Reply to Eschenbach’s Meander Through Sun and Wind

Posted: December 28, 2021 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, climate, cosmic rays, Critique, Cycles, Natural Variation, propaganda, Solar physics, solar system dynamics, Tides
Tags: , ,

Over at WUWT, Willis has been up to his usual trick of mangling data in a vain attempt to discredit scientists who find strong links between the Sun’s variation and Earth’s weather and climatic patterns. This time it’s Le Mouel et al who get the treatment in his ‘analysis’ of their 2010 paper “Solar forcing of the semi‐annual variation of length‐of‐day

As usual, Willis gets things upside down and then sets up a straw-man argument. He asks: “So … is there a correlation between sunspots and zonal wind speeds?” The answer to which is no, and the paper’s authors never claimed there was. However, as Fig 1 of Le Mouel et al’s paper shows, there is a strong anti-correlation between solar variation and the semi-annual variation of Length of Day (LOD) which is itself well correlated with changes in zonal wind speeds. For obvious reasons, Willis doesn’t show his readers Fig 1, reproduced here for your academic study.

Figure 1. Long‐term variations in the amplitude a of the semiannual oscillation in lod (in blue). A 4‐yr centered sliding
window is used. (a) Comparison of the semiannual amplitude of lod with the sunspot number WN (red); WN is both
reversed in sign and offset by one year
(see text). (b) Comparison of the detrended semiannual amplitude of lod (blue) with
the sunspot number WN (red); WN is reversed in sign and offset by one year. (c) Comparison of the semiannual amplitude
of lod (blue) with galactic cosmic ray flux GCR (red); GCR is neither reversed in sign nor offset (see text).

Nor does he mention the strong direct correlation between galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and semi-annual LOD variation, probably because his fellow warmist Leif Svalgaard wouldn’t like that at all, since it supports Henrik Svensmark’s GCR-cloud hypothesis.

Willis makes other spurious complaints in his attempt to discredit the author’s methods. For example he can’t see any reason why they would use a four year sliding window on the LOD data.

In a word (or acronym in this case), the answer is ENSO. The strongest weather oscillation on Earth affects zonal wind speed and has a 3.7 year period on average: it’s one third of the solar cycle length. The authors even go to the trouble of testing the data with one and two year sliding window periods to ensure they are not fooling themselves in their findings:

Discrepancies between phase estimates should probably be
partly attributed to the filtering processes. Our estimates do
not change when windows of 1 or 2 years rather than 4 years
are used, although of course short period noise becomes

I won’t bother trying to work out when Willis says “I used a CEEMD analysis which breaks out the underlying frequencies of the two signals” whether he’s referring to the semi-annual variation the authors are interested in or the annual variation he graphs immediately above which is mainly due to Earth’s transition from aphelion to perihelion and back (note that the troughs fall at the end of June and start of January). It’s all just obfuscation with periodograms when he could simply have discussed the excellent and clear data displayed in Le Mouel et al’s Fig 1.

I highly recommend reading the original paper. It’s commendably short and clear.

  1. Philip Mulholland says:

    Willis makes other spurious complaints in his attempt to discredit the author’s methods.

    Quite so.
    From his WUWT head post

    “Whether said variations affect the “meridional” winds, the component of the winds perpendicular to the equator, the study sayeth not.”

    He doesn’t even know why they ignore meridional winds on a zonally rotating planet.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Indeed. Maybe if he’d said to himself, “perpendicular to the planet’s spin axis” the penny would have dropped, but he’s not noted for his ability to think ‘laterally’ (or perpendicularly in this case).

  3. […] Reply to Eschenbach’s Meander Through Sun and Wind […]

  4. tallbloke says:

    Willis doesn’t discuss the periodicities found in his ‘C8’ periodogram, but it’s of interest to us planetary-solar researchers that the three peaks in zonal wind fall at just under 12 years (Jupiter orbital period), just under 20 years (Jupiter-Saturn synodic conjunction period), and around 33 years (Three Schwabe cycles, half the ~60 year oceanic oscillation and Jupiter-Saturn Trigon)). Note also that the peak in solar activity is at the Hale cycle length around 22 years, rather than at the Schwabe cycle length of 11 years found in his C6 and C7 periodograms.

  5. The bottom line is: LOD has decreased. That means Sea Level has gone down. The Polar Regions have been thawed and that causes evaporation and increase in sequestered ice in Polar Regions.

    Ice Sequestering, Ice Accumulation in Greenland and Antarctic ice core records is most in warmest times. Coldest times always follow warmest times and it is because more ice volume and weight does push ice into the turbulent saltwater ocean currents and chills the water that is sent back to the tropics, causes formation of sea ice that prevents polar evaporation until the land ice is depleted.

    People study the immediate correlations and produce Static Energy Balance Charts and do not study the longer term Dynamic Climate Cycles in which the build up and depletion of Polar Sequestered Ice causes the current thousand year cycle. Before 20k years ago, the build up and depletion of Polar Sequestered Ice caused the 100k year cycles. Before 400k years ago, the build up and depletion of Polar Sequestered Ice caused the 40k year cycles. The length of a warm period determines how much more polar ice is sequestered on land and that determines how long of a cold period that it will take to depleted the ice while the oceans are too low and cold to maintain the land ice.

    The earth cooled in alternating warm and cold periods that increased in length and decreased in temperature over the recent fifty million years as more energy was transported to polar regions where it increases ice cover and most important increased the amount of ice that was thawing and reflecting. IR out in polar regions is most in warmest times but the cooling from that IR out occurs when the ice is thawing in coldest times. If I put ice in and ice chest, it stays cold until the ice is depleted. Mother Nature already has been using that principle for as long as we have data.

  6. The Climate Systems are Dynamic with storage of heat in oceans and transport of energy to polar regions where IR out promotes cooling hundreds and/or thousands of years later when the ice thaws.
    We use energy out to produce ice and we store it and later use that stored IR out to cool something somewhere else. This powerful cooling process is totally not studied or understood in climate science. It is not that the “scientists” do not understand, they have no clue.

    People have studied and do understand immediate correlations. People have not studied and do not understand long term dynamic climate change. Ewing and Donn did understand this in the 1950’s but climate consensus had been formed before enough was known and like Lysenkoism, it will persist until much more harm is done.

  7. oldbrew says:

    From the paper in para [20]:

    GCRs ionize molecules in the atmosphere; the
    intensity of this ionization affects the behavior of aerosols
    and, as a result, of condensation and ice formation nuclei. As
    a whole, GCRs can therefore affect cloud microphysics,
    cloud cover and the amount of sunlight reflected by and
    transmitted to the rest of the atmosphere.

    Para [21] comments on Svensmark’s GCR studies.

  8. tallbloke says:

    PopesCT “The bottom line is: LOD has decreased. That means Sea Level has gone down. The Polar Regions have been thawed and that causes evaporation and increase in sequestered ice in Polar Regions.”

    I thought planetary spin got slower because more water was nearer the equator. I expect it’ll start speeding up gain before many more years pass, as Arctic ice increases again, as it does every ~60 years.

    That would be in line with the phasing of the AMO, and the satellite record of Arctic sea ice extent.

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    measuring something different and therefore finding something different

    rightly left a few notes here:

    obviously can’t trust quaddrillatorwellUKdown (as symbolized extensively) , so
    puttin’ITthrew the universal translator – hears the feed back

    said usa to russia:
    oh what a shame that you came here with someone” — k e$ha

    jealous reactions are the most telling (so make lots of notes and don’t use them)

    hidUNmess age:
    “read from the teleprompter”

  10. tallbloke says:

    I’m all done with cryptic crosswords for 2021.

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    I remember years ago we tried straightforward discussion you-know-where and valid points were not (or could not be for whatever reason) acknowledged.

  12. Philip Mulholland says:

    “I thought planetary spin got slower because more water was nearer the equator.”
    Use the spinning ice-skater concept to help you here.
    Arms out, slow spin, arms in, fast spin.
    Consider the transfer of water mass from the equator (arms out) to the poles (arms in) where it is sequestered on land as ice and therefore remains there. As sea level falls globally with a growing polar icecap this will causes the rotation rate of the planet to increase because the solid figure of the earth has changed shape.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Philip, thanks, a reduction in LOD is a faster spin, not a slower spin, my error. However, there are a few things to note:
    According to stable tide gauges, sea level has been rising very little, maybe 1.0 to 1.6mm/year.
    Satellite record of 3mm/year has been calibrated to CO2 theory, not reality, and it’s uncertainty error bounds are too large to make it useful.
    So if very little extra water has been making it to the equator and has instead been accumulating in the polar regions as ice, is this sufficient to account for the LOD reduction? Where’s the evidence tropical/equatorial sea level is going down not up?

  14. Philip Mulholland says:

    ” Where’s the evidence tropical/equatorial sea level is going down not up?”

    Point taken. So which is key ΔLOD or sea-level rise?

    I am sad that Nils-Axel Mörner is no longer with us, this is something that he would have been able to advise us on.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Philip, Niklas and I discussed this from a few perspectives. I agree the short term changes are weather driven, but I think there’s a planetary element to the multidecadal changes possibly caused by a gyroscopic effect operating between the inclination planes of the gas giants and smaller planets. A torque applied to the spin axis is going to affect spin rate as well as axis orientation,

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    The authors didn’t write about the mean.
    Here we are more than a decade later – and people still misunderstand, misinterpret, and misrepresent despite countless reminders.
    In layman’s terms: Some authors counted apples. Along come some others. They count oranges and claim “therefore the apple count is wong” (a political exercise). It’s totally hopeless. An endless drain of time and energy – and not a single person who learns correctly what feature of LOD actually has an 11 year cycle …for real. Ridiculous.

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    not the 0.5a grain 11.07a extent cyclic volatility measured after putting a stop on lunisolar, but something else TB might like
    “12” with “20” Keplerian (substitute nasa ‘factsheet’ fits to get ~883) recipe

    29.4474984673838 = beat(19.8650360864628,11.8626151546089)
    7.4273155720104 = axial(19.8650360864628,11.8626151546089)
    835.546575435632 = slip(29.4474984673838,7.4273155720104)

    the latter spelled out the long way :
    ⌊ 29.4474984673838 / 7.4273155720104 ⌉ = ⌊3.9647566044394⌉ = 4
    29.4474984673838 / 4 = 7.36187461684595
    i.e. harmonic of 29.4474984673838 nearest 7.4273155720104 is 29.4474984673838 / 4 = 7.36187461684595
    835.546575435632 = (7.4273155720104)*(7.36187461684595) / (7.4273155720104 – 7.36187461684595)

    elsewhere I’ve noted several ways this is confounded with lunisolar

    …but the fact no one has the firsthand conceptual intuition to independently fine-tune what the authors crudely measured (simply, cleanly, & controversy-free) amounts to toxic bane on discussion – enough to drive sensible people away (which I realize is probably what’s really going on).

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    monitoring discussion over there
    error still not acknowledged
    corrections not posted yet

  19. Paul Vaughan says:

    pretending the mean is the same thing as the volatility (2+2=5)
    and not one person in the audience there spoke up (has always looked like personality cult stage ops to me)

    copy/paste of related notes from here for quiet observers looking to clue in for real:

    suggestion: read chapters from Sidorenkov’s book (excellent overview of heat engines)
    note: generalized wavelet methods subsume other methods (including empircal mode methods)
    flexible extent means no CLT benefits (so comparing apples & oranges)
    more fundamentally: the cycle’s in the variance, not the mean (underscored for years – & still misrepresented)

    also repeated misrepresentation: need to first put a stop on all lunisolar to isolate the tuned volatility — deep fundamental miscommunications at play — would take a verbal conversation with trusted experts
    doesn’t help with the communication: the original authors didn’t tune the extent correctly – so their measurement is crude & distorted – but clearly & simply suggestive enough to alert someone adequately prepared to easily find the correct tuning

    generalized wavelet parameters to use:
    resolution: 1 day
    grain: 0.5 a
    extent 11 a
    span: infinite is best (but to save some computing time you can narrow it a bit)

    You have to put a stop on lunisolar before you do it (some just ignore this step, alert readers quietly realize) as the original authors noted clearly (something you have to understand to interpret correctly).

    The correct interpretation is about the central limit of cyclic volatility of thermal tides (which makes perfect common sense physically).

    The curve looks like the cosmic ray curve. Interpretations improve with learning, experience, etc. (not causation but common driver yielding similar shape).

    Then if you organize by day-of-year and subtract the background central limit you get the solar-terrestrial-climate weave. It is crystal clear. If you don’t want to call it solar: simply don’t …but it’s crystal clear and observed regardless of what you call it.

    Years ago I applied the same method to geomagnetic aa index to extract the 22 year cycle. Informatively no one pretended that was wrong.

    So those of you who are quietly alert can see what’s going on. Everything I’m saying about this can be verified by honest, capable people who understand with sufficient depth.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    I do not regard “solar” proxies as solar proxies.
    I note that none of the solar-climate narratives is consistent with observations. There are lots of solar-climate narratives – just none of them are consistent the solar-climate observations. Certainly suspicious.

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    What’s it mean too boldly compare?

    mean measurement claim

    ^ orange-count (does not count apples)
    v apple-count

    volatility observed with crystal clarity (stop lunisolar; measure grain=0.5a, extent=11a volatility; detrend)

  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    Fig. 3b
    Dickey, J.O.; & Keppenne, C.L. (1997). Interannual length-of-day variations and the ENSO phenomenon: insights via singular spectral analysis.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s