For info on the book and conference presentations, go to the GeoEnergyMath blog

For info on the book and conference presentations, go to the GeoEnergyMath blog

The Arctic Oscillation (AO) dipole has behavior that is correlated to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) dipole. We can see this in two ways. First, and most straight-forwardly, the correlation coefficient between the AO and NAO time-series is above 0.6.

Secondly, we can use the model of the NAO from the last post and refit the parameters to the AO data (data also here), but spanning an *orthogonal* interval. Then we can compare the constituent lunisolar factors for NAO and AO for correlation, and further discover that this also doubles as an effective cross-validation for the underlying LTE model (as the intervals are orthogonal).

Only the anomalistic factor shows an imperfect correlation, and that remains quite high.

The challenge of validating the models of climate oscillations such as ENSO and QBO, rests primarily in our inability to perform controlled experiments. Because of this shortcoming, we can either do (1) predictions of future behavior and validate via the wait-and-see process, or (2) creatively apply techniques such as cross-validation on currently available data. The first is a non-starter because it’s obviously pointless to wait decades for validation results to confirm a model, when it’s entirely possible to do something *today* via the second approach.

There are a variety of ways to perform model cross-validation on measured data.

In its original and conventional formulation, cross-validation works by checking one interval of time-series against another, typically by training on one interval and then validating on an orthogonal interval.

Another way to cross-validate is to compare two sets of time-series data collected on behaviors that are potentially related. For example, in the case of ocean tidal data that can be collected and compared across spatially separated geographic regions, the sea-level-height (SLH) time-series data will not necessarily be correlated, but the underlying lunar and solar forcing factors will be closely aligned give or take a phase factor. This is intuitively understandable since the two locations share a common-mode signal forcing due to the gravitational pull of the moon and sun, with the differences in response due to the geographic location and local spatial topology and boundary conditions. For tides, this is a consensus understanding and tidal prediction algorithms have stood the test of time.

In the previous post, cross-validation on distinct data sets was evaluated assuming common-mode lunisolar forcing. One cross-validation was done between the ENSO time-series and the AMO time-series. Another cross-validation was performed for ENSO against PDO. The underlying common-mode lunisolar forcings were highly correlated as shown in the featured figure. The LTE spatial wave-number weightings were the primary discriminator for the model fit. This model is described in detail in the book Mathematical GeoEnergy to be published at the end of the year by Wiley.

Another common-mode cross-validation possible is between ENSO and QBO, but in this case it is primarily in the Draconic nodal lunar factor — the cyclic forcing that appears to govern the regular oscillations of QBO. Below is the Draconic constituent comparison for QBO and the ENSO.

This cross-correlation technique can be extended to what appears to be an extremely erratic measure, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Like the SOI measure for ENSO, the NAO is originally derived from a pressure dipole measured at two separate locations — but in this case north of the equator. From the high-frequency of the oscillations, a good assumption is that the spatial wavenumber factors are much higher than is required to fit ENSO. And that was the case as evidenced by the figure below.

Both SOI and NAO are noisy time-series with the NAO appearing very noisy, yet the lunisolar constituent forcings are highly synchronized as shown by correlations in the lower pane. In particular, summing the Anomalistic and Solar constituent factors together improves the correlation markedly, which is because each of those has influence on the other via the lunar-solar mutual gravitational attraction. The iterative fitting process adjusts each of the factors independently, yet the net result compensates the counteracting amplitudes so the net common-mode factor is essentially the same for ENSO and NAO (see lower-right correlation labelled Anomalistic+Solar).

Since the NAO has high-frequency components, we can also perform a conventional cross-validation across orthogonal intervals. The validation interval below is for the years between 1960 and 1990, and even though the training intervals were aggressively over-fit, the correlation between the model and data is still visible in those 30 years.

Over the course of time spent modeling ENSO, the effort that went into fitting to NAO was a fraction of the original time. This is largely due to the fact that the temporal lunisolar forcing only needed to be tweaked to match other climate indices, and the iteration over the topological spatial factors quickly converges.

Many more cross-validation techniques are available for NAO, since there are different flavors of NAO indices available corresponding to different Atlantic locations, and spanning back to the 1800’s.

The basis of the ENSO model is the forcing derived from the long-period cyclic lunisolar gravitational pull of the moon and sun. There is some thought that ENSO shows teleconnections to other oceanic behaviors. The primary oceanic dipoles are ENSO and AMO for the Pacific and Atlantic. There is also the PDO for the mid-northern-latitude of the Pacific, which has a pattern distinct from ENSO. So the question is: Are these connected through interactions or do they possibly share a common-mode mechanism through the same lunisolar forcing mechanism?

Based on tidal behaviors, it is known that the gravitational pull varies geographically, so it would be understandable that ENSO, AMO, and PDO would demonstrate distinct time-series signatures. In checking this, you will find that the correlation coefficient between any two of these series is essentially zero, regardless of applied leads or lags. Yet the underlying component factors (the lunar Draconic, lunar Anomalistic, and solar modified terms) may potentially emerge with only slight variations in shape, with differences only in relative amplitude. This is straightforward to test by fitting the basic ENSO model to AMO and PDO by allowing the parameters to vary.

The following figure is the result of fitting the model to ENSO, AMO, and PDO and then comparing the constituent factors.

First, note that the same parametric model fits each of the time series arguably well. The Draconic factor underling both the ENSO and AMO model is almost perfectly aligned, indicated by the red starred graph, with excursions showing a CC above 0.99. All of the rest of the CC’s in fact are above 0.6.

The upshot of this analysis is two-fold. First to consider how difficult it is to fit any one of these time series to a minimal set of periodically-forced signals. Secondly that the underlying signals are not that different in character, only that the combination in terms of a Laplace’s tidal equation weighting are what couples them together via a common-mode mechanism. Thus, the teleconnection between these oceanic indices is likely an underlying common lunisolar tidal forcing, just as one would suspect from conventional tidal analysis.

One of the interesting traits of climate science is the way it gives away obvious clues. This recent paper by Iz

Iz, H Bâki. “The Effect of Regional Sea Level Atmospheric Pressure on Sea Level Variations at Globally Distributed Tide Gauge Stations with Long Records.”Journal of Geodetic Science8, no. 1 (n.d.): 55–71.

shows such a breathtakingly obvious characteristic that it’s a wonder why everyone isn’t all over it. The author seems to be understating the feature, which is essentially showing that for certain tidal records, the atmospheric pressure (recorded in the tidal measurement location) is pseudo-quantized to a set of specific values. In other words, for a New York City tidal gauge station, there are 12 values of atmospheric pressure between 1000 and 1035 mb that are heavily favored over all other values.

One can see it in the raw data here where clear horizontal lines are apparent in the data points:

and for the transformed data shown in the histogram below, where I believe the waviness in the lines is compensated by fitting to long-period tidal signal factors (such as 18.6 year, 9.3 year periods, etc).

The author isn’t calling it a quantization, and doesn’t really call attention to it with a specific name other than clustering, yet it is obvious from the raw data and even more from the histograms of the transformed data.

The first temptation is to attribute the pattern to a measurement artifact. These are monthly readings and there are 12 separate discrete values identified so that connection seems causal. The author says

“It was shown that random component of regional atmospheric pressure tends to cluster at monthly intervals. The clusters are likely to be caused by the intraannual seasonal atmospheric temperature changes, which may also act as random beats in generating sub-harmonics observed in sea level changes as another mechanism.”

Nearer the equator, the pattern is not readily evident. The fundamental connection between tidal value and atmospheric pressure is due to the inverse barometric effect

“At any fixed location, the sea level record is a function of time, involving periodic components as well as continuous random fluctuations. The periodic motion is mostly due to the gravitational effects of the sun-earth-moon system as well as because of solar radiation upon the atmosphere and the ocean as discussed before. Sometimes the random fluctuations are of meteorological origin and reflect the effect of ’weather’ upon the sea surface but reflect also the inverse barometric effect of atmospheric pressure at sea level.”

So the bottom-line impact is that the underlying tidal signal is viably measured even though it is at a monthly resolution and not the diurnal or semi-diurnal resolution typically associated with tides.

Why this effect is not as evident closer to the equator is rationalized by smaller annual amplification

“Stations closer to the equator are also exposed to yearly periodic variations but with smaller amplitudes. Large adjusted R2 values show that the models explain most of the variations in atmospheric pressure observed at the sea level at the corresponding stations. For those stations closer to the equator, the amplitudes of the annual and semiannual changes are considerably smaller and overwhelmed by random excursions. Stations in Europe experience similar regional variations because of their proximities to each other”

So, for the Sydney Harbor tidal data the pattern is not observed

Whereas, I previously showed the clear impact of the ENSO signal on the Sydney tidal data after a specific transform in this post. The erratic ENSO signal (with a huge inverse barometric effect as measured via the SOI readings of atmospheric pressure) competes with the annual signal so that the monthly quantization is obscured. Yet, if the ENSO behavior is also connected to the tidal forcing at these long-period levels, there may be a tidal unification yet to be drawn from these clues.

The last of the ENSO charts.

This is how conventional tidal prediction is done:

Note how well it does in extrapolating a projection from a training interval.

This is an ENSO model fit to SOI data using an analytical solution to Navier-Stokes. The same algorithm is used to solve for the optimal forcing as in the tidal analysis solution above, but applying the annual solar cycle and monthly/fortnightly lunar cycles instead of the diurnal and semi-diurnal cycle.

The time scale transitions from a daily modulation to a much longer modulation due to the long-period tidal factors being invoked.

Next is an expanded view, with the correlation coefficient of 0.73:

This is a fit trained on the 1880-1950 interval (CC=0.76) and cross-validated on the post-1950 data

This is a fit trained on the post-1950 interval (CC=0.77) and cross-validated on the 1880-1950 data

Like conventional tidal prediction, very little over-fitting is observed. Most of what is considered noise in the SOI data is actually the tidal forcing signal. Not much more to say, except for others to refine.

Thanks to Kevin and Keith for all their help, which will be remembered.

The model fit to ENSO takes place in the time domain. However, the correlation coefficient between model and data of the corresponding power spectra is higher than in the time series. Below in **Figure 1** the CC is 0.92, while the CC in the time series is 0.82.

The model allows only 3 fundamental lunar frequencies along with the annual cycle, plus the harmonics caused by the non-linear orbital path and the seasonally impulsed modulation.

What this implies is that almost all the peaks in the power spectra shown above are caused by interactions of these 4 fundamental frequencies. **Figure 2** shows a satellite view of peak splitting (also shown here).

One of the reasons that the power spectrum gives a higher correlation coefficient — *despite the fact that the spectrum wasn’t used in the fit* — is that the lunar tides are precisely determined and thus all the harmonics should align well in the frequency domain. And that’s what is observed with the multiple-peak alignment.

Furthermore, according to Ref [1], this result is definitely *not* a characteristic of noise-driven system, and it also possesses a very low dimension of chaotic content. The same frequency content is observed largely independent of the prediction time profile, i.e. training interval.

1. Bhattacharya, Joydeep, and Partha P. Kanjilal. “Revisiting the role of correlation coefficient to distinguish chaos from noise.” *The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems* 13.2 (2000): 399-403.

An intriguing discovery is that the higher-resolution aspects of the SOI time-series (as illustrated by the Australian BOM 30-day SOI moving average) may also have a tidal influence. Note the fast noisy envelope that rides on top of the deep El Nino of 2015-2016 shown below:

For the standard monthly SOI as reported by NCAR and NOAA, this finer detail disappears. BOM provides the daily SOI value for about the past ~ 3 years here.

Yet if we retain this in the 1880-present monthly ENSO model, by simultaneously isolating [1] the higher frequency fine structure from 2015-2017, the fine structure also emerges in the model. This is shown in the lower panel below.

This indicates that the differential equation being used currently can possibly be modified to include faster-responding derivative terms which will simultaneously show the multi-year fluctuations as well as what was thought to be a weekly-to-monthly-scale noise envelope. In fact, I had been convinced that this term was due to localized weather but a recent post suggested that this may indeed be a deterministic signal.

Lunisolar tidal effects likely do impact the ocean behavior at every known time-scale, from the well-characterized diurnal and semi-diurnal SLH tides to the long-term deep-ocean mixing proposed by Munk and Wunsch. It’s not surprising that tidal forces would have an impact on the intermediate time-scale ENSO dynamics, both at the conventional low resolution (used for El Nino predictions) and at the higher-resolution that emerges from SOI measurements (the 30-day moving average shown above). Obviously, monthly and fortnightly oscillations observed in the SOI are commensurate with the standard lunar tides of periods 13-14 days and 27-28 days. And non-linear interactions may result in the 40-60 day oscillations observed in LOD.

It’s entirely possible that removing the 30-day moving average on the SOI measurements can reveal even more detail/

[1] Isolation is accomplished by subtracting a 24-day average about the moving average value, which suppresses the longer-term SOI variation.

Following up on the last post on the ENSO forcing, this note elaborates on the math. The tidal gravitational forcing function used follows an inverse power-law dependence, where *a(t)* is the anomalistic lunar distance and *d(t)* is the draconic or nodal perturbation to the distance.

Note the prime indicating that the forcing applied is the derivative of the conventional inverse squared Newtonian attraction. This generates an inverse cubic formulation corresponding to the consensus analysis describing a differential tidal force:

For a combination of monthly and fortnightly sinusoidal terms for *a(t)* and *d(t) *(suitably modified for nonlinear nodal and perigean corrections due to the synodic/tropical cycle) the search routine rapidly converges to an optimal ENSO fit. It does this more quickly than the harmonic analysis, which requires at least double the unknowns for the additional higher-order factors needed to capture the tidally forced response waveform. One of the keys is to collect the chain rule terms *a'(t)* and *d'(t)* in the numerator; without these, the necessary mixed terms which multiply the anomalistic and draconic signals do not emerge strongly.

As before, a strictly biennial modulation needs to be applied to this forcing to capture the measured ENSO dynamics — this is a period-doubling pattern observed in hydrodynamic systems with a strong fundamental (in this case annual) and is climatologically explained by a persistent year-to-year regenerative feedback in the SLP and SST anomalies.

Here is the model fit for training from 1880-1980, with the extrapolated test region post-1980 showing a good correlation.

The geophysics is now canonically formulated, providing (1) a simpler and more concise expression, leading to (2) a more efficient computational solution, (3) less possibility of over-fitting, and (4) ultimately generating a much better correlation. Alternatively, stated in modeling terms, the resultant information metric is improved by reducing the complexity and improving the correlation — the vaunted cheaper, faster, and better solution. Or, in other words: get the physics right, and all else follows.

[mathjax]With an ideal tidal analysis, one should be able to apply the gravitational forcing of the lunar orbit^{1} and use that as input to solve Laplace’s tidal equations. This would generate tidal heights directly. But due to aleatory uncertainty with respect to other factors, it becomes much more practical to perform a harmonic analysis on the constituent tidal frequencies. This essentially allows an empirical fit to measured tidal heights over a training interval, which is then used to extrapolate the behavior over other intervals. This works very well for conventional tidal analysis.

For ENSO, we need to make the same decision: Do we attempt to work the detailed lunar forcing into the formulation ** or** do we resort to an empirical bottoms-up harmonic analysis? What we have being do so far is a variation of a harmonic analysis that we verified here. This is an expansion of the lunar long-period tidal periods into their harmonic factors. So that works well. But could a geophysical model work too?