Ian Wilson: Are Lunar Tides Responsible for Historical Temperature Anomalies?

Posted: October 31, 2015 by tallbloke in climate, solar system dynamics
Tags: , ,

Reposted from Ian Wilson’s Astro-Climate Connection blog.

PART B: A Mechanism for the Luni-Solar Tidal Explanation 
PART A: Evidence for a Luni-Solar Tidal Explanation

A. Brief Summary of the Main Conclusions of Part A.

Evidence was presented in Part A  to show that the solar explanation for the Quasi-Decadal and Bi-Decadal Oscillations was essentially untenable. It was concluded that the lunar tidal explanation was by far the most probable explanation for both features.

In addition, it was concluded that observed variations in the historical world monthly temperature anomalies data were most likely determined by factors that control the long-term variations in the ENSO phenomenon.

Further evidence was presented in Part A to support the claim that the ENSO climate phenomenon was being primarily driven by variations in the long-term luni-solar tidal cycles, leading to the possibility that variations in the luni-solar tides are responsible for the observed variations in the historical world monthly temperature anomaly data.

     Copeland and Watts [1] did a sinusoidal model fit to the first difference of the HP smoothed HadCRUT3 global monthly temperature anomaly series and found that the top two frequencies in the data, in order of significance, were at 20.68 and 9.22 years.

     It is generally accepted that the ~ 9.1 – 9.2 year spectral feature is caused by luni-solar tidal cycles associated with the first sub-multiple of the 18.6 year Draconic cycle. 18.6/2 = 9.3 years, possibly merged with the 8.85 year lunar apsidal  precession cycle, such that (8.85 + 9.3)/2 = 9.08 years . Hence the question is really:
 Can a plausible luni-solar tidal explanation be given for the 20.68 year bi-decadal oscillation?

B.  A Potential Luni-Solar Tidal Mechanism

Wilson [2] has found that the times when Pacific-Penetrating Madden Julian Oscillations (PPMJO) are generated in the Western Indian Ocean are related to the phase and declination of the Moon. This finding provides observational evidence to support the hypothesis that the lunar tidal cycles are primarily responsible for the onset of El Nino events.

If this finding is confirmed by further study then it would reasonable to assume that changes in the level of generation of PPMJO’s is related to the changes in the overall level of tidal stress acting upon the equatorial regions of the Earth. A good indicator of the magnitude of these tidal stresses is the peak differential luni-solar tidal force acting across the Earth’s diameter, that is, parallel to the Earth’s equator.

The peak differential tidal force of the Moon (dF) (in Newtons) acting across the Earth’s diameter (dR = 1.2742 x 10^7m), along a line joining the centre of the two bodies, is given by:


where G is the Universal Gravitational Constant (= 6.67408 x 10^-11 MKSI Units),  M(E) is the mass of the Earth (= 5.972 x 10^24 Kg), m(M) is the mass of the Moon (= 7.3477 x 10^22 Kg), and R is the lunar distance (in metres) (N.B. The negative sign in front of the terms on the right hand side of this equation just indicates that the gravitational force of the Moon decreases from the side of the Earth nearest to the Moon towards the side of the Earth that faces away from the Moon.)

Hence, the component of this peak differential lunar force (in Newtons) that is parallel to the Earth’s equator is:


where R is the distance of the Moon and Dec(M) is the declination of the Moon.
In like manner, the component of the peak differential tidal force of the Sun (in Newtons) acting across the Earth’s diameter that is parallel to the Earth’s equator is:


where Rs is the distance of the Earth from the Sun and Dec(S) is the declination of the Sun.

The relatively rapid daily rotation of the Earth compared to the length of lunar month means that the effects upon the Earth of two differential tidal forces only changes slightly during any given single day. Hence, it is possible to define a slowly changing peak luni-solar differential tidal force acting across the Earth’s diameter that is parallel to the Earth’s equator, by simply adding each of the two forces above vectorially.

The geocentric solar and lunar distances, solar and lunar declinations and Sun-Earth-Moon angles were calculated at 0:00, 06:00, 12:00, and 18:00 hours UTC for each daily designated period (JPL Horizons on-Line Ephemeris System v3.32f 2008, DE-0431LE-0431 [3].) . This data was then used to calculate the peak differential luni-solar tidal force using the equations cited above. Figure 1a shows the calculated peak differential luni-solar tidal force for the period from Jan 1st 1996 to Dec 31 2015:

Figure 1a

Fig_01a

This plot shows that luni-solar differential tidal force reaches maximum strength roughly every 4.53 years (i.e every 60 anomalistic lunar months = 1653.273 days or every 56 Synodic lunar months = 1653.713 days), with the individual short term peaks near these 4.53 year maximums being separated by almost precisely 384 days (or more precisely 13 Synodic months = 383.8977 days). In order to emphasize this point, figure 1a is re-plotted in figure 1b for the time period spanning from 2000.0 to 2004.5:

Figure 1b.
Fig_01b

C. Discussion

What figures 1a and 1b show is that peak luni-solar differential tidal stress acting upon the Earth’s equatorial regions reaches maximum strength roughly every 4.53 years. This is very close to half the 9.08 year quasi-decadal oscillation. It also shows that around these 4.53 year peaks in tidal stress, the individual peaks in tidal stress are almost precisely separated by 13 Synodic months.

Wilson [4] has proposed that:

“The most significant large-scale systematic variations of the atmospheric surface pressure, on an inter-annual to decadal time scale, are those caused by the seasons. These variations are predominantly driven by changes in the level of solar insolation with latitude that are produced by the effects of the Earth’s obliquity and its annual motion around the Sun. This raises the possibility that the lunar tides could act in “resonance” with (i.e. subordinate to) the atmospheric pressure changes caused by the far more dominant solar-driven seasonal cycles. With this type of simple “resonance” model, it is not so much, ‘in what years do the lunar tides reach their maximum strength?’, but whether or not there are peaks in the strength of the lunar tides that re-occur at the same time within the annual seasonal cycle.”

In essence, what Wilson [4] is saying is that we should be looking at tidal stresses upon the Earth that are in resonance with the seasons. (i.e. annually aliased). If we do just that, we find that the peaks in luni-solar differential tidal stressing every 13 synodic months (= 383.8977 days) will realign with the seasons once every:

(383.8977 x 365.242189) / (383.8977 – 365.242189) = 7516.0607 days = 20.58 tropical years          

This is remarkably close to the 20.68 year bi-decadal oscillation seen by Copeland and Watts [1] in their sinusoidal model fit to the first difference of the HP smoothed HadCRUT3 global monthly temperature anomaly series.

Hence, it is plausible to propose that the 9.08 year quasi-decadal oscillation and the 20.68 year bi-decadal oscillation  can both be explained by variations in the tidal stresses on the Earth’s equatorial oceans and atmosphere caused by the peak differential luni-solar tidal force acting across the Earth’s diameter that is parallel to the Earth’s equator.

Keeling and Whorf [5] gives support to this hypothesis by noting that the realignment time (or beat period) between half of a 20.666 tropical year bi-decadal oscillation and the 9.3 year Draconic cycle is simply 5 times the 18.6 year Draconic cycle:

(10.333 x 9.30) / (10.333 – 9.30) = 93.02 years = 5 x 18.6 tropical years

which is a well known seasonal alignment cycle of the lunar tidal cycles where:

1150.5 Synodic months = 33974.94253 days = 93.020 tropical years
1233.0 anomalistic months = 33974.76015 days  = 93.020 tropical years
1248.5 Draconic months = 33974.45667 days = 93.019 tropical years
which is only about 7.3 days longer than precisely 93.0 tropical years.

Keeling and Whorf [5] claimed that the 93 tropical year lunar tidal cycle is able to naturally re-produce the hiatus in the quasi-decadal oscillations of the rate-of-change of the smoothed global temperature anomalies that matched those observed between 1900 and 1945.

APPENDIX

It could be argued, however, that Keeling and Whorf’s figure 3 [reproduced as figure 2 below] actually points to a hiatus period between about 1920 and the 1950’s, as this is the period over which the phase changes, between the mean solar sunspot number and the peaks in their temperature anomaly curve:

Figure 2
KW_fig03

Wilson [6] made a more accurate determination of the times at which the lunar-line-of-nodes aligned with the Earth-Sun line roughly once every 9.3 years [the blue line in figure 3 below], and when the lunar line-of-apse aligned with the Earth-Sun line once every 4.425 years [the brown line in figure 3 below]. He then used this to determine the 93 year cycle over which these two alignment cycles constructively and destructively interfered with each other [the red line in figure 3 below]. showing that the period of destructive interference actually extended from about 1920 to the 1950’s.

Figure 3

Finally, Wilson [6] presented some data that showed that there was circumstantial evidence that the 93 year lunar tidal cycle does in fact influence temperature here on Earth.

Wilson [6] found that “…when the Draconic tidal cycle is predicted to be mutually enhanced by the
Perigee-Syzygy tidal cycle there are observable effects upon the climate variables in the South Eastern part of Australia. Figure 4 below shows the median summer time (December 1st to March 15th) maximum temperature anomaly (The Australian BOM High Quality Data Sets 2010), averaged for the cities of Melbourne (1857 to 2009 – Melbourne Regional Office – Site Number: 086071) and Adelaide (1879 to 2009 – Adelaide West Terrace – Site Number 023000 combined with Adelaide Kent Town – Site Number 023090), Australia, between 1857 and 2009 (blue curve). 

     Superimposed on figure 4 is the alignment index curve from figure 3, (the red line). A comparison between these two curves reveals that on almost every occasion where there has been a strong alignment between the Draconic and Perigee-Syzygy tidal cycles, there has been a noticeable increase in the median maximum summer-time temperature, averaged for the cities of Melbourne and Adelaide. Hence, if the mutual reinforcing tidal model is correct then this data set would predict that the median maximum summer time temperatures in Melbourne and Adelaide should be noticeably above normal during southern summer of 2018/19.”

Figure 4

Fig_02b

References

[1] Copeland, B. and Watts, A. (2009), Evidence of a Luni-Solar Influence on the Decadal and Bidecadal Oscillations in Globally Averaged Temperature Trends, retrieved at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/23/evidence-of-a-lunisolar-influence-on-decadal-and-bidecadal-oscillations-in-globally-averaged-temperature-trends/
[2] Wilson, I.R.G. (2016) Do lunar tides influence the onset of El Nino events via their modulation of Pacific-Penetrating MAdden Julian Oscillations?, submitted to the The Open Atmospheric Science Journal.

[3] JPL Horizons on-Line Ephemeris System v3.32f 2008, DE-0431LE-0431 – JPL Solar System Dynamics Group, JPL Pasadena California, available at: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi, Jul 31, 2013.

[4] Wilson, I.R.G. (2012), Lunar Tides and the Long-Term Variation of the Peak Latitude Anomaly of the Summer Sub-Tropical High Pressure Ridge over Eastern Australia., The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 6, pp. 49-60.[5] Keeling, CD.  and Whorf,  TP.  (1997), Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences., 94(16), pp. 8321-8328.

[6] Wilson, I.R.G. (2013), Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides in the Southern Hemisphere, The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 7, pp. 51-76

Comments
  1. Paul Vaughan says:

    “(8.85 + 9.3)/2 = 9.08 years”

    should be harmonic rather than arithmetic mean

  2. For a given climate regime but the more important climate question is why/how does the climate go from one climate regime to another?

    ENSO is nothing more then a refinement of the climate when in a given climate regime perhaps to the tune of +.8c to -.8c(high side) , and temporary. It does not bring the climate into another regime ,and although of interest as to why/how ENSO occurs for me my interest is why/how the climate changes from one regime to another.

  3. That said with this EL NINO the test will be does the global temperature get as high this time as the past three El Nino’s and how low does the average global temperature get post this El Nino in contrast to recent others.

    This info. will then give us a better gage of what the underlying global temperature trend is aside from the superimposed El Nino contributions upon the global temperature averages.

  4. tallbloke says:

    Hi Paul, the harmonic mean is 9.07, so we won’t lose sleep.🙂

  5. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: I think this is where the Sun comes into the picture. If this El Nino removes OHC that isn’t being replaced because the Sun is less active than in the late C20th, we might expect to see the following La Nina take global T down lower than prior to the El Nino.

    While I think Ian’s work here is sound so far as it goes, I think the Sun’s role as underlying driver is being ignored. As Ian himself says in his article, the solar driven seasons are the bigger cause of annual oscillations. I would add that the level of solar activity adds to that seasonal variation.

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    (9.306474)*(8.847358) / (9.306474 + 8.847358) = 4.535555204
    (9.306474)*(8.847358) / ( (9.306474 + 8.847358) / 2 ) = 9.071110408

  7. tallbloke says:

    Regarding the phasing from the 1920 to 1950’s, the temperature data smoothed at 40 months is still somewhat correlated to the Solar data, notwithstanding the effects of big EL Nino events such as those around the mid 1940’s (the missing hump in newer ‘adjusted’ temperature data).

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB wrote:
    “While I think Ian’s work here is sound so far as it goes, I think the Sun’s role as underlying driver is being ignored. As Ian himself says in his article, the solar driven seasons are the bigger cause of annual oscillations. I would add that the level of solar activity adds to that seasonal variation.”

    …and the flow-driving equator-pole gradient frequency-shifts with the solar cycle. TSI in the polar night stays 0 and does not cycle, whereas elsewhere on Earth it cycles …meaning the spatial gradient — subtract polar night 0 — cycles.

    It’s not just about total input, it’s equally-importantly about flow-shaping …and we have proofs based on geometric axioms and the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum …and yes people are stubbornly ignoring them …and yes this is causing serious (at this point I would even say just totally ridiculous) problems. It takes a phenomenal amount of deliberately-conscious restraint just to not express the acute suspicion this causes.

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    Why would anyone expect a 1:1 correlation given the flows??
    Like what? Like everything sits static?? Like wtf?? ridiculous
    (not in bad humor — rather just duly provoking because it’s totally unrealistic, based on ridiculous assumptions about flow)

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    Folks, there’s little inertia in the atmosphere. Flow adjustment is instant. Correlations are lag-zero and drop off steeply with lag.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Paul, to be fair to Ian, he is restricting his observations somewhat, by talking about tropical regions. You are quite right that poleward flows and TSI gradients are very important, and given Leroux’ work, we should be making an effort to integrate all our knowledge. Maybe Ian is restricting the discussion in order to get some basic points across? Let’s await his input before getting ‘suspicious’ about anything.

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    Let me try this again in a different combination of words:

    The flywheels (e.g. north pacific gyre, subpolar gyre, antarctic circumpoler current, various overturning circulations, etc., etc., etc.) are fluid and of different effective radii & incommensurable periods

    …so it’s totally ridiculous to expect everything synchronized.

    But we have the heat engine record from annual & semi-annual LOD and from that we KNOW the aggregate balance of the multiaxial differential!!!

    It’s just like the differential in a car, but there are several axles (e.g. one for each gyre, overturning circulation, and topological circuit more generally). Folks: WE KNOW THE AGGREGATE. We have it MEASURED ACCURATELY. (What don’t people understand about this?? I just don’t get it…)

    Ian: By all means go figure out the moon’s contribution to each flywheel, but I insist:
    Don’t deny the aggregate proof of the balanced multi-axial differential.

    Yes ENSO’s the shiny flywheel …but even though it’s not free of the moon, all of the energy spinning it comes from the sun.

    Regards

  13. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB, eventually all of the misunderstandings will dissolve. I’m not suspicious of Ian.

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    I should say incommensurable variable periods.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Paul V: The flywheels (e.g. north pacific gyre, subpolar gyre, antarctic circumpoler current, various overturning circulations, etc., etc., etc.) are fluid and of different effective radii & incommensurable periods

    I think I got a bit of an insight on how we might find relations between some of them while I was pondering the extra high ~360 year beach ridges noted by Fairbridge and Woods & Searle (1983).

    The AMO is ~60 year
    Yndestad notes a high north Atlantic tidal period of ~72 years

    60 x 72/(72-60) = 360 – There is a 5:6 resonance between the temperate/tropical Atlantic and the high latitude north Atlantic.

    It’s also 2 x the Jose cycle.

    Sun and Moon in phase, amplifying the climatic effect.

  16. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul said:

    “The flywheels (e.g. north pacific gyre, subpolar gyre, antarctic circumpoler current, various overturning circulations, etc., etc., etc.) are fluid and of different effective radii & incommensurable periods

    …so it’s totally ridiculous to expect everything synchronized.”

    ******
    Paul, this is a classic case of projection on your part. I am not saying that everything is synchronized far from it. Of course, the Earth’s climate is a non-linear system with many interconnected parts each feeding back upon the other. It also very likely that the different interacting parts have different driving mechanism, ranging from being totally solar (e.g. the wind speeds in mid-latitude high pressure cells), a mixture of predominantly solar with a small contribution from the lunar tidal cycle that acts in resonance with the (solar) seasonal cycle (e.g. the mean latitude of the sub-tropic high pressure ridge or the 384 day lunar cycle aliased at the (solar) seasonal cycle as mention in this particular study), or even parts of the climate system that are predominantly influenced by lunar cycles (e.g. oceans tides).

    Paul said:

    “But we have the heat engine record from annual & semi-annual LOD and from that we KNOW the aggregate balance of the multi-axial differential!!!

    It’s just like the differential in a car, but there are several axles (e.g. one for each gyre, overturning circulation, and topological circuit more generally). Folks: WE KNOW THE AGGREGATE. We have it MEASURED ACCURATELY. (What don’t people understand about this?? I just don’t get it…)”

    ******
    Paul, Yes, we have a climate system that is primarily being fed by energy from the Sun and the final state i.e. the aggregate is dependent on the flow of the incoming solar energy through the system and then back out to space. It is certainly true that the various choke points in the climate system that limit the energy flow through it, will govern the overall temperature.

    All I am saying is that the influence of the luni-solar tides upon the triggering of El Nino events are one of those choke points that has a moderately significant effect upon the drift of temperatures about the long term change (as Salvatore said it probably limited to about +/- 0.2 0.3 C). However, just like the small fly wheel evens out the power in the stroke of a steam engine, ensuring a smooth train ride, it is possible for a small force (e.g. lunar tides) to influence the large flow (solar) energy through the climate system as this energy is absorbed in the equatorial oceans, re-distributed to higher latitudes and then lost to space at the poles.

    Paul said,

    “Ian: By all means go figure out the moon’s contribution to each flywheel, but I insist:
    Don’t deny the aggregate proof of the balanced multi-axial differential.

    Yes ENSO’s the shiny flywheel …but even though it’s not free of the moon, all of the energy spinning it comes from the sun.”

    *****
    Yes, Paul exactly my point.

    Cheers,

    Ian

  17. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul,

    Changes in long term (decadal to multi-decadal) absolute global temperature – mostly driven by the mechanisms that you have proposed.

    Changes in decadal to bi-decadal global temperature ANOMALIES – mostly likely driven the ENSO (and probably limited to about +/- 0.2 0.3 C about the long term mean) with the soli-lunar tides playing a significant role in determining when the El Nino events occur.

  18. Ian Wilson says:

    Rog and Tim,

    Thank you again for bringing my work to a wider audience so that it can get the much needed feed back that it needs from people like yourself, Paul and Salvatore (amongst others).

  19. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul,

    Here are the major objections that you have put forward:

    1. ENSO does not drive the multidecadal wave. The multidecadal wave is governed by the solar cycle length differintegral. This has been proven via geometric axioms and the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum.

    2. The bidecadal wave at the surface corresonds with J-S. That in the core corresponds with JEV & Hale. The high frequency component of the surface wave is near-commensurate with annual-Chandler aliasing from the osculating Earth-Moon year-length with respect to the solar system barycenter, wheras core-frequency commensurabilities are with respect to the sun.

    3. All of this is simpler conceptualized in terms of equator-pole & interhemispheric heat engines outlined by Sidorenkov.

    How about if we start out by discussing No.1 and maybe your can clarify your objections.

    As far as I can see, you currently claim is that the Northern hemisphere (polar-ward sea-surface gradient?) in temperature, on decadal or longer time scales, is determined by the solar cycle de-acceleration. Even though you never seem to clarify what the solar cycle de-acceleration means, I have to assume that it involves the de-acceleration of the Sun’s (as well Earth/Moon’s) motion about the Barycentre of the solar system). While the Southern Hemisphere (polar-ward sea-surface gradient?) in temperature is determined by the Sunspot integral. Which I assume is a proxy for the integrated level of solar activity over time.

    * I accept your [and Sidorenkov’s] claim that the differing natures of the Earth’s two hemisphere (the north being mostly land and the south being mostly ocean) means that they interact differently to the absorption and flow of energy through their respective climate systems.

    *I accept the heat engine model that you (and Sidorenkov) claim(s) re-distributes the Sun’s energy from the equator to the poles.

    Can you explain why this model totally precludes the ENSO/lunar tides having any influence beyond a five year time scale when it’s obvious from recent temperature data that this is not the case?

    Cheers,
    Ian

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    Too many misunderstandings / misinterpretations and even if there was enough time, addressing misunderstandings / misinterpretations isn’t a pleasant use of time!

    Rather than highlight specific misunderstandings / misinterpretations (a too inefficient procedure), I’m just going to efficiently cut past all that and just trust people to interpret more judiciously whatever I write next.

    Of course (!) the moon has something to do with ENSO. I never said it didn’t!

    [ :

    Lol!

    Sometimes one just has to laugh at the profoundness & fertile abundance of misunderstanding / misinterpretation …and then get on with one’s day!….

    Please keep up the stimulating work Ian. You’re possibly the most likely person to cause me to think about interesting climate stuff.

    Cheers!

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    ok I have another minute now…

    Ian, as labeled those are SSTs (not SST gradients) …and solar cycle deceleration is defined literally.

    Nowhere have I ever said this has anything to do with the motion of the sun. I never said “sun deceleration” — never. I’ve always written and meant “solar cycle deceleration = rate of change of solar cycle length” — note the word “cycle”.

    We’re talking about the “solar cycle”, it’s length, and changes in it’s length. Solar cycle length changes — i.e. the solar cycle accelerates and decelerates. Sometimes the solar cycle cycles faster and sometimes it cycles slower. Real, real simple. The rate of change of solar cycle length is solar cycle deceleration.

    North America & Eurasia aren’t the same physically. The North Atlantic and North Pacific aren’t the same physically. The Northern hemispheric is asymmetric …so as the waves pulse poleward (equator-pole heat engine) with cyclic volatility, they do so asymmetrically.

    With all the harsh differences in physical properties across the asymmetry — including nonlinear ice over the top, with ice intersected directly by wind-driven ocean jets in the North Atlantic — of course internal modes are excited asymmetrically. (I have to say this should be a great big “duh!” for mainstream dullards.)

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/niv-shaviv-nice-one-the-sun-still-is/comment-page-1/#comment-106030

    How do we know the solar terrestrial weave (i.e. decadal cyclic volatility of the semi-annual equator-pole heat engine) isn’t just JEV?? Answer: The arctic ice dynamics don’t follow the JEV differintegral. They follow the solar cycle length differintegral (r^2 = 83%).

    I’ve always been clear that the residual 15% is BDO & ENSO …which have the same spatial pattern in long run central limit …but be aware that there are times when specific instances of the BDO look nothing like the long run attractor — for example around the time of the Chandler wobble phase reversal (~1920-1940) the BDO flowed under Africa & Asia to the Pacific. That’s the most asymmetric it ever got on the records we have.

    Key: The SCL differintegral is analogous to what Rial has illustrated for D-O & 100ka.
    Rial’s key D-O illustrations:

  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    Remember folks we’re talking about decadal volatility of atmospheric angular momentum. More volatility means more volatile smearing. This stuff isn’t sitting still nicely cooperating so we can measure it. Rather it’s subject to volatile smearing …so the trick is to be orders of magnitude more clever: Simply recognize the aggregate constraints (via geometric axioms and the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum) and deduce. Whatever energy potentials there are set up geographically for example by asymmetries or orography or whatever they’re all coupled, so just put a tachometer on the thing and see what’s orthogonal to what spatiotemporally (like Marcia Wyatt also did …and like Jose Rial does very nicely …and like I’ve done but with the key difference that I went the step further to constrain with the weave, which locks interpretation into a straight-jacket). All of this stuff is criss-crossing over the various modes that interest Ian but the aggregate weave necessarily has a crystal structure. As I proved algebraically years ago, Ian can study an infinite number of internal modes without ever conflicting with the differintegral attractor. For Arctic ice export the Arctic Dipole (AD) plays an analogous role to what ENSO plays for global SST. The integral of the low frequency northern SST attractor defines low frequency Arctic ice export. Geometrically it can be no other way because the rate of twist on the solar terrestrial weave is defined by SCD and that integrates to SCL. It’s orders of magnitude simpler than you think.

    Having said all that let me clarify again that I find Ian’s work stimulating. I just wanted to clear one thing up: Ian can discover the secret of ENSO and it won’t conflict — at all — with what I’ve proven. It literally can’t (as I’ve proven algebraically).

  23. tallbloke says:

    I note that with one successful ENSO prediction under his belt, forecasting the current El Nino, Ian has made another prediction at the end of his article:

    “Hence, if the mutual reinforcing tidal model is correct then this data set would predict that the median maximum summer time temperatures in Melbourne and Adelaide should be noticeably above normal during southern summer of 2018/19.”

    This is a great way to add strength to a hypothesis. Real world prediction for specific events.

  24. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul,

    You said: “Nowhere have I ever said this has anything to do with the motion of the sun. I never said “sun deceleration” — never. I’ve always written and meant “solar cycle deceleration = rate of change of solar cycle length” — note the word “cycle”.”

    Sorry Paul ,you are right. My humble apologies. It was 5:00 a.m. in the morning (East Australian Standard Day-Light Saving Time). when I wrote my comment and my mental faculties were in hibernation mode.

  25. Isn’t this the sort of thing Weather Action is using for their forecasts?

  26. tallbloke says:

    Hi Adrian. Probably. Piers doesn’t confirm or deny, for commercial reasons.

  27. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ian wrote:
    “[…] flow of the incoming solar energy through the system and then back out to space. […]
    […] energy is absorbed in the equatorial oceans, re-distributed to higher latitudes and then lost to space at the poles.”

    Let’s be very careful here.
    It doesn’t all go to space. Some goes to the depths:

    Berényi Péter (March 15, 2015 at 11:08 pm) wrote:
    “[…] downwelling occurs close to the ice margin […]

    Downwelling occurs at times and places, when and where density of surface water is highest, provided another process elsewhere made room for it, that is, buoyancy at depth is being replenished by mixing somewhat warmer and/or fresher water masses downward. That’s a job for vertical turbulent mixing.

    Under current configuration of continents, downwelling happens almost exclusively somewhere at the ice margin.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/paul-vaughan-wind-is-an-dominant-player-in-climate-variation/comment-page-1/#comment-98941

    The nonequilibrium thermodynamics concept second entropy might help people understand the solar cycle differintegral constraint on pattern.

    (I sure hope that by now everyone has read and understood Rial’s works.)

    Regards

  28. The Code of Long-term Fluctuations of Norwegian Spring
    spawning herring http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/CM%20Doccuments/2002/Q/Q0202.PDF

    “….investigation has identified dominant fluctuations correlated with the 9.3-yr phase tide, the 18.6-yr amplitude tide, and a 74-yr superharmonic cycle in the North Atlantic water, Barents Sea water, and Arctic data series. The correlation between the tidal cycles and dominant Barents Sea ecosystem cycles is estimated to be R=0.6 or better.”

    The influence of long tides on ecosystem dynamics in the Barents Sea (PDF Download Available). Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257426752_The_influence_of_long_tides_on_ecosystem_dynamics_in_the_Barents_Sea [accessed Nov 1, 2015].http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257426752_The_influence_of_long_tides_on_ecosystem_dynamics_in_the_Barents_Sea

  29. tallbloke says:

    Hólmsteinn Jónasson, welcome to the talkshop, and thanks for the links. I blogged Harald Yndestad’s paper on the 74yr tide here back in 2009
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/the-moon-is-linked-to-long-term-atlantic-changes/

  30. Ian Wilson says:

    (I sure hope that by now everyone has read and understood Rial’s works.)

    Paul,

    I would appreciate it if you kept it on topic. We are not discussing latest theories here – I wish you would actually address what I have posted here rather than just tell everyone how they misunderstand your latest research.

    Your comment on down-welling is both pedantic and insulting. I would appreciate it if you would actually discuss what I have posted.

  31. I put this comment at Bob Tidsdale’s post on ENSO at WUWT
    cementafriend
    October 31, 2015 at 6:11 am

    Bob, I use the SOI from here https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/ which is better than BOM
    When I have time, I am trying some analysis. It seems that the daily and moving monthly SOI figures have a regular pattern which seems to reoccur every 28 days. I had a look at tide data and it is possible that the SOI data could correlate with the height of tides at Darwin.
    Could be wrong but comparing October to September there seems to be a signs of a turn around. Maybe the next week or so should be telling if the daily SOI fails to become more negative.

    There is no doubt that the daily SOI figures change with the moon. It is indicted that a 30 day average of the SOI is more useful than the daily figure. I thought at according to the formula which uses average pressures and the standard deviation of the pressure difference for the period 1887-1989 that the latter figures would be constant so one could form an equation such as
    SOI = m*(press diff) +C to possibly make SOI predictions but using 30 day moving averages of pressures, pressure difference and and daily SOI gives changes in m and C which dramatically highlight the change in the moon (or vice versa) Right now (31 st Oct & 1 Nov) show a huge change in m (slope) and c (intercept constant. Does this show an end to El Nino as occured in May 1998?

  32. tallbloke says:

    Stuart Oldbrew points out that in Ian’s previous post

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/ian-wilson-are-the-strongest-lunar-perigean-spring-tides-commensurate-with-the-transit-cycle-of-venus/

    he identifies a 31/62 year cycle of perigean tides.

    The 20.58 year period identified in this post would appear to be close to a 3:2 resonance with that 31 year period.

    Also if the 93 year period is doubled, there are 165 full moon cycles and 21 lunar apsidal cycles in that 186 year period (165 + 21 = 186).

  33. oldbrew says:

    (383.8977 x 365.242189) / (383.8977 – 365.242189) = 7516.06.07 days = 20.58 tropical years

    In ~144 tropical years there will be 137 x 383.8977 day periods.
    144 / (144 – 137) = ~20.57 TY

  34. Ian Wilson says:

    Rog Tallbloke,

    There is a well know 31/62/93/186 alignment time of the perigee-syzygy cycle with the seasons. The 31 year cycle is the most closely aligned with the tropical year (i.e. seasons) and that alignment drifts out of synchronization after 93 years.

    Like many of the lunar cycles – there is an initial tight synchronization with the seasons that drifts out of alignment with time and then re-synchronizes at some later date.

    e.g. the actual alignment of the 31 year cycle with the seasons consists of three 9 year alignments
    with the seasons that slowly drift out of phase, followed by a 4 year slippage that re-synchronizes the tidal cycle with the seasons after 31 years.

    i.e. 9 yrs + 9 yrs + 9 yrs + 4 yrs slippage = 31 years

    The 31/62 year cycles are either whole or half multiples of the Full Moon Cycle (FMC) (N.B. 1 FMC = 1.12743 tropical years) and the Synodic and anomalistic months such that:

    27.5 FMC’s = 31.0043 tropical yrs.
    383.5 Synodic months = 31.0068 tropical yrs.
    411 anomalistic months = 31.0066 tropical yrs.

    55 FMC’s = 62.0087 tropical yrs.
    767 Synodic months = 62.0135 tropical yrs.
    822 anomalistic months = 62.0132 tropical yrs.

    The alignment of the line-of-apse (linked to anomalistic month), the line-of-nodes (linked to the Draconic month), the phase (linked to the Synodic month) with the tropical years (or seasons) reaches the half way point of the 186 year tidal cycle at precisely 93 tropical years, such that:

    1150.25 Synodic months = 93.00010 tropical yrs.
    1248.25 Draconic months = 93.00035 tropical yrs
    1232.75 anomalistic months = 93.00095 tropical yrs.

    with each of the three cycles being out of alignment with the tropical year (i.e. seasons) by almost precisely 1/4 of a cycle.

    So that by precisely 186 tropical years, you have all three of the cycles completing at an exact number of half lunar cycles:

    2300.5 Synodic cycles = 186.00020 tropical yrs.
    2496.5 Draconic months = 186.00071 tropical yrs.
    2465.5 anomalistic months = 186.00191 tropical yrs.

    Hence, If you start at New Moon at closest perigee crossing say the rising node of the lunar orbit, after 186 years + approx. 14 days you will get a New Moon at closets perigee crossing that same node.

    This suggest that we are looking at 372 tropical year cycle for a re-synchronization of the Synodic, anomalistic Draconic lunar cycles with the seasons such that:

    4601.0 Synodic months = 372.00040 tropical yrs.
    4993.0 Draconic months = 372.00142 tropical yrs.
    4931.0 anomalistic months = 372.00381 tropical yrs

    ADDENDUM

    The 31/62 year lunar tidal cycle also encompasses the 20.2937 year alignment cycle where there is a repeat of a new moon at closest perigee.

    20.2937 tropical yrs = 18 Full Moon Cycles (FMCs)
    251 Synodic months = 20.2939 tropical yrs
    269 anomalistic months = 20.2939 tropical yrs

  35. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ian,

    You’re asking me to stay on topic.

    The topic of discussion is your article and the commentary you volunteered on sun-climate relations in your article was:
    a) wrong.
    b) unnecessarily inflammatory.

    One of the reasons I support the Talkshop:
    Immunity to sun-climate thought-policing & brainwashing is permitted here.

    I’ve proven the aggregate. Go ahead and explore the detail.

  36. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul,

    Science consists of someone proposing an/a hypothesis and then presenting it for critical analysis. The important words here are critical analysis. So, I am afraid that just saying I am wrong without giving any indication as to why I am wrong just does not cut it.

    You have contributed a great deal to this [as well as other] forum[s] and I, for one, greatly appreciate most of the contributions you make to the discussion. However, in this case it is not constructive.

    I have to assume that you are aware that I am talking about the historically observed temperature anomalies changes on decadal time scales. In addition, I have to assume that you are aware that I am NOT talking about historically observed absolute temperature changes on decadal times scales.

    The reason for this is you only have to compare fluctuations of the global temperature about the decadal average temperature (i.e. the temperature anomaly) to see that it virtually follows the SOI index. So it is virtually a no-brainer to recognize that variations in temperature anomalies are dominated by ENSO activity up to scales of 10 years or less. And since, I have shown that El Nino events are likely triggered by luni-solar tidal cycles it does not seem too much of a stretch to claim that the 9.1 year spectral peak in the smoothed temperature anomalies is in fact tidal. What I am proposing is that there may also be a bi-decadal component to the the luni-solar tidal cycles that may be responsible for some of the observed spectral feature around 20.6 years.

    This claim does not preclude a bi-decadal (and 60 year) component that comes from your model.

  37. Paul Vaughan says:

    True or False?

    1. The equator has a semi-annual cycle?
    2. The equator has a quasibiennial cycle (QBO)?

    Answers:
    1. True
    2. True

    Harmonic of QBO nearest semi-annual:
    (2.369717826) / 5 = 0.473943565

    Beat with semi-annual:
    (0.5)*(0.473943565) / (0.5 – 0.473943565) = 9.094558983 ~= 9.1 years

    That’s how it physically aliases.

  38. Paul Vaughan says:

    Points of Clarification:
    1. I neither model nor have a model.
    2. Exploration (not science) is what I do. Suppose I go exploring and discover a lake. That’s not science, nor is it intended to be.
    3. I’ve presented bidecadal explorations, but given no bidecadal proofs.
    4. I’ve given a multidecadal proof.

    By all means Ian: Go ahead and figure out the detail.

  39. Ian Wilson says:

    I am not hear to second guess your explorations, no matter how interesting they may be, I am here to do science.

    However, that said, I would like to thank you for outlining your rationale for the 9.1 year cycle.

    What do you think of Paul Pukite’s hypothesis that the QBO is the result of annually aliased lunar tidal cycles?

  40. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul,

    Here is my connection between the QBO and the lunar tidal cycles.

    (8/20.2937) + (8/18.6000) + (4/8.8505) = 3/(2.3506)

    where

    20.2937 tropical yrs = time for new moon at closest perigee to re-occur.
    18.6000 tropical yrs = time for the lunar line-of-nodes to precess around the Earth wrt. the stars.
    8.8505 tropical yrs = time for the lunar line-of-apse to precess around the Earth wrt. the stars.
    2.3506 tropical years = 28.21 months ~= the average length of the QBO.

  41. Ian Wilson says:

    Of course the equation could also be written as:

    (4/10.1469) + (4/9.3000) + (4/8.8505) = 3/(2.3506)

    This requires that the Chandler wobble be 430 days if the mean QBO period is precisely twice the Chandler wobble i.e. (2 x 430 days)/(365.242189 days) = 2.354 tropical yrs = 28.248 months.

    If the Chandler wobble is closer to 433 days then we would expect a mean QBO period equal to:

    (2 x 433 days) /(365.242189 days) = 2.371 tropical yrs = 28.452 months.

    Malkin and Miller (2009) get a period for the Chandler wobble of 1.185 Julian yrs = 432.8 +/- 0.3 days
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.3732v1.pdf

    Hence, the lunar tidal synchronization is close to but not precisely at the Chandler wobble/QBO oscillation period. However, drifts of the lunar cycles around the nominal periods cited above would cause some overlap.

  42. Ian Wilson says:

    And it is important to point out that:

    a) the rate of change in the stresses caused by lunar tides in the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, as a result of a change in the strength of the lunar tidal forces, should reach a maximum every 0.563714 tropical years (= 205.89223 days = 0.5 FMCs) and 10.14686 topical years (= 9.0 FMC’s). [Note: the longer time period is the more precise alignment of the two and FMC = Full Moon Cycles]

    b) the rate of change in the stresses caused by lunar tides in the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, as a result of a change in the direction of the lunar tidal forces, should reach a maximum every 1.89803 tropical years (= 2.0 Draconic year).

    Now if the period of the rate of change in stresses caused by the change in strength of the lunar tides (i.e. 10.14686 tropical years) amplitude modulates the period for the rate of changes in stresses caused by the change in direction of the lunar tides (i.e. 1.89803 tropical years), you would expect that the 1.89803 year tidal forcing term would split into two spectral peaks i.e. a positive and a negative side-lobe, such that:

    Positive side-lobe
    [10.1469 x 1.89803] / [10.1469 – 1.89803] = 2.334(7) tropical yrs = 28.0 months

    Negative side-lobe
    [10.1469 x 1.89803] / [10.1469 + 1.89803] = 1.598(9) tropical yrs

    Interestingly, the time period of the positive side-lobe is almost exactly the same as that of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). The QBO is a quasi-periodic oscillation in the equatorial stratospheric zonal winds that has an average period of oscillation of 28 months, although it can vary between 24 and 30 months (Giorgetta and Doege 2004). Of even more interest is the 1.589(9) tropical year negative side-lobe period, which just happens to be synodic period of Venus and the Earth = 583.92063 days = 1.5987 years, to within an error of ~ 1.8 hours).

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/the-rate-of-change-in-tidal-stresses.html

  43. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul,

    Could it be that your explanation for the 9.1 year oscillation in multi-decadal world temperatures is correct and that the lunar cycles are lying in near resonance to the QBO/Chandler wobble oscillations?

    Hence, every now and then (e.g. in the 20th and early 21st Centuries) that come into close resonance with the QBO/Chandler wobble frequency patterns and cause temperature variations around the long term trends that enhance the quasi-decadal and bi-decadal cause by the QBO/Semi-annual cycles.

  44. Everything Ian is saying may be true but they are not climatic drivers in the sense of changing the climate from one regime to another but they are rather climate modifiers of when the climate is in a particular regime perhaps of the tune of -.5c to +.5c and more important they are transient not permanent changes to the climate system.

    The climate movers as far as putting the climate into another regime are.

    Solar variability and more importantly the associated secondary effects such as atmospheric circulation changes, volcanic activity and cloud coverage changes, ocean heat content/surface ocean temp. to name some, the geo magnetic field strength of the earth which moderates solar activity , Milankovitch Cycles,Land /ocean arrangements ,and the Ice dynamic at the time all the other changes are taking place.

    Based on the above the climate regime we have been in post the Little Ice Age around 1840 -present is about to come to an end.

    I say by the 2020’s we will be in another climate regime which will be towards Little Ice Age conditions once again.

    Climate regime change to my way of thinking is when the global average temperature trend goes down from what it previous trend by at least -.5c or more, but more importantly the global average temp. trend changes stays at that level or lower for several years.

  45. Data which illustrates my points.

  46. Ian Wilson says:

    Salvatore said:

    “Everything Ian is saying may be true but they are not climatic drivers in the sense of changing the climate from one regime to another but they are rather climate modifiers of when the climate is in a particular regime perhaps of the tune of -.5c to +.5c and more important they are transient not permanent changes to the climate system.”

    Salvatore – you have made your point. I am not claiming the are the primary climate drivers for long term (multi-decadal to centennial) changes in temperature so there is little or no point continually insisting that I am.

    I am happy for you to start your own post on long term climate drivers over multi-decadal to centennial timescale but here we are dealing with cycles that operate on scales less than 20 years.

  47. oldbrew says:

    27 Chandler wobbles per 32 sidereal years gives a mean value of 432.8964 days which fits the estimate quoted by Ian Wilson.

  48. Ian Wilson says:

    My connection between the QBO and the lunar tidal cycles.

    (8/20.2937) + (8/18.6000) + (4/8.8505) = 3/(2.3506)

    where

    20.2937 tropical yrs = time for new moon at closest perigee to re-occur.
    18.6000 tropical yrs = time for the lunar line-of-nodes to precess around the Earth wrt. the stars.
    8.8505 tropical yrs = time for the lunar line-of-apse to precess around the Earth wrt. the stars.
    2.3506 tropical years = 28.21 months ~= the average length of the QBO.

    which can also be written as:

    (4/10.1469) + (4/9.3000) + (4/8.8505) = 3/(2.3506)

    Now Paul has pointed out that if we take the geometric mean 8.8505 tropical years and 9.3000 tropical years we get 9.0725 tropical years which is very close to the ~= 9.1 tropical year spectral peak known as the the quasi-decadal oscillation.

    [He also posted that the beat period between 9.3 years and 8.85 years is:
    (9.306474)*(8.847358) / (9.306474 + 8.847358) = 4.535555204
    (9.306474)*(8.847358) / ( (9.306474 + 8.847358) / 2 ) = 9.071110408]

    This can be represented in a modified version of the above two equations:

    (8/20.2937) + (8/9.0725) = 3/(2.3511)

    where the:

    a) first term on the left is the bi-decadal oscillation
    b) second term on the left is the quasi-decadal oscillation
    c) is near to but not precisely at the QBO oscillation period

    Rog and oldbrew should love this equation as the numerators are 8 and 3 – two Fibonacci numbers.

  49. Ian Wilson says:

    Of course, you could have:

    (8/20.835) + (8/9.0725) = 3/(2.370)

    if you wanted to get close synchronization with the QBO/Semi-annual value that Paul is proposing.

  50. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ian asked:
    “What do you think of Paul Pukite’s hypothesis that the QBO is the result of annually aliased lunar tidal cycles?”

    That was detailed by Piers Corbyn on Nov. 29, 2009.
    I’ve presented the details many times since then.
    If others are now catching up, that’s late but welcome.

  51. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ian wrote:
    “Now Paul has pointed out that if we take the geometric mean […]”

    harmonic mean, not geometric mean

  52. oldbrew says:

    The long period of sidereal years to draconic years is 23249 SY = 24499 DY.
    The difference of 1250 is the number of lunar nodal cycles in the period.

    One more of each of SY and DY would be a ratio of 93:98 = 5 lunar nodal.

  53. I say who cares about 20 year climate cycles which wash out in the end.

  54. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul,

    OK, harmonic mean, sorry.

    Arithmetic mean = (x + y)/2 = 9.075(3)

    Geometric mean = SQRT(x y) = 9.072(5)

    Harmonic mean = 2 x y / ( x + y) = 9.069(7)

    This changes my equation to:

    (8/20.2937) + (8/9.0897) = 3/(2.3506)

    which is now in agreement with the other version of the equation

    (4/10.1469) + (4/9.3000) + (4/8.8505) = 3/(2.3506)

  55. Ian Wilson says:

    Salvatore,

    It’s probably more like the last 30 – 40 years (i.e. of the order of two bi-decadal oscillations), which would take us back to 1975 and so would incorporate most of the modern warming period that many people think was driven by CO2.

  56. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul,

    The hypothesis that I have proposed is in general agreement with that proposed by Nikolay Sidorenkov. I didn’t realize that you were opposed to one of his basic tenants on climate.

  57. Ian Wilson says:

    My previous post sh0uld have read:

    This changes my equation to:

    (8/20.2937) + (8/9.0697) = 3/(2.3506)

    which is now in agreement with the other version of the equation

    (4/10.1469) + (4/9.3000) + (4/8.8505) = 3/(2.3506)

  58. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: I say who cares about 20 year climate cycles which wash out in the end.

    People who are interested in working out not only what drives climate change on short as well as long time scales, but also what resonances connect the observed phenomena such as the QBO, Chandler wobble etc with lunar tidal forces.

    People like us.

    And the reason why we’re interested is because we are building the case for a better understanding of climate change driven by natural cyclic phenomena, as a counter to the merchants of chaos, and the merchants of CO2 bubbled through snake oil.

    Human society needs and deserves some useful theory that can make useful predictions, for the money they’ve invested in climate science.

  59. Ed says:

    Tallbloke, thanks for a dose of practicality “Human society needs and deserves some useful theory that can make useful predictions, for the money they’ve invested in climate science”.
    Salvatore, I think you are misguided when you say “I say who cares about 20 year climate cycles which wash out in the end”.
    Actually, I think most of us are vitally interested on where the climate is going over the next decade or so.
    Ian, thanks for your specific predictions about parts of Australia; “Hence, if the mutual reinforcing tidal model is correct then this data set would predict that the median maximum summer time temperatures in Melbourne and Adelaide should be noticeably above normal during southern summer of 2018/19.”
    Does this mean that SE Australia is in for an extremely hot and dry summer for 2018/19?
    Have you calibrated your predictions against past fire disasters?
    This could have significant fire risk implications, and stakeholders at risk of fire (state governments, councils, landowners) should take note and apply appropriate insurance/risk mitigation.

  60. As some of you may know I’m using an ANN to analyze and make predictions of ENSO, based on the tidal-lunar-solar cycles, on changes in Earth’s magnetic field and on changes in the solar wind.
    My result is something I’m now preparing for publishing. Result from this should interest most of you.

    What I have studied is the MEI index.
    I also tried to use it to analyze NINO3+4 and NINO1+2 temperature anomaly.
    With the NINO3+4 anomaly I didn’t get any correlation from the ANN. This doesn’t mean there are correlations between the MEI index and NINO3+4, there are. But there is no direct coupling between tidal forcing and changes in the solar electromagnetic activity with NINO3+4 as it is with MEI.
    With the NINO1+2 anomaly I got a weak sinusoidal coupling that has a period of about 9 years. I assume this is a tidal cycle effect which affects the speed of the Humboldt Current. This should be visible by anyone who analyze NINO1+2 with FFT analyses.

  61. tallbloke says:

    Hi Per, do you have a recent post on your ANN model or is it all under wraps while you await publication?

  62. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ian Wilson wrote:

    “Paul,

    The hypothesis that I have proposed is in general agreement with that proposed by Nikolay Sidorenkov. I didn’t realize that you were opposed to one of his basic tenants on climate.”

    Ian, I have expressed opposition to neither your nor Nikolay’s hypotheses. The correct interpretation of my silence: paid work is taking so much of my time that I’ll never ever have time to build the tools I need to build to take my explorations a few orders of magnitude further. I have extensive deep empirical explorations planned, but it’s never going to happen because of financial slavery. Nature will let us know her better if/when we’ve evolved more. Please carry on with the explorations of detail without me. Best Regards.

  63. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul,

    Your contributions are absolutely essential if we are to make any substantive progress towards a better understanding this phenomenon. I have learned that your way of exploring the underlying principles is very different to the ways that are used by plodders like myself. This has made it very difficult at times to fully understand what you are trying to say. However, I have always thought that it was a privilege to be exchanging exciting and interesting ideas with an intellect of your caliber.

    One thing that I have found when interacting with you is that you shine brilliantly when put on the spot and pushed to explain your reasoning processes. I have taken the gamble of doing just that in this post to try and expand on the underlying principles involved. I fear, however, that I have pushed you too far and hurt your feelings. For that, I am sorry.

    Finally, I know that you have been struggling to get the time to give this topic your full attention. I too am struggling and will probably have to devote much more time towards keeping the wolfs from the front door. I genuinely hope that your circumstances will change for the better in the near future so that a free spirit like yourself can continue to explore the beauty of the natural world.

  64. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ian, freedom is but a memory. We live in a time of oppression. ERSSTv4 hasn’t even been retracted:

    That’s clear cut corruption. Subtract one column of numbers from another.

  65. Ian Wilson says:

    Paul,

    I am sure that if you were to approach someone like Judith Curry you might be able to get her and her allies to put some pressure on NOAA to reconsider these infamous “corrections”.

  66. Paul Vaughan says:

    JC is untrustworthy.

  67. tallbloke says:

    JC moves very cautiously, while trying to keep all sides in the dialogue. It takes all sorts of sceptics to progress the debate, and we shouldn’t undermine those who work in a different way to ourselves.

  68. Paul Vaughan says:

    JC burned my trust too many times (fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me).

    Her vision is blurred.
    She lacks the capacity to verify 1+1=2 firsthand.

    People seem inclined to support her despite that. I find that naive.

    …but I do recognize on a broader scale (through what I perceive as widespread naivety) the need for bigger-tent harmony, so let me add this:

    Perhaps she is qualified for some role other than exploratory leadership.
    Maybe she can play a political role.

    Please carry on with the discussion of Ian’s lunisolar explorations. I’ll step aside…

  69. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve found the bridge from 27.03 days to 1470 years (to be continued….)

  70. oldbrew says:

    For synodic/draconic/anomalistic alignment try this:
    4519 SM = 4904 DM = 385 DY = 4843.074 AM (so AM is ~2 days ‘off’).

    The 4519 number turns up on a Wiki page somewhere IIRC.

    NB: AM no. x 27 = 130763 = 8750 full moon cycles.
    That’s 130763 AM – (4519 x 27) SM.

  71. Paul Vaughan says:

    I wrote this but I need to retract it:

    “…but I do recognize on a broader scale (through what I perceive as widespread naivety) the need for bigger-tent harmony, so let me add this:

    Perhaps she is qualified for some role other than exploratory leadership.
    Maybe she can play a political role.”

    It wasn’t genuine. I don’t trust her — period — and the door is closed, never to be reopened …and no apologies to anyone for this.

    – –

    I’ll continue monitoring Ian’s interesting explorations.

  72. oldbrew says:

    Tallbloke says: ‘The 20.58 year period identified in this post would appear to be close to a 3:2 resonance with that 31 year period.’

    Yes, 186 years (10 lunar nodal cycles) is 9 x 20.666y and 6 x 31y (9:6 = 3:2).

    The question then is whether the 20.58 year period is the same thing as the 20.666 years. The difference is about 31.4 days.

  73. Hi Roger
    Yes I’m now writing down what I found out about ENSO. I’m going to publish this in different versions. One is on my own website, one is for publishing on other websites and one is for publishing in a scientific journal. I hope I can get some help with that from Dr. Mörner and Solheim. It may take some time to write this down, but I’ll let you know when it’s done.
    My information should go viral or at least that what I expect, as I will add data files and some program code which explains key part of my discovery so that others are able to replicate this.

  74. tallbloke says:

    Per, good luck with publication, and be sure to let us have the ‘other website version’ first!

  75. oldbrew says:

    Haigh & co discussed the lunar nodal and apsidal (perigean) cycles in this 2011 paper.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JC006645/pdf

    Caption to Figure 8 in the paper:
    ‘Figure 8. Regions of the world’s oceans where the range of the
    18.61 year modulation in the 99.9th percentile tidal level is larger
    than that of the 4.4 year modulation and vice versa.’

    Conclusions:

    ‘This paper has analyzed modeled tides to map the
    contribution of the 18.61 year lunar nodal cycle and the 8.85
    year cycle of lunar perigee (which affects high tidal levels as
    a quasi 4.4 year cycle) to high tidal levels on a global scale.
    Regions of the world’s oceans where these interannual
    modulations make the highest contribution to high tidal levels
    have been identified. The spatial variations in the range and
    phase of the tidal modulations have been related to the
    distribution of the main tidal constituents and the form factor
    and range of the tide. Results have shown that the nodal
    modulation is largest (between 0.5 and 0.8 m in the 99.9th
    percentile tidal level) in diurnal regions with tidal ranges of
    >4 m, and the 4.4 year modulation is largest (between 0.3
    and 0.6 m in the 99.9th percentile tidal level) in semidiurnal
    regions where the tidal range is >6 m. In areas where the
    form factor of the tide is >∼0.6, the nodal modulation
    dominates over the 4.4 year modulation in high tidal levels,
    and the phase of the nodal modulation correlates with N = 0°
    (i.e., maximum lunar declination). In these regions, the
    nodal modulation was at a maximum in 2006 and will peak
    again in 2024. In areas where the form factor of the tides is
    <∼0.6, the 4.4 year modulation dominates over the nodal
    modulation in high tidal levels. In these regions, the phase of
    the nodal modulation correlates with N = 180° (i.e., minimum
    lunar declination), and the nodal modulation was
    maximum in 1997 and will peak again in 2015. The phase of
    the 4.4 year modulation has also been shown to relate to the
    form of the tide at a given location. A comparison of the
    modeled results presented in this paper with the measured
    quasi‐global tide gauge data set GESLA will form the basis
    for future work.'
    —-
    Quote: 'In these regions, the phase of the
    nodal modulation correlates with N = 180° (i.e., minimum
    lunar declination), and the nodal modulation was
    maximum in 1997 and will peak again in 2015
    .'

    El Nino prominent at both these times.