By applying an annual impulse sample-and-hold on a common-mode basis set of tidal factors, a wide range of climate indices can be modeled and cross-validated. Whether it is a biennial impulse or annual impulse, the slowly modulating envelope is roughly the same, thus models of multidecadal indices such as AMO and PDO show similar skill — with cross validation results evaluated here for a biennial impulse. Now we will evaluate for annual impulse.
Continue readingWave Energy
Google Gemini Deep Research on ENSO
First evaluation of Gemini Advanced 1.5 Pro with Deep Research. Logged in with trial subscription and gave this as an initial prompt. Saved the results to a Google Docs file, and then created the following PDF. Note the top-level focus on this blog and published citations in the scope of Chapter 12 of Mathematical Geoenergy, even though the chapter was not directly cited — only via an embedded cite in a submitted ESD Ideas article, reference 1. Interesting that the Lin & Qian paper not cited.
Prompt: Explain tidal forcing behind ENSO using derivations based on reduced effective gravity on equatorial thermocline.
Tidal Gauge Differential
A climate science breakthrough likely won’t be on some massive computation but on a novel formulation that exposes some fundamental pattern (perhaps discovered by deep mining during a machine learning exercise). Over 10 years ago, I wrote on a blog post on how one can extract the ENSO signal by doing simple signal processing on a sea-level height (SLH) tidal time-series — in this case, at Fort Denison located in Sydney harbor.
The formulation/trick is to take the difference between the SLH reading and that from 2 years (24 months) prior, described here
Check the recent blog post Lunar Torque Controls All for context of how it fits in to the unified model.
The rationale for this 24 month difference is likely related to the sloshing of the ocean triggered on an annual basis. I think this is a pattern that any ML exercise would find with very little effort. After all, it didn’t take me that long to find it. But the point is that the ML configuration has to be open and flexible enough to be able to search, generate, and test for the same formulation. IOW, it may not find it if the configuration, perhaps focused on computationally massive PDEs, is too narrow. That was my comment to a RC post on applying machine learning to climate science, see the following link and subsequent quote:
Nick McGreivy commented on:
“ML-based parameterizations have to work well for thousands of years of simulations, and thus need to be very stable (no random glitches or periodic blow-ups) (harder than you might think). Bias corrections based on historical observations might not generalize correctly in the future.”
This same issue arises when using ML to simulate PDEs. The solution is to analytically calculate what the stability condition(s) is (are), then at each timestep to add some numerical diffusion that nudges the solution towards satisfying the stability condition(s). I imagine this same technique could be used for ML-based parametrizations.
QBO Metrics
In addition to the standard correlation coefficient (CC) and RMS error, non-standard metrics that have beneficial cross-validation properties include dynamic time warp (DTW), complexity invariant-distance (CID) see [2], and a CID-modified DTW. The link above describes my implementation of the DTW metric but I have yet to describe the CID metric. It’s essentially the CC multiplied by a factor that empirically adjusts the embedded summed distance between data points (i.e. the stretched length) of the time-series so that the signature or look of two time-series visually match in complexity.
CID = CC * min(Length(Model, Data))/ max(Length(Model, Data))The authors of the CID suggest that it’s a metric based on “an invariance that the community seems to have missed”.
And a CID-modified DTW is thus:
CID = DTW * min(Length(Model, Data))/ max(Length(Model, Data))
I have tried this on the QBO model with good cross-validation results featuring up to-data data from https://www.atmohub.kit.edu/data/qbo.dat
These have similar tidal factor compositions and differ mainly in the LTE modulation and phase delay. As discussed earlier, any anomalies in the QBO behavior are likely the outcome of an erratic periodicity caused by incommensurate annual and draconic cycles and exaggerated by LTE.
from https://gist.github.com/pukpr/e562138af3a9da937a3fb6955685c98f
REFERENCES
[1] Batista, Gustavo EAPA, et al. “CID: an efficient complexity-invariant distance for time series.” Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 28 (2014): 634-669.R
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10618-013-0312-3
Lunar Torque Controls All
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.
(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 readingAMO and the Mt tide
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?
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.
NAO and the Median Filter
a random quote
“LLMs run a median filter on the corpus”
The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) time-series has always been intimidating to analyze. It appears outwardly like white-noise, but enough scientists refer to long periods of positive or negative-leaning intervals that there must be more of an underlying autocorrelation embedded in it. To reduce the white noise and to extract the signal requires a clever filtering trick. The desire is that the filter preserve or retain the edges of the waveform while reducing the noise level. The 5-point median filter does exactly that at a minimal complexity level, as the algorithm is simply expressed. It will leave edges and steep slopes alone as the median will naturally occur on the slope. That’s just what we want to retain the underlying signal.
Once applied, the NAO time-series still appears erratic, yet the problematic monthly extremes are reduced with the median filter suppressing many of them completely. If we then use the LTE model to fit the NAO time-series (with a starting point the annual-impulsed tidal forcing used for the AMO), a clear correlation emerges. The standing-wave modes of course are all high, in contrast to the one low mode for the AMO, so the higher frequency cycling is expected yet the fit is surprisingly good for the number of peaks and valleys it must traverse in the 140+ year historical interval.
Order overrides chaos
Dimensionality reduction of chaos by feedbacks and periodic forcing is a source of natural climate change, by P. Salmon, Climate Dynamics (2024)
Bottom line is that a forcing will tend to reduce chaos by creating a pattern to follow, thus the terminology of “forced response”. This has implications for climate prediction. The first few sentences of the abstract set the stage:
The role of chaos in the climate system has been dismissed as high dimensional turbulence and noise, with minimal impact on long-term climate change. However theory and experiment show that chaotic systems can be reduced or “controlled” from high to low dimensionality by periodic forcings and internal feedbacks. High dimensional chaos is somewhat featureless. Conversely low dimensional borderline chaos generates pattern such as oscillation, and is more widespread in climate than is generally recognised. Thus, oceanic oscillations such as the Pacific Decadal and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations are generated by dimensionality reduction under the effect of known feedbacks. Annual periodic forcing entrains the El Niño Southern Oscillation.
In Chapters 11 and 12 in Pukite, P., Coyne, D., & Challou, D. (2019). Mathematical Geoenergy. John Wiley & Sons, I cited forcing as a chaos reducer:
“It is well known that a periodic forcing can reduce the erratic fluctuations and uncertainty of a near‐chaotic response function (Osipov et al., 2007; Wang, Yang, Zhou, 2013).“
But that’s just a motivator. Tides are the key, acting primarily on the subsurface thermocline. Salmon’s figure comparing the AMO to Barents sea subsurface temperature is substantiating in terms of linking two separated regions by something more than a nebulous “teleconnection”.
Likely every ocean index has a common-mode mechanism. The tidal forcing by itself is close to providing an external synchronizing source, but requires what I refer to as a LTE modulation to zero in on the exact forced response. Read the previous blog post to get a feel how this works:
As Salmon notes, it’s known at some level that an annual/seasonal impulse is entraining or synchronizing ENSO, and also likely PDO and AMO. The top guns at NASA JPL point out that the main lunisolar terms are at monthly, 206 day, annual, 3 year, and 6 year periods, and this is what is used to model the forcing, see the following two charts
Now note how the middle panel in each of the following modeled climate indices does not change markedly. The most challenging aspect is the inherent structural sensitivity of the manifold1 mapping involved in LTE modulation. As the Darwin fit shows, the cross-validation is better than it may appear, as the out-of-band interval does not take much of a nudge to become synchronized with the data. Note also that the multidecadal nature of an index such as AMO may be ephemeral — the yellow cross-validation band does show valleys in what appears to be a longer multidecadal trend, capturing the long-period variations in the tides when modulated by an annual impulse – biennial in this case.
Model config repo: https://gist.github.com/pukpr/3a3566b601a54da2724df9c29159ce16?permalink_comment_id=5108154#gistcomment-5108154
1 The term manifold has an interesting etymology. From the phonetics, it is close to pronounced as “many fold”, which is precisely what’s happening here — the LTE modulation can fold over the forcing input many times in proportion to the mode of the standing wave produced. So that a higher standing wave will have “many folds” in contrast to the lowest standing wave model. At the limit, the QBO with an ostensibly wavenumber=0 mode will have no folds and will be to first-order a pass-through linear amplification of the forcing, but with likely higher modes mixed in to give the time-series some character.
Common forcing for ocean indices
In Mathematical Geoenergy, Chapter 12, a biennially-impulsed lunar forcing is suggested as a mechanism to drive ENSO. The current thinking is that this lunar forcing should be common across all the oceanic indices, including AMO for the Atlantic, IOD for the Indian, and PDO for the non-equatorial north Pacific. The global temperature extreme of the last year had too many simultaneous concurrences among the indices for this not to be taken seriously.
NINO34
PDO
AMO
IOD – East
IOD-West
Each one of these uses a nearly identical annual-impulsed tidal forcing (shown as the middle green panel in each), with a 5-year window providing a cross-validation interval. So many possibilities are available with cross-validation since the tidal factors are essentially invariantly fixed over all the climate indices.
The approach follows 3 steps as shown below
The first step is to generate the long-period tidal forcing. I go into an explanation of the tidal factors selected in a Real Climate comment here.
Then apply the lagged response of an annual impulse, in this case alternating in sign every other year, which generates the middle panel in the flow chart schematic (and the middle panel in the indexed models above).
Finally, the Laplace’s Tidal Equation (LTE) modulation is applied, with the lower right corner inset showing the variation among indices. This is where the variability occurs — the best approach is to pick a slow fundamental modulation and generate only integer harmonics of this fundamental. So, what happens is that different harmonics are emphasized depending on the oceanic index chosen, corresponding to the waveguide structure of the ocean basin and what standing waves are maximally resonant or amplified.
Note that for a dipole behavior such as ENSO, the LTE modulation will be mirror-inverses for the maximally extreme locations, in this case Darwin and Tahiti
A machine learning application is free to scrape the following GIST GitHub site for model fitting artifacts.
https://gist.github.com/pukpr/3a3566b601a54da2724df9c29159ce16Another analysis that involved a recursively cycled fit between AMO and PDO. It switched fitting AMO for 2.5 minutes and then PDO for 2.5 minutes, cycling 50 times. This created a common forcing with an optimally shared fit, forcing baselined to PDO.
PDO
AMO
NINO34
IOD-East
IOD-West
Darwin
Tahiti
The table above shows the LTE modulation factors for Darwin and Tahiti model fits. The highlighted blocks show the phase of the modulation, which should have a difference of π radians for a perfect dipole and higher harmonics associated with it. (The K0 wavenumber = 0 has no phase, but just a sign). Of the modes that are shared 1, 45, 23, 36, 18, 39, 44, the average phase is 3.09, close to π (and K0 switches sign).
1.23-(-1.72) = 2.95
1.47-(-2.05) = 3.52
-2.89-(0.166) = -3.056
-0.367-(-2.58) = 2.213
1.59-(-2.175) = 3.765
0.27 - (-2.84) = 3.11
-1.87 -1.14 = -3.01
Average (2.95+3.52+3.056+2.213+3.765+3.11+3.01)/7 = 3.0891
Contrast to the IOD East/West dipole. Only the K0 (wavenumber=0) shows a reversal in sign. The LTE modulation terms are within 1 radian of each other, indicating much less of a dipole behavior on those terms. It’s possible that these sites don’t span a true dipole, either by its nature or from siting of the measurements.
Cross-validating a large interval span on PDO
using CC
using DTW metric, which pulls out more of the annual/semi-annual signal
adding a 3rd harmonic
Complement of the fitting interval, note the spectral composition maintains the same harmonics, indicating that the structure mapped to is stationary in the sense that the tidal pattern is not changing and the LTE modulation is largely fixed.
This is the resolved tidal forcing, finer than the annual impulse sampling used on the models above.
Below can see the primary 27.5545 lunar anomalistic cycle, mixed with the draconic 27.2122/13.606 cycle to create the 6/3 year modulation and the 206 day perigee-syzygy cycle (or 412 full cycle, as 206 includes antipodal full moon or new moon orientation).
(click on any image to magnify)
Fundy-mental (continued)
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