11 am) wrote:
“I found the average QBO to be nearer 2.333 years.”
About 3 years ago I looked at this using several methods and running tedious diagnostics. I settled on something like 28.44 to 28.45 calendar months and ended up with suspicions about the structure of the first few years of the record.
It’s important to note that Paul Pukite’s estimate of the polar motion group wave period (the ~6.4 year wave) is systematically biased. He ignored the Chandler wobble phase reversal. Even a casual observer with no background might notice this from one of his graphs. Be aware that systematically biased estimates of polar motion features are common even in expert literature. Application of canned algorithms without due tedious care & attention to diagnostics is a formidable obstacle to more sensible mainstream thinking.
Ulric, the point is that there’s no 31 year envelope in annually aliased NASA JPL Horizons lunisolar output. There is, however, a 30 year envelope.
Later if the discussion has evolved sufficiently, I’ll introduce some visual summaries that communicate literally hundreds of the types of notes you & OB regularly share, but all in a single picture that can be digested intuitively in a few seconds. I suspect OB will be picking numbers off the charts, verifying them effortlessly, and very quickly learning to trust that its no bluff. The statistical attractors of the graphed event series are effortlessly evident to the naked eye in these summaries.
P.V:
“That’s how you calculate the slipping rate.”
I don’t see how that calculates the slip between the nodal period and the tropical year. You are making beat periods from virtual periods that don’t physically exist, e.g. 365.242/13.
Paul Vaughan
I would have thought that the QBO would tend to get forced by annual atmospheric patterns and have to resolve to a whole number of years as soon as it could when it is in closer phase, hence the 7/3 (2.333) tropical years.
Click to access DArrigoetal2005a.pdf
The pdf makes the point that ENSO variability during prolonged minimum solar periods was less.
However, I am predicting that there is an increased likelihood of a STRONG event some time in 2015 (or possibly early 2016).
Prediction from Ian. Thanks
” In general, ENSO variability
appears to be somewhat modulated by external forcing –
higher variance in the ENSO-related tree-ring and coral
series coincides during some intervals with decreased
radiative forcing, in broad agreement with previous coral
[Cobb et al., 2003] and modeling [Mann et al., 2005] studies.”
Given that the coldest years of the Dalton Minimum (1807-1817) likely had five El Nino episodes, and hardly any aurora sightings in those particular years, I’m not going to be convinced by a tree ring proxy claiming that there was reduced El Nino frequency in the Maunder Minimum.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005PA001137/pdf
Ulric you may be correct. All I am doing is trying to show how much confusion there is out there.
the frequency and amplitude of ENSO events and their
teleconnections is still not fully understood. D’Arrigo et al.
[2005] and Cobb et al. [2003] showed that ENSO variability
during the Maunder Minimum was initially very high
but later declined to a very low value, a result not fully
explained by models of radiative forcing.
[8] With our study we investigate the relative importance
From the article I just sent.
IW says: ‘The perigee end of the lunar line-of-apse realigns with the Sun roughly once 411.7844(3) days = 1.1274 sidereal years. This is called the Full Moon Cycle’
This should be at least very close to being true:
157 FMC = 177 years makes FMC = 1.1273885y
177 – 157 = 20 i.e. number of apogee/perigee in 177 years
Paul,
Just because you are [un]able to find the 31/62 year pattern in your meta-analysis does not mean that it not present. I do not want to embarrass you at this stage but I would not make any absolute conclusions based upon what at this stage are ongoing investigations. I know that you are open [and wise] enough to realize that you are not in possession of the full facts.
Salvatore Del Prete
It’s the Caribbean not the Pacific, it’s not the best indicator of ENSO. It’s possible that with an increasing warm AMO that the study region could cool despite El Nino in the Pacific.
Ulric said:
“Of course, 31yr is just 416 nodal and 411 anomalistic, it’s not tidal. Nor is 93yr, while 93*4 is, which is how I corrected Tony Phillips on the solstice eclipse date.”
This is one of the major problems with this debate. Ulric has little or no physics background and so he comes out with totally illogical and no-physical statements like that above.
First and foremost, if he were to spend the time actually investigating what is being said he would realize that 31/62 year cycle refers to a pattern that is seen in the strength of the Peak tides and how they align with the seasons.
Combining the information that is presented in figures 5 and 7 of:
Click to access prp-2-75-2014.pdf
with the information presented at:
Variations in the Earth’s Climate on Decadal Time Scales and Proxigean Spring Tides
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/variations-in-earths-climate-on-decadal.html
shows conclusively that the 31/62 year pattern in peak tides translates into an actual long-term pattern in equilibrium ocean tidal heights – which is a logical way to represent long term changes in real oceanic tides.
To deny this conclusion is like saying Earth is shaped like a pretzel and the Moon is made of cheese.
When Ulrich is right I am more than willing to acknowledge that but when he is totally off the mark, I have to pull him up.
I think I get what Ian is saying now. 411 anomalistic months is very close to 383.5 lunations, with the king tide on the opposite moon phase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_moon_cycle#Matching_synodic_and_anomalistic_months
Rog,
I think that we need to set up a work shop on this topic as soon as possible so that Ulric, Paul, Salvatore, oldbrew, Tim, Nicola, you and anyone else who is interested can present their respective cases.
A clear distinction needs to be made factors that effect climate on scales that exceed 1000 – 10,000 years and those that apply centennial to decadal time scales. Of course there is some overlap between the two, however, it does not contribute to the usefulness of the debate when you are trying to discuss factors effecting the ENSO and some jumps in with a grand-unified theory of everything that includes the Milankovich cycles.
Ulrich,
Thank you Ulrich – I sincerely value your thoughts and input in this field as you have a keen mind that sees many things that others often miss.
My bad Ian, I now recall doing the 31yr calculation about 5 years, but forgot it since. I am so focused on the planetary research it’s been a while since I looked at any lunar figures at all.
My science background started before the age of five, at the time my father led the team that developed the Black Night and Blue Streak rocket systems. I was spoiled rotten for physics lessons. Also my late father in law was a brilliant teacher. Early on he was at guided weapons with my father, but moved to the US working on the Minute Man system, and later on a proposed moon based laser weapon which he called the Sword of Damacles. His father was chairman of the British Interplanetary Society, it was his visionary paintings of spacecraft and lunar bases that inspired the Apollo missions, as well as most future science comic art. They both wrote many story plots for Arthur C Clark, including the plot for 2001 space odyssey.
http://io9.com/the-union-jack-on-the-moon-1262867212
http://www.airspacemag.com/space/hms-moon-rocket-3143/?all&no-ist
oops..Black Knight !
Paul said:
“Translating into frequency algebra:
Ian Wilson started thinking this ~2008:
C = 4(D-Y)/5
Piers Corbyn pointed out this in 2009 to aid a discussion of polar motion patterns:
C = 2D-26T”
Response:
I am sure that you meant to include the important contribution of Nikolay Sidorenkov in 1992 and 2000.
[1] Sidorenkov NS. Chandler Wobble of the poles as part of the nutation of the Atmosphere, Ocean, Earth system. Astron Rep 2000; 44 (6): 414-9.
[2] Sidorenkov NS. Excitation mechanism of Chandler polar motion. Astron J 1992; 69 (4): 905-9.
Sidorenkov [1] has determined that the frequency spectra of the ENSO indices has significant components that are close to the subharmonics of the free nutation period of the Earth’s poles (i.e. the Chandler Wobble) and the superharmonics of the Earth’s forced nutation motion (i.e. the 18.6
year lunar nodical wobble). Sidorenkov [1] argues that external forcing by the lunar/solar tides, acting at the superharmonics of the Earth’s forced nutation motion, could produce nonlinear enhancements of the oscillations in the Earth/atmosphere/oceanic system that closely match those that are seen in the ENSO climate variations. He also asserts that the resultant ENSO climate variations excite the Chandler Wobble through a resonant coupling with the subharmonics of the free nutation period of the Earth’s pole.
Sidorenkov [1] has determined that the frequency spectra of the ENSO indices has significant components that are close to the subharmonics of the free nutation period of the Earth’s poles (i.e. the Chandler Wobble) and the superharmonics of the Earth’s forced nutation motion (i.e. the 18.6 year lunar nodical wobble). Sidorenkov [1] argues that external forcing by the lunar/solar tides, acting at the superharmonics of the Earth’s forced nutation motion, could produce nonlinear enhancements of the oscillations in the EarthAtmosphereOcean system that closely match those
that are seen in the ENSO climate variations. He also asserts that the resultant ENSO climate variations excite the Chandler Wobble through a resonant coupling with the subharmonics of the free nutation period of the Earth’s pole.
If you combine this with the seventh figure in:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/el-ninos-and-extreme-proxigean-spring.html
you see that the beat frequencies of the extreme Perigean spring tides pump the Earth at frequencies that almost perfectly match those seen in the SOI index.
Ulric,
My apologies for totally misjudging your deep and varied background in physics. It seems that we both share a love for this field.
Paul Vaughan says:
“Piers Corbyn pointed out this in 2009 to aid a discussion of polar motion patterns:
C = 2D-26T”
Why should one 26th part of one year form a beat with a half lunar nodal period?
Ulric Lyons (December 2, 2014 at 6:48 pm) wrote:
“I don’t see how that calculates the slip between the nodal period and the tropical year. You are making beat periods from virtual periods that don’t physically exist, e.g. 365.242/13.”
Ulric Lyons (December 2, 2014 at 7:23 pm) wrote:
“I would have thought that the QBO would tend to get forced by annual atmospheric patterns and have to resolve to a whole number of years as soon as it could when it is in closer phase, hence the 7/3 (2.333) tropical years.”
Ulric Lyons (December 3, 2014 at 1:01 am) wrote:
“Why should one 26th part of one year form a beat with a half lunar nodal period?”
There appears to be a serious misunderstanding. Possibly you’re conflating 2 differing contexts. The math is the same for accumulated physical slip looping (e.g. JEV) and for physical aliasing (e.g. D & T). Both are physical. Neither are conjecture. Both are proven. Here’s D & T from NASA JPL Horizons:
Misrepresenting and/or misinterpreting proof as conjecture is a sure way to fatally undermine trust.
Ian Wilson (December 2, 2014 at 10:50 pm) wrote:
“Paul,
Just because you are [un]able to find the 31/62 year pattern in your meta-analysis does not mean that it not present. I do not want to embarrass you at this stage but I would not make any absolute conclusions based upon what at this stage are ongoing investigations. I know that you are open [and wise] enough to realize that you are not in possession of the full facts.”
Reminder:
I’ve found the 31/62/93/186 pattern. It’s just not where you say it is. Step 1 is to recognize that we’re having cross-disciplinary communications problems, which we can eventually overcome. This isn’t about personal pride. It’s about definitions. For example, when I say “envelope” or “statistical attractor” Ulric reads “event”. If I meant “event” I would have written “event”. Our discussion isn’t going anywhere if the misrepresentations of what’s being said continue.
I was looking forward to this discussion. It’s a fun, interesting topic. But this discussion is turning into the kind of drudgery (protracted string of misunderstandings/misinterpretations) one expects to find at ce &/or wuwt. I like to think the Talkshop is well above any risk of slipping into such a bottomless pit where every time you think it can’t get any lower it just keeps getting lower.
We all have something to teach one another. The community is failing to recognize some simple properties of the annual physical aliasing envelopes. I can help with that if people are willing to invest some effort in independent learning.
Above I’ve given tips on 27, 30, 121.5, plus others along with frequency algebra. My aim is to first give people a chance to learn independently before I illustrate further.
Time is precious. Let us please take sober care to waste no more time.
Gents,
My apologies for being AWOL from this debate due to other commitments, though I can’t add much in technical terms anyway. I’ve just skimmed comments and seen suggestions from several on how a workshop should be framed, and limits demarcated. Always remember that while we all have our own research agendas, spending time to understand other people’s approaches almost always leads to deeper insight into your own line of thinking. It makes for a happier group if you temper a suggestion that something someone says is ‘wrong’ with an observation of how their input is useful in some other respect. In short, be mutually supportive wherever possible.
To maintain focus, I suggest we pay attention to Ian’s suggestion that we focus in general on decadal to centennial timeframes, though super-stunning match-ups at longer periods are sometimes worth an aside.
I’m away in London for two days to meet Benny P, David WHitehouse and hear Henrik Svensmark at Westminster. Drop some comments on how you’d like to proceed and lets keep this productive conversation going.
Paul,
I think we have to stop approaching this as a learning exercise where one person,and one person only, is the teacher and the rest of us are just lowly students who are expected to wait with baited breath to hear the next great revelation from the Zen Master e.g.
Paul said:
“Above, I’ve given tips on 27, 30, 121.5, plus others along with frequency algebra. My aim is to first give people a chance to learn independently before I illustrate further.”
Response:
The underlying theme of this approach appears to be that one person is the fountain of all knowledge
and everyone else is just a receptacle into which the teacher pours his wisdom.
I know that you do not intend your contribution to this important discussion to be interpreted in this manner. In addition, I am absolutely certain that you want it to be a true positive discussion between peers. However, there are times where people are left with this (mistaken) impression. This is especially true when you give cryptic clues about the next step in your train of logical arguments. Jesus used to speak in parables to his disciples but I do not think that it works in a peer to peer scientific discussion. It would be much better if we could all just come out and say it without beating around the bush.
Having said this, I know that I have my own quirky way of presenting my case and I am sure that it sometimes grates with the learning styles of the other participants. In order to avoid friction, I suggest the following overall approach:
1. Here is(are) my proposal(s)
2. Please take the time necessary to constructively consider them
3. Get back to me at some future date and tell me what you think
A quick first response to what Paul Vaughan said at December 2, 2014 at 5:14 pm:
Paul,
The reason why you do not see a 31/62 year pattern in the lunar anomalistic and synodic cycles is that it quickly slips out of synchronization with the tropical year.
In the real physical world (that is based upon physical principles) the 31/62 pattern resets itself to realign the lunar anomalistic and synodic cycles with the tropical year.
Hence, the 31 year half cycle is really made up of three half Saros cycles (3 x 9 = 27 years) + a 4 year slip to re-synchronize the cycles.
i.e. 3 x 9 + 4 years = 27 + 4 years = 31 years
Or if you want to express it in full cycles:
i.e. 3 x 18 + 8 years = 54 years + 8 years = 62 years.
I will follow this up by looking at your envelope patterns but I do not (at this stage) think that it will change what I have said above. However, I could be wrong.
This is what I mean about not beating around the bush.
A. Interaction of tropical year with anomalistic and Synodic cycles
1: Half and whole Venus/Earth Transit
38T-2Y-A = 1 / 121.5537289 tropical years
19T-Y-A/2 = 1 / 243.1074578 tropical years
2. 27 and 30 year cycles
23T-4Y+2A = 1 / 26.72660385 tropical years
4T-3Y+5A/2 = 1 / 30.027780 tropical years
3. The 1.9/3.8 year cycle (?)
12T-2Y+A = 1 / 1.927867 tropical years
6T-Y+A/2 = 1 / 3.8557342 tropical years
B. Interaction of the Tropical year with the Draconic cycle
4. Chandler Wobble / QBO
2D-26T = 1/ 1.184859 tropical years
D-13T = 1 / 2.3697180 tropical years
5. The 6.4 year Envelop
27T-2D = 1 / 6.4095279 tropical years
where
T = 1 / 365.242189 days
D = 1 / 27.212221 days
A = 1 / 27.55455 days
Y = 1 / 29.530589 days
Now is it possible to get a summary of what happens with annual aliasing for the following dates:
Dec. 21
Mar. 21
Jun. 21
Sep. 21
Paul Vaughan says:
“For example, when I say “envelope” or “statistical attractor” Ulric reads “event”. If I meant “event” I would have written “event”. Our discussion isn’t going anywhere if the misrepresentations of what’s being said continue.”
In fact you read “statistical attractors” when I said “event series. And you also declared that you are “decisively not interested in debating” my 69yr envelope derived from my event series. But you then precede to boast about well you can graph up my event series. And you failed to answer my most simple question; what is physical about one 26th of one year? Which the answer obviously is nothing whatsoever.
Ian Wilson (December 3, 2014 at 10:53 am) wrote:
“Paul,
The reason why you do not see a 31/62 year pattern in the lunar anomalistic and synodic cycles is that it quickly slips out of synchronization with the tropical year.”
I’m well-aware of that. Now that I’ve heard you say it, I’m satisfied.
Ian Wilson (December 3, 2014 at 10:25 am) wrote:
“It would be much better if we could all just come out and say it without beating around the bush.”
We’re in full agreement, but in my line of paid work we’re in the busy season. It will probably take us a little over a month to overcome misunderstandings for no reason other than the time constraints I (unfortunately) can’t avoid bringing to the talkshop table.
Ulric Lyons (December 3, 2014 at 3:39 pm) wrote:
“[…] what is physical about one 26th of one year? Which the answer obviously is nothing whatsoever.”
Severe misinterpretation/misrepresentation. If you keep misinterpreting/misrepresenting, the discussion cannot advance.
TB: Safe travels.
Ian: After you’ve given some careful attention to 26.72660385 year & 30.02778018 year envelopes in NASA JPL annual lunar aliasing, I suspect we’ll have immediate resolution.
IW says: ‘In the real physical world (that is based upon physical principles) the 31/62 pattern resets itself to realign the lunar anomalistic and synodic cycles with the tropical year.’
It appears to follow the lunar precession cycle exactly ‘one behind’ i.e. one LPC @ 8.85 years = 7.85 full moon cycles. Are the two things compatible?
oldbrew,
Yes, 1 Full Moon Cycle (FMC) = 1.1274 sidereal years
The synodic like beat period of the FMC with the sidereal year is:
(1.1274 x 1.0)/(1.1274 -1.0) = 8.8493 sidereal years = The Cycle of Lunar Perigee
which by definition is the precise time when the annual sidereal year differs from the FMC by exactly one year.
Thank you for pointing out that:
20 x 8.85 = 177.0 years
157 x FMC = 177.0018 years
I had forgotten that this was the case. Going back to one of my earlier posts on this topic helped me clear up the situation:
This precise alignment at 177.00 years only applies to anomalistic and sidereal cycles but not the synodic lunar cycle (equal to approximately 2189.25 synodic months – error = 0.53 days).
This seemed counter intuitive to me because you would expect the 411.78 day FMC to be aligned with the lunar phases. However, the 411.78 day realignment of the synodic and anomalistic lunar months is not an exact number of synodic or anomalistic lunar months:
14 x 29.350589 days (synodic months) = 413.428244 days | average 413.373247 days
15 x 27.554550 days (anomalistic months) = 413.318250 days |
In this case 177.00 years = 156.387098 lots of 14 Synodic lunar phase cycles.
@Ian Wilson (December 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm): Ian why would the universe run synodic months on a 14 cycle, this is only a mathematical idea.
Instead of 20 x 8.85 I use 10 x 8.85 and checked that new moon and full moon have virtually same apsidal distance at the interval ends (-3000 to CE 3999, DE421).
So, if in addition you have a mathematical full-moon cycle, the respective phase has the respective apsidal distance at each syzygy (IMHO thanks to the Sun).
Because roughly every 14th full Moon is at perigee. With the long term average being slightly shorter.
I think this web-site is fine the way it is. We all have a different approach and all think are approach is the best.
Not to mention other web-sites that will not allow much of what is being discussed about here on those web-sites.
As I expressed I think all views should be discussed. Even if one disagrees.
IW: Thanks for explaining that.
I make it 7014 (501 x 14) synodic months = 7517 anomalistic months, difference 503.
There’s the 14 synodic months.
It can also be stated as:
501 x 14 SM = 537 x 14, -1 AM = 36 x 14, -1 difference
or
21 x 334 SM = 21 x 358, -1 AM = 21 x 24, -1 difference
Ian the moon’s distance from the earth is much greater now then it was in the distant past.
(IF ) you are correct on lunar influences would there not be evidence of a much greater lunar effect in the distant past upon the earth when the moon was closer to the earth in contrast to now?
Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered?
I heard in the TV that moon is moving away from the earth towards the sun. Why is that happening? And when was this exactly discovered?
The Moon’s orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. (The Moon’s orbit has a radius of 384,000 km.) I wouldn’t say that the Moon is getting closer to the Sun, specifically, though–it is getting farther from the Earth, so, when it’s in the part of its orbit closest to the Sun, it’s closer, but when it’s in the part of its orbit farthest from the Sun, it’s farther away.
The reason for the increase is that the Moon raises tides on the Earth. Because the side of the Earth that faces the Moon is closer, it feels a stronger pull of gravity than the center of the Earth. Similarly, the part of the Earth facing away from the Moon feels less gravity than the center of the Earth. This effect stretches the Earth a bit, making it a little bit oblong. We call the parts that stick out “tidal bulges.” The actual solid body of the Earth is distorted a few centimeters, but the most noticable effect is the tides raised on the ocean.
Now, all mass exerts a gravitational force, and the tidal bulges on the Earth exert a gravitational pull on the Moon. Because the Earth rotates faster (once every 24 hours) than the Moon orbits (once every 27.3 days) the bulge tries to “speed up” the Moon, and pull it ahead in its orbit. The Moon is also pulling back on the tidal bulge of the Earth, slowing the Earth’s rotation. Tidal friction, caused by the movement of the tidal bulge around the Earth, takes energy out of the Earth and puts it into the Moon’s orbit, making the Moon’s orbit bigger (but, a bit pardoxically, the Moon actually moves slower!).
The Earth’s rotation is slowing down because of this. One hundred years from now, the day will be 2 milliseconds longer than it is now.
IAN how will that play into your LOD/NAO CORRELATION?
Salvatore,
What you have posted is correct. Since its formation, the Moon has moved from about 3 Earth radii to its current position located 60 Earth radii from the Earth. However, the bulk of that movement occurred within the first billion years or so of the 4.5 billion history of the Moon. Hence, you are talking about investigating climates over 500 million years ago if you want to see any difference.
Paul,
Here is a reference to my Chandler wobble/Climate paper from August 25th 2008 at the ICECAP blog site:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/climate_similar_to_the_1800s_within_the_next_15_years_first_stage_of_global/
In this article they say that:
Icecap Note: Ian Wilson has found a similar correlation between planetary/gravitational cycles and the major ocean oscillations, the PDO and NAO in this powerpoint.
Unfortunately the link to the powerpoint that is based upon the Chandler wobble/Climate paper is broken.
IW: ‘the link to the powerpoint that is based upon the Chandler wobble/Climate paper’ – is this it?
Click to access IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
[note: yes it is]
IW: in that link you say ‘The motion of the CM shown in this figure repeats itself roughly once every 40 years’ [CM = centre-of-mass of the Solar System]
Could that be linked to this:
‘The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that’s why the slowdown is important.’
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
old brew brings up an interesting point about the great conveyor belt and sunspot cycles. It could be this is the cause rather then solar system dynamics and the associated angular momentum.
Or maybe it is a combination of the two plus other unknowns yet to be realized.
I will not embrace a particular theory. Just to much uncertainty.
Ian a question why is it that all these exact solar system dynamic measurements do not give you the ability to predict an exact climate outcome when the state of earth dynamics is put into the equation.
I see so much adjusting and maybe this or maybe that might happen at this time or maybe not at this time.
Click to access cp-8-1473-2012.pdf
This is a pdf about can we predict the duration of an inter-glacial. Much more convincing then some other thoughts put forth on this web-site.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/climate_similar_to_the_1800s_within_the_next_15_years_first_stage_of_global/
This is not convincing at all. My opinion.
Re the Great Conveyor Belt [quote]:
Using historical sunspot records, Hathaway has succeeded in clocking the conveyor belt as far back as 1890. The numbers are compelling: For more than a century, “the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity.”
If the trend holds, Solar Cycle 25 in 2022 could be, like the belt itself, “off the bottom of the charts.”
[end quote]
From early 2022 all 4 giant planets should be in the same quadrant relative to the Sun until late 2024 or early 2025, while the Sun itself will be more than 1 solar diameter from the centre of mass of the solar system (according to the solar simulator) for at least the first half of that time.
Oldbrew,
Yes, I gave the PP presentation at the 2008 Lavoisier Society General Meeting In Melbourne, Australia. It included some of the figures from my 2008 paper.
Salvatore Del Prete,
Demanding comprehensive solutions to difficult problems will not help solve these problems any faster. It is important to be patient. Sometimes, you have to admit that at this stage of investigations we don’t know enough to form a definitive solution. We all love order and crystal clear understanding but Nature often thwarts our ambitions.
Ian, can you acknowledge the following in NASA Horizons annual lunisolar aliasing?
a) 26.72660385 year eccentricity envelope
b) 30.02778018 year range envelope
Ian Wilson (December 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm) wrote:
“This seemed counter intuitive to me because you would expect the 411.78 day FMC to be aligned with the lunar phases.”
An awakening. This gives some cause for optimism that misunderstandings/misinterpretations will eventually be overcome.
“you would expect”
I definitely would not expect that.
“This seemed counter intuitive”
It should not.
I advise exhaustive diagnostics if needed to identify and eliminate incorrect assumptions.
OB: I would like to try an exercise which I believe you will appreciate. If I supply periods and a graph summarizing how well 3 lunar cycles align with the tropical year, would you be willing to do testing and verification?
14 Full Moon Cycles = 211 lunar orbits if that’s any help (14 x 15, +1).
PV: I don’t know if I would understand the job 😉
I make it 1287 FMC = 1451 tropical years.
1287 = 39 x 33
1451 = 44 x 33, -1
All above numbers are ‘best matches’ but very close to 100%.
SdP says: ‘I see so much adjusting and maybe this or maybe that might happen at this time or maybe not at this time’
The Met Office have the same problem and they will get a £100 million computer to help sort it out 😉
Salvatore Del Prete says:
December 4, 2014 at 10:10 pm
“Ian a question why is it that all these exact solar system dynamic measurements do not give you the ability to predict an exact climate outcome when the state of earth dynamics is put into the equation.”
It is in fact easier to predict weather at long range than the climatic. I forecast larger Arctic outbreaks from 10 Nov 2014, 7 Jan 2014, 11 March 2013, late Jan into Feb 2012, 24 Nov through Dec 2010, and Jan+Feb 2010. This is achieved from the planetary ordering of solar activity at down to daily scales. They all came on time like a Swiss train.
Such signals, as well as the forecast warm events and periods, are then ideal to extrapolate what the oceanic modes will doing, as ENSO and AMO phase need to be known to forecast effectively at longer ranges for many regions.
As of today I have yet to see anyone predict the climate correctly including myself.
We all have our climate forecast and I guess we will find out to some degree.
Again I am calling for a jig saw temperature decline as much as .5 c for the globe as a whole by 2020 mainly in response to very low prolonged minimum solar activity on top of the 10 years of sub-solar activity we have had since year 2005.
In addition I am expecting the atmospheric circulation to remain meridional and even become more so as this decade proceeds in response to ozone distribution changes due to prolonged solar minimum conditions.
Following a full night’s sleep (a rare luxury) leading into a day off from paid work, I finished exactly nailing the last details of NASA JPL Horizons annual lunisolar aliasing envelopes during morning coffee. It’s pretty easy when well-rested and not in a rush.
Ian, this is no bluff. You & I should now get serious and ignore distractions.
TB: A special request:
If other commentators projecting
(1) a transparent political agenda &/or
(2) intransigent dark ignorance of aggregation criteria
try to derail &/or encumber the exchange Ian & I are trying to have,
I ask this once that you please put them in the penalty box (at least temporarily).
Ian says below where he is mistaken in that my model is for both short/long periods of time.
You have put forward a comprehensive model that deals with all aspects of climate over at least the last 3.0 million years. That discussion is very different to one about the factors forcing climate over the last say 150 years, as different forcing factors have
different relative effects depending on the time scales considered.
There is no need to hold onto a redundant frame of reference. Climate is the sum of weather, so to forecast climate one has to forecast at the scale of weather, over very long ranges. Because the Sun is driving atmospheric teleconnections and oceanic modes at these scales. Not only is this possible, but ultimately it is the only way to tell which way the climate will be going with any certainty.
Global averages hold much less value when one can forecast regionally independently of global mean surface temperature, at any useful range.
E.g., despite whatever rise in global mean surface T since 1890 in the middle of the Gleissberg Minimum, Dec 2010 was the second coldest on CET. Just because of short term drops in the solar signal causing negative values of the NAO&AO, not seen since past solar minima. That event then has a knock on effect on the climate because of ocean feedbacks.
last major puzzle piece:
observed envelope for which frequency algebra was clarified today:
1/34.25937839 years = 3A-2Y-15T
Ian: Note that 243 splits 30 into 27 (eccentricity) & 34 (range).
It won’t be difficult to lock down concise illustration when time (& blog weather) permit.
(OB will be picking periods off the illustrations and verifying at machine-gun pace…)
Paul said: December 5, 2014 at 7:51 am
1 FMC = 411.78442(9) days
1 Synodic month = 29.53058(9) days
1 Anomalistic month = 27.55455(0) days
1 Tropical year = 365.242189 days
Paul,
My misunderstanding of the situation regarding the inter-decadal alignment between the lunar synodic and anomalistic cycles comes from the expectation that a very precise New Moon should return to closest perigee after 18 FMC (i.e. 18 x 1.1274(3) years = 20.2937 tropical years. This alignment should also happen for multiples of 18 FMC’s (with a possible slow drift away from precise alignment). I think it was Norman Treloar who first convinced me about the fundamental nature of this 20.2937 tropical year precise alignment between phase and perigee.
The work of Wood (Tidal dynamic-coastal flooding, and cycles of gravitational force. D. Reidel: Dordrecht and Boston 1986) highlights the close alignment between the seasonal calendar and the anomalistic cycle at almost precisely 31.000 years. This mistakenly leads me to assume that the 31.00 year repetition cycle is essentially linked to 20.2937 year cycle.
My mistake is to erroneously assume that 27.5 FMCs is almost exactly = 31.0000 tropical years, when in fact 27.4962 FMCs are required.
Salvatore,
You clearly have your ideas to contribute towards the prediction of the Earth’s climate on long and short time scales. The same is true of Ulric, Paul and myself amongst others. Each of have a set of physical principles that we apply to the problem (e.g. a model or a set of guiding assumptions and hypothesis). It should be obvious to every one involved, however, that none of us have a monopoly upon the full picture (even though some are adamant that they do).
What I am trying to get across is that in this upcoming workshop we not trying comprehensively solve all of the problems of the climate universe. Indeed if contributors try to set out to do this then it will just introduce a fog which will hinder (and possibly kill) the general discussion. All we get is a he says-she says “debate” where each contributor will defend to their last drop of blood their particular view of the Universe.
The work shop purpose is to discuss a particular revelation that Paul has about the results of my most recent paper. Paul will present a number of issues that he wants us to digest and discuss. Obviously, there will be times that we have to clarify some points about his presentation, and there will be times where we want to contribute our own ideas. However, it is important to emphasis the following:
a) The workshop will not progress far if Paul is continually held up trying to explain (or even debate) simple definitions and concepts – in fact it would be good if others could step in and give a brief explanation to a quizzical contributor so that the discussion can continue to flow.
b) The workshop will fail if someone spends all of their time just trying to push their own broad philosophical agenda. If there is someone doing this, I believe that they should be called out and asked to start their own blog post or thread elsewhere.
c) All contributors must realize that we live in a real (off-line) world and that it not possible for everyone to be permanently chained to their computer 24/7 – ready to give an immediate response to a any contributor.
Above all, the workshop is primarily (but not solely) based around an exchange between Paul and myself about a specific set of topics (i.e. revelations/comments by Paul to issues that arise out of the general results in my most recent paper).
It is my genuine hope that contributors will respect these guidelines – if they do, I believe that they may be rewarded for their efforts.
Ulric said:
“There is no need to hold onto a redundant frame of reference. Climate is the sum of weather, so to forecast climate one has to forecast at the scale of weather, over very long ranges. Because the Sun is driving atmospheric teleconnections and oceanic modes at these scales. Not only is this possible, but ultimately it is the only way to tell which way the climate will be going with any certainty.
Global averages hold much less value when one can forecast regionally independently of global mean surface temperature, at any useful range.”
This is patently false on basic physical grounds. I will try an explain using a simple analogy:
Imagine if we live in an imaginary world were at 3:00 o’clock every afternoon (at our fixed location) it rains for precisely 10 minutes. Each afternoon we go out to our perfect rain gauge and measure the total rainfall and it is always about 10 mm +/- one sigma = 2 mm. Imagine that the mean total daily rainfall and its sigma value had not changed in well over 200 years (this is the full length of our weather records).
We could completely describe the weather at this location using the first two sentences and we could completely explain the climate using the information in all three sentences.
This is a world that precisely follows Ulric’s view of the climate universe i.e. climate is the sum of weather.
Now imagine that there is a factor that is external to the Earth and its weather system that very slowly decreases the total amount of water vapor available in the atmosphere. This change in water vapor takes place on such a long timescale that it is essentially impossible to measure any change in water vapor levels over 10000 year time period and so its effects are totally invisible through out the full 200 year weather record.
In this imaginary world, if we came back 10000 years from now and everything was the same except for the fact that our perfect rain gauge was now telling us that the totally daily rainfall was 9 mm +/- one sigma = 2 mm. I think that we could conclude that the climate had become drier. In Ulric’s world we would use the following logic sequence to explain what had happened:
There has been a cumulative change in weather i.e. water vapor has slightly decreased over the last 10,000 years –> that has led to a change in climate i.e. there has been a slight drop in the mean total daily rainfall.
This world view would completely miss the underlying external cause that has produced the drop in overall local humidity levels.
It is clear, in this case, that a factor that is TOTALLY unrelated to (local, regional and global) weather has changed the climate. Hence, saying that [the causes of] climate is the sum of [the causes of] weather is demonstrable false.
Of this whole argument could be repeated using a long-term period of change as short as ~ 100 years rather than 10,000 years. We could still argue that a change in water vapor levels has been bought about by a factor that have absolutely nothing to do with weather, and this has lead to a change in climate.
Ulric Lyons said:
December 5, 2014 at 3:24 pm
In Mesopotamia, people used to plant crops using a seed drill. An adult would usually walk across the filed in straight line poking a hole in the ground with their seed stick and one of their children would walk along behind and drop a seed from their seed-bag into the hole and close the hole off with a piece of dirt. These steps would be repeated ad infinitum until the planting was done.
One day, while the adult and child were having lunch, the child noticed that the fish they were having for lunch was off. Reflexively, they threw the piece of fish into one of the still open seed holes that they had mad just before lunch and closed the hole of with a handful of dirt.
Latter in the year, at the time of harvest, the child noticed that there was a plant that had grown three times higher than all of the surrounding plants. A light bulb went off inside their head, and they remembered what they had done with the rotten fish.
From this little incident a whole philosophy developed plants would grow much better if people placated the “Fish-Gods” by placing a small piece of rotten fish in with the seed when it was planted. Of course, the fish had to wrapped up in a grape leaf and an incantation had to be spoken otherwise “the miracle” would not work. Sure enough, every time the ancient agronomist performed this ritual they were bless with a bountiful crop.
The moral of the story: It always pays to be careful in putting too much faith in our explanations of nature – especially when we are convinced that our explanations appear to be very good at predicting upcoming events.
IW says: ‘However, the 411.78 day realignment of the synodic and anomalistic lunar months is not an exact number of synodic or anomalistic lunar months’
This seems to fit very closely:
7014 synodic months = 7517 anomalistic months = 503 full moon cycles (7517 – 7014)
Paul V: I have reblogged Ian’s post on his new paper. This will be the workshop thread, where comments will be strictly moderated for relevance.
I ask that no-one else comments there until Ian and Paul have set out their purposes and objectives in their opening remarks.
Thanks – TB
Ian Wilson says:
December 6, 2014 at 5:57 am
“This is patently false on basic physical grounds. I will try an explain using a simple analogy:”
It’s your analogy that is patently false. You cannot disprove reality with an unphysical fiction.
Ian Wilson says:
December 6, 2014 at 6:40 am
“The moral of the story: It always pays to be careful in putting too much faith in our explanations of nature – especially when we are convinced that our explanations appear to be very good at predicting upcoming events.”
That’s your own medicine, I have a growing track record of precision forecasting because I have empirical findings that enable me to do so.
Ulric: I have a growing track record of precision forecasting
Hi Ulric. I think you should make the effort to put an article together with links to your specific forecasts at the original locations on the net they were made, a copy of the forecast, and a link to the data you believe validates the forecast. Then others can judge how well the forecasts panned out. The reason I’m making this suggestion is that just asserting that you have “a growing track record of precision forecasting” without offering evidence for it isn’t very convincing.
Ian says below which is fine but I feel you and Paul after you exchange many thoughts need to put forth a climate forecast similar to what I have done (for the next 10 years or so)and tell what solar system dynamics are responsible for this climate forecast and I guess in the case for what you guys are working on where are these solar system influences with respect to earth and the sun that will give your x climate forecast over x years.
If when you accomplish this it would grab my attention and give us others a chance to see how correct both of you are ,but even more see how the solar system dynamics at a particular time are exerting their influence on the climate of the earth.
If your climate forecast is correct based on the above this would cause me and others I suspect to become much more interested in your approach.
I have put forth my climate forecast and the why/how behind it based on parameters other then Milankovitch Cycles . I would like to see from the both of you a climate forecast based on the positions of various PLANETS /MOON which when in that position due to gravitational forces (you all refer to exerted by these bodies ) will give a resultant climate forecast.
Ian you and Paul can’t have it both ways in that you are saying specific gravitational influences will be exerted upon the earth due to the various positions of the planets and the moon that if occur should make the climate do this. The positions and the times these bodies will be in that position you and Paul have calculated to a precise exactness therefore if these items do exert control of the climate through the associated gravitational forces they exert upon the earth which you both of you claim then both of you should be able to give the resultant climate going forward. As long as you both know the given state of where the earth is at which all of us know.
Your exactness in the prediction of these heavenly bodies and their associated gravitational influence on earth causing the climate to do this or that makes me say PROVE it by giving the resultant climate forecast based on all this exactness. Again you both know the given state of where the earth is at in respect to present climate/land sea arrangements etc.
The work shop purpose is to discuss a particular revelation that Paul has about the results of my most recent paper. Paul will present a number of issues that he wants us to digest and discuss. Obviously, there will be times that we have to clarify some points about his presentation, and there will be times where we want to contribute our own ideas. However, it is important to emphasis the following:
Of course to be fully convincing I will first deal with several centuries worth of hindcasts and demonstrate the nature of the planetary ordering of solar activity at a number of scales. Forecasts since 2008 only serve as a supplement and a further confirmation.
I want to see future climate forecast like I did for example. I said the climate for the next 5 years will do this in response to very prolonged solar minimum conditions and have the parameters.
I want to see PAUL/IAN/ULRIC give a climate forecast for the next 5 years based on the positions of all the planets/moon and their associated gravitational influences on the earth which according to all of you will cause the climate to react in a certain way.
I did it with my model . That needs to be done in order to give credence to what you all claim.
Without that this is just talk with nothing to back it up with. PROVE IT with a climate forecast that can verify or falsify what you are saying.
To PAUL/IAN/ULRIC see what I have done. I have presented a climate forecast based on specifics which is easily falsified or can be proven correct. I would like this same sort of thing from all of you.
If all the positions of the planets/moon are known and their associated gravitational /climate influences upon the earth then a climate forecast for the next 5 years should be easy according to what you all try to convey.
HERE IS MY CLIMATE FORECAST AND WHY . THANKS.
Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.
CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.
CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.
I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
Salvatore: Ian provided a forecast recently regarding the timing of the next El Nino event, based on Lunar parameters. It’s not his fault if you didn’t read it. You talk about your ”parameters’ and a ‘model’ of yours. Where is it? Please stop haranguing my regular contributors, who are working slowly and carefully to get their parameters and models NUMERICALLY CORRECT before proceeding to weather guessing.
Ulric: Looking forward to it, as always. 🙂
Rog all he did was predict when El Nino might occur. I read it he said 2015 or early 2016.
My climate prediction and why/how I just sent. I put myself on the line in that I will be either right /wrong.
Rog all I am saying is show me. But I will not push this any further if you don not want me to.
I made my points. Thanks
Salvatore,
from your web site:
“If solar activity were to reach a certain minimum magnitude (every 1470 years), it could modulate the atmospheric circulation, resulting in a negative Atlantic Oscillation (NAO),”
Higher solar activity produces a positive NAO. Knowing that I was able to forecast relative increases in Arctic sea ice for the last two summers, down to weekly detail,
“The MINOAN WARMING, ROMAN WARM PERIOD and MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD were all warmer than the current modern warm period which we suggest ended in 1998. All these three periods corresponded to periods of rather high solar activity.”
If you are referring to GISP, they were all cold periods in the mid latitudes caused by low solar activity, including cold conditions in the late 10th and 11th centuries.
Higher solar activity produces a positive NAO. Knowing that I was able to forecast relative increases in Arctic sea ice for the last two summers, down to weekly detail.
I agree. Could I ask what do you see for the climate going forward/why ? I would be very interested in what your thoughts are. thanks
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“I want to see PAUL/IAN/ULRIC give a climate forecast for the next 5 years based on the positions of all the planets/moon and their associated gravitational influences on the earth which according to all of you will cause the climate to react in a certain way.”
All my findings indicate that the planetary ordering of solar activity nothing to do with gravitational influences, especially not on the Earth.
Salvatore: If all the positions of the planets/moon are known and their associated gravitational /climate influences upon the earth then a climate forecast for the next 5 years should be easy according to what you all try to convey.
Thank you for your weather guessing, we will see how it works out.
No-one here has claimed that all the effects of the planetary/lunar resonances are known with respect to climate effects. This science is at an early stage in its development. Please stop making stuff up about what we have said.
Follow the links to my forecast for the main weekly-monthly periods of a weaker solar signal from late 2015 to early 2017:
Most examples of the observed primary Jovian ordering of the solar signal, I have expressed here:
The Dalton and Gleissberg Minima both gave the coldest years for the mid latitudes roughly between the sunspot maxima of the first two weak solar cycles, 1807-1817 and 1885-1895. That would translate to roughly 2015-2025 in this minimum.
The most suitable historic analogue for the daily-weekly scale planetary ordering of the solar signal is 179.05 years back, which shows a period in CET as cold as the Dalton Minimum from late 1836 to 1845.
So as far as I can see we have a decade long series of very cold events from the short term planetary ordering occurring right in the window for the potential coldest period of this solar minimum.
I’ve just put Salvatore’s forecast on the predictions page. While I was there, I found this one from Ulric made in 2013:
Ulric Lyons says:
June 26, 2013 at 10:11 pm
Next winter has a long intense cold shot from the second week of January to the end of Feb/early March.
So how did he do?
Month CET Anomaly notesJanuary 5.7 1.9
Februar 6.2 2.4
March 7.6 2.0
April 10.2 2.3
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
A positive anomaly of 1.9C in January, 2.4C in February, and 2.0C in March. Ulric?
tallbloke says:
December 6, 2014 at 4:24 pm
The solar forecast for a major Arctic outbreak from 7 Jan 2013 was good. Though I did not appreciate what the very warm NE Pacific SST’s would do to the jet stream track, which is why the forecast failed for the UK. I’ve been very much back on track since through spring and summer for the UK.
tallbloke says:
“and 2.0C in March. Ulric?”
I had forecast above average temp’s for March. There was a Mercury-Venus-Ceres stellium around the 2nd and the Ve-Me bisector towards Saturn later, both warm signals. The signal then strengthens in April with Ea-Ve bisector towards Saturn. They end up round the other side in September for weeks being far apart, which is how I forecast a very warm September.
Ulric Lyons says: December 6, 2014 at 4:13 pm
The changing planetary configurations are certainly an interesting line of enquiry. The dynamics of how they might be affecting or even driving solar output and movement do need continuing study IMO.
IW says: ‘The perigee end of the lunar line-of-apse realigns with the Sun roughly once 411.7844(3) days = 1.1274 sidereal years. This is called the Full Moon Cycle’
The 1.1274 figure is within the min-max range of the ratio of apogee/perigee distance.
Example: 360,000 km. x 1.1274 = 405,864 km.
Perigee range: 356400–370400 km (Wikipedia)
Apogee range: 404000–406700 km
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/distance.html
Salvatore Del Prete,
You may have missed my recent predictions, so I will re-post them here so that you can see them:
Here is my ~ 9 year year ENSO cycle in each corresponding 31 year tidal epoch:
The following show the dates of strong El Nino events between 1870 and 2025. These events include both past and future (predicted) events.
The specific predictions are:
2015-16 –> 2024-25 with 2019-20 as a possible half cycle.
for the next three El Ninos up to 2025.
********************************
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.
IAN thanks this is good enough for me. Let us see how it pans out. I will save this in my files.
I hope you are not offended in my questioning. I am just trying to get an understanding of where you are at and what you are doing nothing more.
I am open to everything although I like what I put forth the best or else I would not have presented it. Nevertheless I do not know if I am right or wrong.
Ian said: Rog I am glad you have my predictions on the prediction page.
The specific predictions are:
2015-16 –> 2024-25 with 2019-20 as a possible half cycle.
for the next three El Ninos up to 2025.
Ian if these 3 El Nino’s come to pass I will be impressed.
Rog this is what you need to do hold us all to the FIRE, myself included.
I’ve just put Salvatore’s forecast on the predictions page. While I was there, I found this one from Ulric made in 2013:
Ulric Lyons says:
June 26, 2013 at 10:11 pm
Next winter has a long intense cold shot from the second week of January to the end of Feb/early March.
So how did he do?
Month CET Anomaly notes
January 5.7 1.9
Februar 6.2 2.4
March 7.6 2.0
April 10.2 2.3
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
A positive anomaly of 1.9C in January, 2.4C in February, and 2.0C in March. Ulric?
Curiosity naturally motivates raw exploration.
I have no interest in forecasting.
It doesn’t matter if exploration gets labeled as science.
I explore forest & mountain trails while hiking — and waterways while kayaking.
It’s just like that.
I’m a volunteer.
I explore.
That’s it.
Let me be clear:
I’m going to explore in peace without being harassed by political activists pushing an agenda.
Those who conspire to boss volunteers around can instead hire employees.
If your game is creepy thought policing, incessant harassment, & sour negativity, you’ll fit in at wuwt.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
December 6, 2014 at 6:25 pm
I have already replied to that comment from Rog.
I saw it.
Doug;
Not so. There is only one relevant prediction at this early stage of “climate science”: {the natural variation Null Hypothesis will be disproven}. That has failed consistently, and the Null rules. The specifics of AGW predictions are irrelevant until the Null is disproven.