geophysics

Current status of research according to AI

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / Leave a comment

explain the Pukite tidal theory

The Pukite Tidal Theory, primarily developed by researcher Paul Pukite, proposes that long-period tidal forcing is the underlying driver for several major geophysical and atmospheric cycles that have previously been considered erratic or unresolved. [1, 2]

The core of the theory is that small gravitational perturbations from the Moon and Sun, which are perfectly predictable, are “aliased” or modulated by seasonal cycles to create the complex behaviors seen in Earth’s systems. [3, 4]

Key Phenomena Addressed

Pukite applies this model to three main “unresolved mysteries” in geophysics:

  • Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO): A regular reversal of stratospheric winds. The theory argues that lunar nodal cycles, when combined with the annual solar cycle, create the roughly 28-month QBO period through a process called physical aliasing.
  • El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO): An erratic oceanic temperature cycle. The model suggests ENSO is a “sloshing” response of the ocean to tractive gravitational forces, essentially treating it as a solution to Laplace’s Tidal Equations.
  • Chandler Wobble: A small deviation in the Earth’s axis of rotation. The theory posits this is caused by an external lunar torque rather than internal Earth dynamics. [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7]

How the Model Works

  1. Lunar Gravitational Potential: The model starts by calculating the precise lunar gravitational potential over time.
  2. Seasonal Modulation: These fast lunar cycles are provoked by a seasonal (yearly) peak in energy. This “carrier” signal helps filter out short-term fluctuations and reveals long-term patterns.
  3. Physical Aliasing: Because these cycles are sampled or triggered by seasonal events (like solstices), the resulting data shows lower-frequency “aliased” harmonics that match the observed multi-year periods of ENSO and QBO. [4, 8, 9]

Scientific Reception

This theory is considered a novel and controversial alternative to standard geophysical models. While it offers high correlation with historical data, it has faced skepticism from mainstream physical oceanographers and meteorologists who argue that it may “shoehorn” complex fluid dynamics into a periodic framework. Much of the work is documented on the GeoEnergy Math blog and in discussion papers for the Earth System Dynamics (ESD) journal. [1, 4, 7, 10]

Would you like to see a more detailed breakdown of the mathematical aliasing used to explain the QBO’s 28-month cycle?

[1] https://esd.copernicus.org

[2] https://www.researchgate.net

[3] https://esd.copernicus.org

[4] https://geoenergymath.com

[5] https://acp.copernicus.org

[6] https://geoenergymath.com

[7] https://geoenergymath.com

[8] https://esd.copernicus.org

[9] https://geoenergymath.com

[10] https://esd.copernicus.org

This link may go stale, but here is the original response:

https://share.google/aimode/ta098ixUIyoNefp49

Spectral details in Chandler Wobble and QBO

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 1 Comment

Using LLMs as peer-review devil’s advocates for research findings can’t hurt and can only help strengthen an argument. One of the common criticisms an LLM makes is that it will claim that a factor is “too weak” or insignificant to serve as a mechanism for some observed behavior. This has almost turned into a cliche since it caters to the consensus bias of “certainly if it was a real mechanism, someone would have noticed it by now“. Certainly, at least in climate science, the notion of weak factors that turn out to have a significant impact is well known. Consider CO2, which by density is a very weak constituent, yet it has an over-sized impact on radiative energy balance. Also, in the context of climate science, when one considers how often the butterfly effect is invoked, whereby a butterfly flapping its winds can initiate a hurricane down the road, puts to test the argument that any half-way potentially significant factor can be easily dismissed.

That brings one to tidal (lunar and solar) forcings as mechanisms for behaviors, beyond that of the well-known daily ocean tides. As I have invoked lunar forcing as a causal synchronization to QBO, the Chandler wobble, and ENSO and others here, an almost guaranteed response by an LLM is that tidal factors are too weak to be considered. That’s actually a challenging devil’s advocate proposition to address, since (a) controlled experiments aren’t possible to generate sensitivity numbers and (b) that there are many subtle ways that a forcing signal can be amplified without knowing which one is valid. For example, a weak yet incessantly periodic signal can build over time and overpower some stronger yet more erratic signal.

Another devil’s advocate argument that an LLM will bring up is the idea of fortuity and chance, in the sense that a numerical agreement can be merely a coincidence, or as a product of fiddling with the numbers until you find what you are looking for. As an antidote to this, an LLM will recommend that other reinforcing matches or spectral details be revealed to overcome the statistical odds of agreement by chance.

For the Chandler Wobble, an LLM may declare the 433-day cycle agreeing with an aliased lunar draconic period of 27.212/2 days to be a coincidence and dismiss it as such (since it is but a single value). Yet, if one looks at the detailed spectrum of the Earth’s orientation data (via X or Y polar position), one can see other values that – though much weaker – are also exact matches to what should be expected. So that, in the chart below, the spectral location for the 27.5545 lunar anomalistic is also shown to match — labeled Mm and Mm2 (for the weaker 1st harmonic). Other sub-bands of the draconic period set are shown as Drac2.

Graph depicting the Spectrum of Chandler and Annual wobble, featuring two lines: a red line representing 'Model' and a blue line for 'X+Y avg'. The x-axis shows frequency (1/year) and the y-axis displays intensity. Key points labeled include 'Drac2', 'Annual', 'Mm', 'Mm2', and 'SemiAnnual'.

Importantly, the other well-known lunar tropical cycle of 27.326 days is not observed, because as I have shown elsewhere, it is not allowed via group theory for a wavenumber=0 behavior such as the Chandler Wobble (or QBO). In quantum physics, these are known as selection rules and are as important for excluding a match as they are for finding a match. The 27.554 day period is allowed so the fact that it matches to the spectra is strong substantiating evidence for a lunar forced mechanism.

For another class of criticism, an LLM may suggest that further matches in phase coherence of a waveform are required when matching to a model. This is rationalized as a means to avoid fortuitous matching of a simple sinusoidal wave.

For the QBO, detailed idiosyncratic phase details that arise from the lunar forcing model are straightforward to demonstrate via the time-series itself. A typical trace of the 30 hPA QBO time-series shows squared-off cycles that have characteristic shoulders or sub-plateaus that show up erratically dispersed within the approximately 28-month period. This is shown in the chart below, whereby though not perfectly matching, this characteristic is obvious in both the model and monthly data. The reason that this happens is the result of a stroboscopic-pulsed forcing creating a jagged sample-and-hole squared response. (A minimal lag of 1st or 2nd order will round the sharp edges.) Furthermore, the same draconic and anomalistic lunar periods contribute here as with the Chandler wobble model, substantiating the parsimonious aspects.

Line chart comparing model predictions (red line) and actual data (blue line) over the years from 1950 to 2020, with a highlighted training interval labeled 'TRAINING INTERVAL'.

Importantly, this isn’t known to occur in a resonantly amplified system with a natural response, whereby the waves are invariably well-rounded sinusoidal cycles without this jagged erratic shape. This is actually an acid test for characterizing time-series, with features that anyone experienced with signal processing can appreciate.

This addresses some of the criticisms revealed when I prompted an LLM peer-review in a previous post, describing findings made in Mathematical Geoenergy (Wiley, 2019)

Pairing of solar and lunar factors

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 1 Comment

A number of the Earth’s geophysical behaviors characterized by cycles have both a solar and lunar basis. For the ubiquitous ocean tides, the magnitude of each factor are roughly the same — rationalized by the fact that even though the sun is much more massive than the moon, it’s much further away.

However, there are several behaviors that even though they have a clear solar forcing, lack a lunar counterpart. These include the Earth’s fast wobble, the equatorial SAO/QBO, ENSO, and others. The following table summarizes how these gaps in causation are closed, with the missing lunar explanation bolded. Unless otherwise noted by a link, the detailed analysis is found in the text Mathematical Geoenergy.

Geophysical BehaviorSolar ForcingLunar Forcing
Conventional Ocean TidesSolar diurnal tide (S1), solar semidiurnal (S2)Lunar diurnal tide (O1), lunar semidiurnal (M2),
Length of Day (LOD) VariationsAnnual, semi-annualMonthly, fortnightly, 9-day, weekly
Long-Period TidesSolar annual variations (Sa), solar semi-annual (Ssa)Fortnightly (Mf), monthly (Mm, Msm), mixed harmonics
Chandler WobbleAnnual wobble 433 day cycle caused by draconic stroboscopic effect
Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO)Semi-Annual Oscillation (SAO) above QBO in altitude28-month caused by draconic stroboscopic effect
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO)Seasonal impulse acts as carrier and spring unpredictability barrierErratic cycling caused by draconic + other tidal factors per stroboscopic effect
Eclipse eventsSun-Moon alignment (draconic cycle critical)Sun-Moon alignment (draconic cycle critical)
Other Climate Indices and MSLStrong annual modulation and triggerSimilar to ENSO, see https://github.com/pukpr/GEM-LTE
Milankovitch CyclesEccentricity, obliquity, and precessionAxial drift in precessional cycle
Regression of nodes (nutation)Controlled +/- about the Earth-Sun ecliptic planeDraconic & tropical define an 18.6 year beat in nodal crossings
Atmospheric ringingDaily atmospheric tidesFortnightly modulation
https://geoenergymath.com/the-just-so-story-narrative/
Seasonal ClimateAnnual tilted orbit around the sun–
Daily ClimateEarth’s rotation rate–
Anthropogenic Global Warming––
Seismic Activity(sporadic stochastic trigger)(sporadic stochastic trigger)
Geomagnetic, Geothermal, etc??

The most familiar periodic factors – the daily and seasonal cycles – being primarily radiative processes obviously have no lunar counterpart.

And climate science itself is currently preoccupied with the prospect of anthropogenic global warming/climate change, which has little connection to the sun or moon, so the significance of the connections shown is largely muted by louder voices.


References:

  • Mathematical Geoenergy, 2019 (in BOLD)
  • Cartwright & Edden, Tidal Generation studies
  • Various oceanography & geodesy literature

Hidden latent manifolds in fluid dynamics

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 2 Comments

The behavior of complex systems, particularly in fluid dynamics, is traditionally described by high-dimensional systems of equations like the Navier-Stokes equations. While providing practical applications as is, these models can obscure the underlying, simplified mechanisms at play. It is notable that ocean modeling already incorporates dimensionality reduction built in, such as through Laplace’s Tidal Equations (LTE), which is a reduced-order formulation of the Navier-Stokes equations. Furthermore, the topological containment of phenomena like ENSO and QBO within the equatorial toroid , and the ability to further reduce LTE in this confined topology as described in the context of our text Mathematical Geoenergy underscore the inherent low-dimensional nature of dominant geophysical processes. The concept of hidden latent manifolds posits that the true, observed dynamics of a system do not occupy the entire high-dimensional phase space, but rather evolve on a much lower-dimensional geometric structure—a manifold layer—where the system’s effective degrees of freedom reside. This may also help explain the seeming paradox of the inverse energy cascade, whereby order in fluid structures seems to maintain as the waves become progressively larger, as nonlinear interactions accumulate energy transferring from smaller scales.

Discovering these latent structures from noisy, observational data is the central challenge in state-of-the-art fluid dynamics. Enter the Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamics (SINDy) algorithm, pioneered by Brunton et al. . SINDy is an equation-discovery framework designed to identify a sparse set of nonlinear terms that describe the evolution of the system on this low-dimensional manifold. Instead of testing all possible combinations of basis functions, SINDy uses a penalized regression technique (like LASSO) to enforce sparsity, effectively winnowing down the possibilities to find the most parsimonious, yet physically meaningful, governing differential equations. The result is a simple, interpretable model that captures the essential physics—the fingerprint of the latent manifold. The SINDy concept is not that difficult an algorithm to apply as a decent Python library is available for use, and I have evaluated it as described here.

Applying this methodology to Earth system dynamics, particularly the seemingly noisy, erratic, and perhaps chaotic time series of sea-level variation and climate index variability, reveals profound simplicity beneath the complexity. The high-dimensional output of climate models or raw observations can be projected onto a model framework driven by remarkably few physical processes. Specifically, as shown in analysis targeting the structure of these time series, the dynamics can be cross-validated by the interaction of two fundamental drivers: a forced gravitational tide and an annual impulse.

The presence of the forced gravitational tide accounts for the regular, high-frequency, and predictable components of the dynamics. The annual impulse, meanwhile, serves as the seasonal forcing function, representing the integrated effect of large-scale thermal and atmospheric cycles that reset annually. The success of this sparse, two-component model—where the interaction of these two elements is sufficient to capture the observed dynamics—serves as the ultimate validation of the latent manifold concept. The gravitational tides with the integrated annual impulse are the discovered, low-dimensional degrees of freedom, and the ability of their coupled solution to successfully cross-validate to the observed, high-fidelity dynamics confirms that the complex, high-dimensional reality of sea-level and climate variability emerges from this simple, sparse, and interpretable set of latent governing principles. This provides a powerful, physics-constrained approach to prediction and understanding, moving beyond descriptive models toward true dynamical discovery.

An entire set of cross-validated models is available for evluation here: https://pukpr.github.io/examples/mlr/.

This is a mix of climate indices (the 1st 20) and numbered coastal sea-level stations obtained from https://psmsl.org/

https://pukpr.github.io/examples/map_index.html

  • nino34 — NINO34 (PACIFIC)
  • nino4 — NINO4 (PACIFIC)
  • amo — AMO (ATLANTIC)
  • ao — AO (ARCTIC)
  • denison — Ft Denison (PACIFIC)
  • iod — IOD (INDIAN)
  • iodw — IOD West (INDIAN)
  • iode — IOD East (INDIAN)
  • nao — NAO (ATLANTIC)
  • tna — TNA Tropical N. Atlantic (ATLANTIC)
  • tsa — TSA Tropical S. Atlantic (ATLANTIC)
  • qbo30 — QBO 30 Equatorial (WORLD)
  • darwin — Darwin SOI (PACIFIC)
  • emi — EMI ENSO Modoki Index (PACIFIC)
  • ic3tsfc — ic3tsfc (Reconstruction) (PACIFIC)
  • m6 — M6, Atlantic Nino (ATLANTIC)
  • m4 — M4, N. Pacific Gyre Oscillation (PACIFIC)
  • pdo — PDO (PACIFIC)
  • nino3 — NINO3 (PACIFIC)
  • nino12 — NINO12 (PACIFIC)
  • 1 — BREST (FRANCE)
  • 10 — SAN FRANCISCO (UNITED STATES)
  • 11 — WARNEMUNDE 2 (GERMANY)
  • 14 — HELSINKI (FINLAND)
  • 41 — POTI (GEORGIA)
  • 65 — SYDNEY, FORT DENISON (AUSTRALIA)
  • 76 — AARHUS (DENMARK)
  • 78 — STOCKHOLM (SWEDEN)
  • 111 — FREMANTLE (AUSTRALIA)
  • 127 — SEATTLE (UNITED STATES)
  • 155 — HONOLULU (UNITED STATES)
  • 161 — GALVESTON II, PIER 21, TX (UNITED STATES)
  • 163 — BALBOA (PANAMA)
  • 183 — PORTLAND (MAINE) (UNITED STATES)
  • 196 — SYDNEY, FORT DENISON 2 (AUSTRALIA)
  • 202 — NEWLYN (UNITED KINGDOM)
  • 225 — KETCHIKAN (UNITED STATES)
  • 229 — KEMI (FINLAND)
  • 234 — CHARLESTON I (UNITED STATES)
  • 245 — LOS ANGELES (UNITED STATES)
  • 246 — PENSACOLA (UNITED STATES)

Crucially, this analysis does not use the SINDy algorithm, but a much more basic multiple linear regression (MLR) algorithm predecessor, which I anticipate being adapted to SINDy as the model is further refined. Part of the rationale for doing this is to maintain a deep understanding of the mathematics, as well as providing cross-checking and thus avoiding the perils of over-fitting, which is the bane of neural network models.

Also read this intro level on tidal modeling, which may form the fundamental foundation for the latent manifold: https://pukpr.github.io/examples/warne_intro.html. The coastal station at Wardemunde in Germany along the Baltic sea provided a long unbroken interval of sea-level readings which was used to calibrate the hidden latent manifold that in turn served as a starting point for all the other models. Not every model works as well as the majority — see Pensacola for a sea-level site and and IOD or TNA for climate indices, but these are equally valuable for understanding limitations (and providing a sanity check against an accidental degeneracy in the model fitting process) . The use of SINDy in the future will provide additional functionality such as regularization that will find an optimal common-mode latent layer,.

Mathematical GeoEnergy 2018 vs ChatGPT 2025

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / Leave a comment

On RealClimate.org

Paul Pukite (@whut) says

1 JUL 2025 AT 9:48 PM

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

“If so, do you have an explanation why the diurnal tides do not move the thermocline, whereas tides with longer periods do?”

The character of ENSO is that it shifts by varying amounts on an annual basis. Like any thermocline interface, it reaches the greatest metastability at a specific time of the year. I’m not making anything up here — the frequency spectrum of ENSO (pick any index NINO4, NINO34, NINO3) shows a well-defined mirror symmetry about the value 0.5/yr. Given that Incontrovertible observation, something is mixing with the annual impulse — and the only plausible candidate is a tidal force.
So the average force of the tides at this point is the important factor to consider. Given a very sharp annual impulse, the near daily tides alias against the monthly tides — that’s all part of mathematics of orbital cycles. So just pick the monthly tides as it’s convenient to deal with and is a more plausible match to a longer inertial push.

Sunspots are not a candidate here.

Some say wind is a candidate. Can’t be because wind actually lags the thermocline motion.

So the deal is, I can input the above as a prompt to ChatGPT and see what it responds with

https://chatgpt.com/share/68649088-5c48-8010-a767-4fe75ddfeffc

Chat GPT also produces a short Python script which generates the periodogram of expected spectral peaks.

I placed the results into a GitHub Gist here, with charts:
https://gist.github.com/pukpr/498dba4e518b35d78a8553e5f6ef8114

I made one change to the script (multiplying each tidal factor by its frequency to indicate its inertial potential, see the ## comment)

At the end of the Gist, I placed a representative power spectrum for the actual NINO4 and NINO34 data sets showing where the spectral peaks match. They all match. More positions match if you consider a biennial modulation as well.

Now, you might be saying — yes, but this all ChatGPT and I am likely coercing the output. Nothing of the sort. Like I said, I did the original work years ago and it was formally published as Mathematical Geoenergy (Wiley, 2018). This was long before LLMs such as ChatGPT came into prominence. ChatGPT is simply recreating the logical explanation that I had previously published. It is simply applying known signal processing techniques that are generic across all scientific and engineering domains and presenting what one would expect to observe.

In this case, it carries none of the baggage of climate science in terms of “you can’t do that, because that’s not the way things are done here”. ChatGPT doesn’t care about that prior baggage — it does the analysis the way that the research literature is pointing and how the calculation is statistically done across domains when confronted with the premise of an annual impulse combined with a tidal modulation. And it nailed it in 2025, just as I nailed it in 2018.

Reply

Lunar Torque Controls All

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 13 Comments

Mathematical Geoenergy

The truly massive scale in the motion of fluids and solids on Earth arises from orbital interactions with our spinning planet. The most obvious of these, such as the daily and seasonal cycles, are taken for granted. Others, such as ocean tides, have more complicated mechanisms than the ordinary person realizes (e.g. ask someone to explain why there are 2 tidal cycles per day). There are also less well-known motions, such as the variation in the Earth’s rotation rate of nominally 360° per day, which is called the delta in Length of Day (LOD), and in the slight annual wobble in the Earth’s rotation axis. Nevertheless, each one of these is technically well-characterized and models of the motion include a quantitative mapping to the orbital cycles of the Sun, Moon, and Earth. This is represented in the directed graph below, where the BLUE ovals indicate behaviors that are fundamentally understood and modeled via tables of orbital factors.

The cyan background represents behaviors that have a longitudinal dependence
(rendered by GraphViz)

However, those ovals highlighted in GRAY are nowhere near being well-understood in spite of being at least empirically well-characterized via years of measurements. Further, what is (IMO) astonishing is the lack of research interest in modeling these massive behaviors as a result of the same orbital mechanisms as that which causes tides, seasons, and the variations in LOD. In fact, everything tagged in the chart is essentially a behavior relating to an inertial response to something. That something, as reported in the Earth sciences literature, is only vaguely described — and never as a tidal or tidal/annual interaction.

I don’t see how it’s possible to overlook such an obvious causal connection. Why would the forcing that causes a massive behavior such as tides suddenly stop having a connection to other related inertial behaviors? The answers I find in the research literature are essentially that “someone looked in the past and found no correlation” [1].

Continue reading →

AMO and the Mt tide

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 1 Comment

Geophysics is a challenging endeavor — one part geology as historical evidence and the other part current measurements revealing how the forces of nature are continuously shaping the behavior of the Earth. Yet, how much faith can we place on any one interpretation, or on any past consensus?

"But for geophysics on such a massive scale, nothing can be checked via a lab controlled experiment."Someone has described geology!I prefer my own description (though taken from someone else and modified): Geology is like trying to learn about barley by studying beer.

— Compton Scatterbrained (@stommepoes.bsky.social) 2024-09-18T15:13:20.671Z

This goes double for the study of geophysical fluid dynamics — volumes and forces so large that controlled experiments are impossible. So that when a semi-controlled impulse comes about, say from the calving of a glacier, the empirical results may be surprising:

The subsequent mega-tsunami — one of the highest in recent history — set off a wave which became trapped in the bendy, narrow fjord for more than a week, sloshing back and forth every 90 seconds.

The phenomenon, called a “seiche,” refers to the rhythmic movement of a wave in an enclosed space, similar to water splashing backwards and forwards in a bathtub or cup. One of the scientists even tried (and failed) to recreate the impact in their own bathtub.

While seiches are well-known, scientists previously had no idea they could last so long.

“Had I suggested a year ago that a seiche could persist for nine days, people would shake their heads and say that’s impossible,” said Svennevig, who likened the discovery to suddenly finding a new colour in a rainbow. — http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/techandscience/what-caused-the-mysterious-9-day-earth-vibration-scientists-point-to-650-ft-mega-tsunami-that-rocked-greenland/ar-AA1qwIqk

This took place in a large Greenland fjord — massive but not as massive as the ocean. And that’s where massive geophysical forces also take place, such as from tidal pull.

So what about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)? The Mt long-period tide is an interference between the Mf nodal tidal cycle (13.66 days) and the Mm anomalistic tidal cycle (27.55 days). When this is synchronized to an annual impulse, a multidecadal response results.

It is much too easy to model the 50-60 year AMO cycle via nonlinear triad frequency-doubling mechanisms, and also simulate the faster cycling from the predominate Mf and Mm interactions with the annual cycle. This is essentially a sloshing behavior operating on the ocean’s thermocline as described in Chapter 12 of Mathematical Geoenergy, applying the nonlinear geophysical dynamics embedded within Laplace’s Tidal Equations.

New colors of the rainbow are waiting to be revealed. No excuse for others to reproduce the tidal forcing models as described and perform cross-validated model fits to replicate the results above. Work smart not hard.

Fundy-mental (continued)

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 1 Comment

I’m looking at side-band variants of the lunisolar orbital forcing because that’s where the data is empirically taking us. I had originally proposed solving Laplace’s Tidal Equations (LTE) using a novel analytical derivation published several years ago (see Mathematical Geoenergy, Wiley/AG, 2019). The takeaway from the math results — given that LTEs form the primitive basis of the GCM-specific shallow-water approximation to oceanic fluid dynamics — was that my solution involved a specific type of non-linear modulation or amplification of the input tidal. However, this isn’t the typical diurnal/semi-diurnal tidal forcing, but because of the slower inertial response of the ocean volume, the targeted tidal cycles are the longer period monthly and annual. Moreover, as very few climate scientists are proficient at signal processing and all the details of aliasing and side-bands, this is an aspect that has remained hidden (again thank Richard Lindzen for opening the book on tidal influences and then slamming it shut for decades).

Continue reading →

Unified Model of Earth Dynamics

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / Leave a comment

Lorenz turned out to be a chaotic dead-end in understanding Earth dynamics. Instead we need a new unified model of solid liquid dynamics focusing on symmetries of the rotating earth, applying equations of solid bodies & fluid dynamics. See Mathematical Geoenergy (Wiley, 2018).

Should have made this diagram long ago: here’s the ChatGPT4 prompt with the diagramming plugin.

Graph

Ocean Tides and dLOD have always been well-understood, largely because the mapping to lunar+solar cycles is so obvious. And the latter is getting better all the time — consider recent hi-res LOD measurements with a ring laser interferometer, pulling in diurnal tidal cycles with much better temporal resolution.

That’s the first stage of unification (yellow boxes above) — next do the other boxes (CW, QBO, ENSO, AMO, PDO, etc) as described in the book and on this blog, while calibrating to tides and LOD, and that becomes a cross-validated unified model.

Annotated 10/11/2023

ontological classification according to wavenumber kx, ky, kz and fluid/solid.

Added so would not lose it — highlighted tidal factor is non-standard

Geophysically Informed Machine Learning for Improving Rapid Estimation and Short-Term Prediction of Earth Orientation Parameters

Paleo ENSO

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 1 Comment

Two recent articles prompted a few ideas

From last year, https://watchers.news/2022/11/10/study-shows-how-earth-sun-distance-dramatically-influences-annual-weather-cycles-in-the-equatorial-pacific-in-a-22-000-year-cycle/ points to:

Two annual cycles of the Pacific cold tongue under orbital precession

Which says that

“Because the distance effect annual cycle (from perihelion to perihelion, otherwise called the anomalistic year, 365.259636 d (ref. 6)) is slightly longer than the tilt effect annual cycle (from equinox to equinox, otherwise known as the tropical year, 365.242189 d (ref. 6)), the LOP increases over time. A complete revolution of the LOP is the precession cycle, about 22,000 yr (ref. 38). “

The claim is that the exact timing and strength of the annual cycle extreme is important in initiating an El Nino or La Nina cycle. as the Longitude of Perihelion (LOP) moves over time, so that when this aligns with the solstice/equinox events, the ENSO behavior will mirror the strength of the forcing.

Next article

ENSO-related centennial and millennialscale hydroclimate changes recorded from Lake Xiaolongchi in arid Central Asia over the past 8000 years

They note 800 year cycles in the observations

This is not a 22,000 year cycle (as stated its actuallly closer to 21,000), but it’s possible that if tidal cycles play a part of the forcing, then a much shorter paleo cycle may emerge. Consider that the Mf tidal cycle of 13.66 days will generate a cycle of ~3.81 years when non-linearly modulated against the tropical year (seasonal cycle), but ~3.795 years modulated against the perigean or anomalistic year (nearest approach to the sun).

The difference between the two will reinforce every 783 years, which is close to the 800 year cycle. Aliasing and sideband frequency calculations reveal these patterns.