In the previous ENSO post I referenced the Rajchenbach article on Faraday waves.
There is a telling assertion within that article:
“For instance, to the best of our knowledge, the dispersion relation (relating angular frequency ω and wavenumber k) of parametrically forced water waves has astonishingly not been explicitly established hitherto. Indeed, this relation is often improperly identified with that of free unforced surface waves, despite experimental evidence showing significant deviations”
What they are suggesting is that too much focus has been placed on natural resonances and the dispersion relationships within a free fluid volume. Whereas the forced response is clearly as important — if not more — and that the forcing will show through in the solution of the equations. I have been pursuing this strategy for a while, having started down the Mathieu equation right away and then eventually realizing the importance of the forced response, yet the Rajchenbach article is the first case that I have found made of what I always thought should be a rather obvious assumption. The fact that the peer-reviewers allowed the “astonishingly” adjective in the paper is what makes it telling. It’s astonishing in the equivalent sense that Rajchenbach & Clamond are pointing out that a pendulum’s motion will be impacted by a periodic push. In other words, astonishing in the sense that this premise should be obvious!
The model of ENSO is split into two groups of forcing factors, unified by a biennial modulation. The predominant factors have cycles of 6.4 and 14 years, which extends back through historical proxy data. Other strong factors track the same lunar cycles that appear as QBO forcing factors.
What’s somewhat interesting is that after a multiple linear regression, the optimal values are 6.476 and 13.98 years — with the mean frequency of these two values at 8.852 years, which is very close to the anomalistic tidal long-period of 8.85 years.
[mathjax]An old game show called Name That Tune asked contestants to identify a song by listening to just a few notes.
This post is the QBO equivalent to that. How short an interval can we train on to reproduce the rest of the time series? The answer is not much is required.
With respect to the ENSO model I have been thinking about ways of evaluating the statistical significance of the fit to the data. If we train on one 70 year interval and then test on the following 70 year interval, we get the interesting effect of finding a higher correlation coefficient on the test interval. The training interval is just below 0.85 while the test is above 0.86.
This image has been resized to fit in the page. Click to enlarge.
Elaborating on this comment attached to an LOD post, noting this recent paper:
Shen, Wenbin, and Cunchao Peng. 2016. “Detection of Different-Time-Scale Signals in the Length of Day Variation Based on EEMD Analysis Technique.” Special Issue: Geodetic and Geophysical Observations and Applications and Implications 7 (3): 180–86. doi:10.1016/j.geog.2016.05.002.
Because of the law of conservation of momentum sloshing can change the velocity of a container full of liquid, momentarily speeding it up or slowing it down as the liquid sloshes back and forth. By the same token, suddenly slowing or speeding of that container can also cause the sloshing. So there is a chicken and egg quality to the analysis of sloshing, making it difficult to ascertain the origin of the effect.
If ENSO is a manifestation of a liquid sloshing in a container and if the length-of-day (LOD) is a measurement of the angular momentum changes of the Earth’s rotation, then it is perhaps useful to compare the fundamental time-varying signals in each measurement.