The modeled QBO cycle is directly related to the nodal (draconian) lunar cycle physically aliased against the annual cycle. The empirical cycle period is best estimated by tracking the peak acceleration of the QBO velocity time-series, as this acceleration (1st derivative of the velocity) shows a sharp peak. This value should asymptotically approach a 2.368 year period over the long term. Since the recent data from the main QBO repository provides an additional acceleration peak from the past month, now is as good a time as any to analyze the cumulative data.
The new data-point provides a longer period which compensated for some recent shorter periods, such that the cumulative mean lies right on the asymptotic line. The jitter observed is explainable in terms of the model, as acceleration peaks are more prone to align close to an annual impulse. But the accumulated mean period is still aligned to the draconic aliasing with this annual impulse. As more data points come in over the coming decades, the mean should vary less and less from the asymptotic value.
The fit to QBO using all the data save for the last available data point is shown below. Extrapolating beyond the green arrow, we should see an uptick according to the red waveform.
Adding the recent data-point and the blue waveform does follow the model.
There was a flurry of recent discussion on the QBO anomaly of 2016 (shown as a split peak above), which implied that perhaps the QBO would be permanently disrupted from it’s long-standing pattern. Instead, it may be a more plausible explanation that the QBO pattern was not simply wandering from it’s assumed perfectly cyclic path but instead is following a predictable but jittery track that is a combination of the (physically-aliased) annual impulse-synchronized Draconic cycle together with a sensitivity to variations in the draconic cycle itself. The latter calibration is shown below, based on NASA ephermeris.
This is the QBO spectral decomposition, showing signal strength centered on the fundamental aliased Draconic value, both for the data and the set by the model.
The main scientist, Prof. Richard Lindzen, behind the consensus QBO model has been recently introduced here as being “considered the most distinguished living climate scientist on the planet”. In his presentation criticizing AGW science , Lindzen claimed that the climate oscillates due to a steady uniform force, much like a violin oscillates when the steady force of a bow is drawn across its strings. An analogy perhaps better suited to reality is that the violin is being played like a drum. Resonance is more of a decoration to the beat itself.
 Professor Richard Lindzen slammed conventional global warming thinking warming as ‘nonsense’ in a lecture for the Global Warming Policy Foundation on Monday. ‘An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly … is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization,’ he said in London. — GWPF
4 thoughts on “Asymptotic QBO Period”
Back extrapolation for the model. It’s clearly not a case of overfitting, as the overall cycle remains stable
“There occurred a unique and significant disruption of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) during the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2015-16. Here we document the return of the QBO to its normal downward phase speed and period based on Singapore soundings, MERRA-2 re-analysis (Modern Era Retrospective Reanalysis for Research and Applications), and a simple QBO model. Daily averaged zonal winds from 100-10 hPa are used to characterized the behavior of the QBO’s amplitude and phase as seen in the first two EOFs (Empirical Orthogonal Functions). These EOFs capture the QBO structure and evolution during the pre-disruption, disruption, and post-disruption times. Results show that the amplitude and phase returned to normal by June 2016, however the post-disruption QBO phase was delayed relative to the pre-disruption phase by four tenths of a QBO cycle (~11 months). A rapid, seasonal, phase shift of this magnitude is shown to be unique in the QBO observational record. “
The cause of these QBO winds remained unclear for some time. Radiosonde soundings showed that its phase was not related to the annual cycle, as is the case for many other stratospheric circulation patterns. In the 19 it was recognized by Richard Lindzen and James Holton that the periodic wind reversal was driven by atmospheric waves emanating from the tropical troposphere that travel upwards and are dissipated in the stratosphere by radiative cooling. The precise nature of the waves responsible for this effect was heavily debated; in recent years, however, gravity waves have come to be seen as a major contributor and the QBO is now simulated in a growing number of climate models.
Pingback: The SAO and Annual Disturbances | GeoEnergy Math