R. J. Salvador: Update on LOD model performance

Posted: April 2, 2016 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, LOD, predictions, solar system dynamics

R.J. Salvador has sent in an update showing the performance of his LOD model, which is based on our solar system dynamics theory. He tells us that:

Below is an update of the comparison of actual LOD data to the LOD model prediction from December 1st 2015 to March 1st 2016. The actual data tracks well to the model prediction. There is a deviation from the model from around January 1st to January 12 that is within 2 sigma and then the actual data tracks the model prediction again. I wonder what caused that? I will update the comparison again in two months. So far it is looking good.

LOD model March 1 update_zpsinkh9hbf

This excellent performance is a clear demonstration that we are working in the right direction, and that differential planetary orbital motion is coupled to the spin rates of the planets with the former a direct causal forcing on the latter. This in turn implies that perturbation theory is incomplete, as it fails to differentiate between direct straight-line gravitational force and subtle secondary effects such as gyroscopic precession.

The Sun is also subject to these planetary forcings, and this might help explain why  R.J.’s earlier planetary motion model tracks and predicts solar variation so well.

Well done R. J. Salvador!

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    R. J. “There is a deviation from the model from around January 1st to January 12 that is within 2 sigma and then the actual data tracks the model prediction again. I wonder what caused that?”

    Last gasp of El Nino?

  2. oldbrew says:

    R. J. “There is a deviation from the model from around January 1st to January 12 that is within 2 sigma and then the actual data tracks the model prediction again. I wonder what caused that?”

    TB: Last gasp of El Nino?

    Or Earth’s perihelion – January 2nd?

  3. p.g.sharrow says:

    @oldbrew; I think your observation is the correct one. The end of acceleration and beginning of deceleration as the orbital transition at perihelion takes place coupled with the gravitational tug from the Sun’s rotation would appear to be the logical explanation.
    I don’t think the slosh of the oceans from wind changes would carry enough punch to make that kind of hiccup. We shall see as more information becomes available…pg

  4. R J Salvador says:

    oldbrew: nice guess. I check out your suggestion and it didn’t happen at other recent perihelion s.

    TB: I have a model of the El NINO index. I used the frequencies in Dr Theodor Landscheidt article
    “Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña” as the starting point. http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm
    I didn’t do very well until I modulated the frequencies with VEJ=22.13929985 and the J/S =61.04648218
    Then I got this fit. R^2=0.82

    The El Nino index is a processed averaged measure and my model is a wild ass guess on how the frequencies interrelate so I am not very confident in the result. But it is interesting.

  5. R J Salvador says:

    Correction to the above I didn’t modulate the frequencies I modulated their phases. I need a cup of coffee.

  6. Ian Wilson says:

    R. J. Salvador – The spikes that you see in the LOD data are caused by the Moon’s tidal bulge crossing the Earth’s equatorial plane once every 13.66 days = half tropical lunar month. If you look carefully you will see that currently a strong peak in the LOD is followed 13.66 days later by a much weaker peak. This is simply a reflection of the fact that perigee of the lunar orbit is currently pointing towards the Sun at the time of the Vernal Equinox.

    I will have a post up at my http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au site describing this phenomenon in a day or so.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Ian Wilson said:

    ‘Not surprisingly, when the Earth approaches closest to the Sun in January, the atmosphere
    inflates because of the extra thermal heating leading to slow down of the Earth’s rotation rate
    i.e. an increase in LOD. Similarly, when the Earth furthest from the Sun in July, the atmosphere
    deflates because of the decreased thermal heating leading to a speeding up of the Earth’s
    rotation rate i.e. a decrease in LOD.’
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/earth-motion-lod-and-sorce-mystery/

    Could it be that, plus the big El Nino as TB mentioned?

  8. R J Salvador says:

    Ian Wilson:
    Thanks Ian. There are four Lunar based frequencies in the model. It’s very helpful to visualize what they are describing in time and space.

  9. tallbloke says:

    R.J. Then I got this fit. R^2=0.82

    Err, wow! Nice work!

  10. Ian Wilson says:

    Great work R.J. – you really have an excellent ability to think outside the square!

    Here is my post describing the relationship between the lunar tidal cycles and the Earth’s LOD.

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/there-is-natural-gleissberg-like-cycle.html

    In this post, I am claiming that there is natural 88.5 year Gleissberg-like cycles in the lunar tidal stresses placed upon the Earth as the Moon crosses the Earth’s equatorial plane every 13.66 days.

    I will eventually show that there is also a natural 208 year de Vries-like cycle, and a 2300 Hallstatt-like cycle as well. .

  11. oldbrew says:

    IW: the numbers in your linked post readily ‘plug in’ to this lunar model (example below the graphic).

    IW: ‘The ~ 9.0 periodicity results from the fact that 4.0 x 2 FMC = 9.019428 tropical years is the time required for slowly drifting perigee of the lunar orbit to return to pointing at the Sun at the same Solstice or Equinox (since it takes 2.2548570 topical years for the alignment of the perigee with the Sun at a Solstice/Equinox to move to the following Equinox/Solstice in the seasonal calendar.’

    Chart: 1973 TY / 2.254857 = 875 exactly [x 2 = 1750 FMC as in the chart]

    NB this chart links to another one (7 times the period above) which uses the Saros cycle, here:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/two-long-term-models-of-lunar-cycles/
    (APC in the chart means the lunar apsidal cycle).

  12. pojo says:

    Love the work you guys do. Truly out of the box stuff. I struggle to keep up anywhere near you guys but at the same time I learn a little bit every time

  13. Ian Wilson says:

    Olbrew – very impressive connection between lunar variables. Is there a 1973 tropical year period that appears in the tidal record?

    I have one minor word of advice.

    You quote the apogee/perigee precession period (APC ot LAC) as being 8.84753 tropical years.

    What you are doing is finding the re-alignment time of the lunar line-of-apse in
    a reference frame that is precessing with respect to the stars i.e. fixed with respect
    to the precessing zero point called the First Point of Aries.

    This is OK if you are looking for the impact of lunar tides on the Earth in a frame work that is fixed with the seasons, however you cannot use this value to link in with the other planets in the solar system. You have to use the sidereal realignment time which is 8.8592 sidereal years.or 8.8505 tropical years if you want to do this.

    The same is true for your value of LP.

  14. oldbrew says:

    IW: ‘Is there a 1973 tropical year period that appears in the tidal record?’

    Not that I know of, but based on the lunar wobble period (RLA in the chart) there’s the de Rop 1799 year tidal cycle, which is 300 lunar wobbles.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/de-rops-long-term-lunar-cycle/

    From the chart: LAC is 1973 TY / 223 and LP is 1973 TY / 106.
    223 + 106 = 329 = lunar wobbles .
    So the lunar wobble is the axial period of the apsidal and nodal cycles i.e. LW/LP + LW/LAC = 1.
    One of de Rop’s diagrams shows that.

    1973 TY x 7 = 766 Saros cycles (766 x 223 lunar synodic months)
    Therefore 7 lunar apsidal cycles = 766 synodic months

  15. oldbrew says:

    I find that 200 lunar wobbles = exactly 16061 Carrington rotations @ 27.2753 days each.

  16. Ian Wilson says:

    Oldbrew,

    You say:

    “So the lunar wobble is the axial period of the apsidal and nodal cycles i.e. LW/LP + LW/LAC = 1”

    however, this is true by definition, since by definition 1/LP + 1/APC = 1/LW.

    And hence (according your chart) because:

    LP = 1973 TY / 106, APC = 1973 TY / 223, and RLA = 1973 TY / 329

    then

    (106 / 1973 TY) + (223 / 1973 TY) = (329 / 1973 TY) = 1/LP + 1/APC = 1/LW

    so as soon as you express LP, APC and RLA as a sub-multiples of 1973 TY – all else follows.

    The discovery here is that LP, APC and RLA are all whole sub-multiples of 1973 TY.

    Am I mistaken?

  17. Ian Wilson says:

    oldbrew,

    You say:

    “1973 TY x 7 = 766 Saros cycles (766 x 223 lunar synodic months)
    Therefore 7 lunar apsidal cycles = 766 synodic months”

    This is close to the 62 year perigee syzygy cycle where

    55 FMC = 62.008 TY
    767 synodic months = 62.013 TY

    So that (7 x LAC) + 1 synodic month = 62.013 TY

  18. oldbrew says:

    IW: ‘The discovery here is that LP, APC and RLA are all whole sub-multiples of 1973 TY. Am I mistaken?’

    No, that’s correct. One tropical year is ‘lost’ re RLA, i.e. 1974 / 6 = 329 but the period is 1973 TY.

    Btw the de Rop cycle looks the same as Keeling & Whorf’s ‘1800 year’ period. However it turns out that 3 of these (3 x 1799 TY) are needed to get an exact number of lunar apsidal cycles, i.e. 610.

    Re 767 synodic months: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_moon_cycle#Matching_synodic_and_anomalistic_months

  19. Ian Wilson says:

    Here is another thing the Moon might do:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160401075118.htm

    The Moon may play a major role in maintaining Earth’s magnetic field
    Date:April 1, 2016

    [I hope the date is not pertinent]

  20. E.M.Smith says:

    Guess it is time for me to do the current sheet posting…

    I ran into a Google Books paper explaining the impact of the heliospheric current sheet on things like LOD and spin orbit coupling. As solar poles swap, orbits bob up and down, and the sheet flexes up down, the current delivered to the Earths poles swaps… and LOD modulates a little. Homopolar motor and all that.

    I only have screenshots of the article and they are on the tablet, so a pita to post… but it looks to be time to get’r done…

    I’ll be back later with a link. For now, just remember to look at the current sheet…

    IIRC, this was the article
    https://books.google.com/books?id=jCXGacalKX4C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=heliospheric+current+sheet+LOD+rotation&source=bl&ots=UjlU5ymJnS&sig=Th16k-UaQvoXnVIcIqsCTqBc2oE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizm7r53fLLAhUJx4MKHbdiC3kQ6AEIJzAE#v=onepage&q=heliospheric%20current%20sheet%20LOD%20rotation&f=false

    starting about page 64 for Earth LOD, but the earlier pages help understanding via context.

  21. oldbrew says:

    Re. ‘another thing the Moon might do’

    Dynamo theories don’t usually mention that magnetism requires electricity.
    Where is the electricity coming from in such theories?

    ‘As we have seen, a current produces a magnetic field. The rising current produces a rising magnetic field.’
    http://www.animatedscience.co.uk/ks5_physics/general/Electricity%20&%20Magnetism/Electromagnetic%20Induction.htm

    NB there are no bar magnets in outer space😉

  22. JKrob says:

    @oldbrew –

    “Dynamo theories don’t usually mention that magnetism requires electricity.”

    mmm, not quite. Magnetism does not *require* electricity…except in an electromagnet. To generate a magnetic field in a non-magnetic, ferrous metal *does* require current flow through a coil which surrounds the metal (electromagnet) & the magnetic effect dies when current flow dies. However, a permanent magnet does not require electricity (current flow) to exist. Conversely, the permanent magnet is required to generate electricity by moving the conductor *through* the magnetic field.

    Now, the Earth’s magnetic field is not dependent on the existence of current flow through space to generate it. The Earth’s magnetic field is generated at the Earth’s core so it is seen as a permanent magnet from the Sun’s perspective & the Earth’s magnetic field interacts with the Sun’s in a dynamic & ever changing way…but they are separate entities.

  23. Ian Wilson says:

    Moderate to strong El Nino events are triggered by long-term (i.e. inter-annual) variability in the lunar tides. Specifically, the timing of these events is directly related to 31/62 year Perigee/Syzygy lunar tidal cycle.

    I do not have all the answers as to how this actually happens but the best answer that I can come up with is that slow forcings applied to the Earth by the lunar tides influences the formation and subsequent propagation of Madden-Julian Oscillations (MJO) along the Equatorial Indian Ocean and Pacific Oceans.

    A MJO consists of a large-scale coupling between the atmospheric circulation and atmospheric deep convection. When a MJO is at its strongest, between the western Indian and western Pacific Oceans, it exhibits characteristics that approximate those of a hybrid-cross between a convectively-coupled Kelvin wave and an Equatorial Rossby wave. When a MJO moves from the western Indian Ocean into the western Pacific Ocean, it generally accelerates, becomes less strongly coupled to convection, and transitions into a convectively de-coupled (i.e. dry) Kelvin wave.

    Periodically (i.e. roughly once every 4.5 years), the precise alignments of the lunar tidal forcings produce the right conditions that result an upsurge in the number and magnitude of what I call Pacific Penetrating MJO. These are MJO events that travel from the Eastern equatorial Indian Ocean, along the Equator, all the way into the Western Pacific Ocean, where they initiate Westerly Wind Bursts (WWB’s).

    The spawning of these WWB’s takes place as the MJO event is transitioning from a hybrid-cross between, a convectively-coupled Kelvin wave and an Equatorial Rossby wave, and a convectively de-coupled (i.e. dry) Kelvin wave. The spawning of the WWB’s occurs in the Western Equatorial Pacific Ocean, somewhere between 60O E and 150O W longitude. The actual process involves the formation of a typhoon/cyclone pair straddling the equator which produces an intense WWB between the two intense low pressure cells.

    The onset of El Nino event are marked by the weakening of the easterly trade winds associated with the Walker circulation. The actual drop off in easterly trade wind strength is always preceded by a marked increase in WWB’s in the western equatorial Pacific Ocean. The WWB’s help initiate an El Nino event by creating downwelling Kelvin waves in the western Pacific that propagate towards the eastern Pacific, where they produce intense localized warming, as well as by generating easterly moving equatorial surface currents which transport warm water from the warm pool region into the central Pacific.

    The net result of the Moon’s involvement in the initiation of El Nino events means that:

    El Niño events in New Moon epochs preferentially occur near times when the lunar line-of-apse aligns with the Sun at the times of the Solstices.

    El Niño events in the Full Moon epochs preferentially occur near times when the lunar line-of-apse aligns with the Sun at the times of the Equinoxes.

    For a full description of the meaning of Full and New Moon Epochs please read:

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/evidence-that-strong-el-nino-events-are_13.html

  24. Ian Wilson says:

    Note – that I am putting up my best guess as to what initiates El Nino events since it is directly ties into the relationship between the lunar tidal cycles and the Earth’s LOD.

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/there-is-natural-gleissberg-like-cycle.html

  25. R J Salvador says:

    Ian:
    Congratulations on your latest work on LOD! It is very clear, definitive and easy to understand.
    If you can crack the El NINO prediction code, the economic benefits are huge.
    I can pass a curve through NOAA’ s El NINO data at
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
    but I have no confidence in what that curve projects.
    Nevertheless the frequencies involved may shed some light on what is going. I will post them on your blog.

  26. oldbrew says:

    Thanks Ian W and RJ.

    I should refrain from OT comments on this informative thread, but maybe one more.
    JKRob may be interested in this:

    ‘The Moon may play a major role in maintaining Earth’s magnetic field’
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160401075118.htm

    Quote: The Earth continuously receives 3,700 billion watts of power through the transfer of the gravitational and rotational energy of the Earth-Moon-Sun system, and over 1,000 billion watts is thought to be available to bring about this type of motion in the outer core. This energy is enough to generate the Earth’s magnetic field, which together with the Moon, resolves the major paradox in the classical theory. [bold added]

    Looks like electricity causing magnetism to me.

  27. Paul Vaughan says:

    This is just a note to indicate that I’m still monitoring discussions like this one even though my primary focus is now reorienting towards Chinese politics & media.

  28. JKrob says:

    odlbrew said – “Looks like electricity causing magnetism to me.”

    (Just real quick) – come on, the article was clear that the ‘wattage’ was gravitational & rotational energy keeping the Earths core hot & fluid so the geodynamo could continue. Electricity was mentioned nowhere. Of course, I always thought the core heat was maintained by radioactive decay but…hey.

  29. oldbrew says:

    Re the lunar chart at April 3, 2016 at 10:22 am (above):

    One of the numbers is 1750 = full moon cycles (FMC).
    The number of lunar synodic months in 1 FMC is the square root of 1750/9.

  30. Paul Vaughan says:

    Sunspot modeling has to get the timing right to be of utility in Earth forecasting because the Earthly response to Solar timing has an axial (spatial) component (due to north-south terrestrial asymmetry).

    This is a big deal. It can’t be ignored. Assuming uniformity (implicitly as people usually do without thinking at all to realize they’re doing so) just gives a model that pretends Earth is north-south symmetric.

    We’re getting close to the transition. People are going to have to apply discipline and buckle down on the problem. No more nasty arguing etc. etc. Just solve the f**k**g problem. Or hire someone who can (and don’t pay them to spend their time arguing instead of actually problem-solving).

    I don’t think the problem will be solved before the transition or at least I think there’s a real risk it won’t be so I’m planning for mitigation of fallout (hence my attraction to simple eastern wisdom).

    I want to repeat this not to be rude (I respect & appreciate everyone here) but because it needs to sink into any mind that’s going to become capable of doing realistic modeling:

    =
    Sunspot modeling has to get the timing right to be of utility in Earth forecasting because the Earthly response to Solar timing has an axial (spatial) component (due to north-south terrestrial asymmetry).

    This is a big deal. It can’t be ignored. Assuming uniformity (implicitly as people usually do without thinking at all to realize they’re doing so) just gives a model that pretends Earth is north-south symmetric.
    =

    Best Regards

  31. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve given a concise statement of the modeling challenge (your final exam) mixed into 2 deliberately provocative comments strategically posted here:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/the-moon-may-play-a-major-role-in-maintaining-earths-magnetic-field/

    Sapere Aude

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    You may choose to believe that I’m doing this for fun:

    I choose to believe that government decisions on whether to release classified information on this file (multidecadal earth rotation, EOP more generally, wind, navigation, guidance, & satellite orbits) will belatedly hinge on the outcome of Brexit (because that reshapes avenues for anglospheric influence on 1B1R and EU-Middle-Eastern security (where 1B1R = 1 Belt, 1 Road)).

    Maybe that confuses, so let me put it differently for simpler consideration:

    WHAT type of major international event could happen between now & (June 23 is it?) that could TIP the British electorate decisively one way or the other? (I have no idea. I’m totally naive on this. Maybe this isn’t the thread for it; even if so I remain very curious…)

    In the long run, could something important hinge on something so seemingly small. I don’t know for sure, but I think so.

    My advice: Have a plan B because Earthly response to Solar stimulus has an axial component. Perhaps strategic axial re-ally-gnment (geopolitically at least) IS within human control.

    My further advice there though would be choose realignments wisely. The natural forces will be on their axes beyond human control, but sufficiently plastic human assemblages may be able to reorient to harmonize with the axis of natural flow…

    In global geopolitics I think a lot rides on Brexit, but I haven’t had time to do a full analysis of the implications.

    You know, it’s not off-topic. This stuff’s all connected. Even the magnetic stuff upthread some thought maybe-OT is on-T because it’s tied to the same SCD. The geometry is the same regardless of how humans compartmentalize their conception of the physics — & politics, economics etc. — tied to the geometry. The humans can’t spatially realign the physics, but maybe they can spatially realign the politics, economics, alliances, etc…

    So the question is, when this natural thing reorients physically (with naturally consequent changing geopotential), can the human assemblages be aware enough and changeling enough to opportunistically benefit? That’s all. Because if so there will be nature-assisted multidecadal regime change (in cases it could be effortless) and we’ll be fools to ignore potential reorientation to avoid being on the hurting end of naturally-downhill flows.

    I believe the combination of Brexit & SCD will determine the harmony or lack thereof of our anglospherically reoriented fate.

    It could sure be helpful for amateurs working on this problem if the governments would release the relevant classified information right now.

    It’s not only the government that’s responsible for security. It’s also civilians.
    None of us want our security held hostage by people with easily jittered emotions.

    I suggest that a far eastern approach to security would provide SUPERIOR STABILITY.

    Think about this carefully: The western approach leaves us hinging on jittery emotions. That’s why I’m provoking with the question I asked above about “what event could tip the outcome?”

    We need trans-ENSO-scale stability at least …and that gives us enough time to reorient for SCD-scale changes that are (usually) slower (for an exception look at change for example in Latin America in the early 1800s when normally-multidecadal SCD changed abruptly).

    My guess is that if all classified info was released today I’d have sufficient info & time to answer the questions about best-possible-ally-ngments before the vote. (Remember I’m only missing 1 key piece of information. It’s just a matter of whether it’s on classified-file or not. Is it? I don’t know, but if I could see what IS on classified file, I would of course know…)

    It’s a happy mix of fun exploration and geographically-imaginative dead seriousness.

    All analyses (whether serious or just-for-fun) hinge on a physical axis and the question is whether humans are sufficiently aware and morphologically flexible to reorient opportunistically to capitalize on the waves spaced by Our Radiant Queen’s timing anomalies…

    With keen interest I’ll be watching for the outcome of the referendum on anglospheric axial orientation (to be determined by voters in only 1 country of the anglosphere, keep in mind) because this is the part of the equation that’s closest to being within human control. (The Radiant Queen calls her own shots.)

    Did they do comprehensive axial analysis before deciding?
    Will the British voters orient the anglosphere for capsize? Or to comfortably ride SCD?

    Hopefully the answer doesn’t hinge on unstable groups with jittery emotions and on administraitors who naively think safety is actually best served by keeping key info classified.

    Assuming it’s on-file, are they going to release the key info today so I can solve the contingency space of the problem and concisely outline it graphically before the vote?

    Of course not! (they’re administraitors)

    If anyone cracks Earthly 60 JEV amplitude (phase is already cracked), let me know…

    In provocative closing:
    The uniformity assumption is dead.
    Please don’t keep dragging it out.

    Thanks

  33. […] Months ago, solar system dynamics researcher  R.J. Salvador gave us an update on the performance of his length of day (LOD) model. Based on our planetary theory, the model has […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s