LOD

Deep Seek of Wind + ENSO

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 2 Comments

This is a thread with DeepSeek, my prompts in italics bold. It was highly critical in ways that appeared very articulate, but it started to acquiesce when supplied with additional information. Not sure if this is due to a sliding or widening context window. In the past, one can try to argue about established physics with an LLM and it typically won’t budge.

The previous post was a discussion with the Gemini LLM and that seemed to be more agreeing and eventually convinced that a topological insulator approach seemed the best fit, which Deep Seek acknowledged as promising but did not use as a complete framing. Grade: Deep Seek – A for toughness, Gemini – B+ for diving into the data

Het Mehta on X: “most people think bigger context window = smarter model it doesn’t it just means more tokens to confuse it what’s the dumbest thing you’ve seen an llm forget mid-conversation?” / X

Wind drag and ENSO ocean dynamics

Is this realistic to think that the wind “drags the hot surface water from East Pacific and piles it up in the West Pacific” is that which causes the ENSO phenomenon? How much volume would this displace and is it even plausible? We know that can happen with a lake, yet that is a more confined basin.

This is an excellent and insightful question. You’ve zeroed in on a common oversimplification of ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) and are asking whether the “dragging and piling” mechanism is literally plausible across an entire ocean basin.

Let’s break it down.

The Short Answer

The idea that trade winds directly drag a significant volume of warm surface water from the East Pacific to the West Pacific, piling it up like water against one side of a bathtub, is an intuitive but physically incomplete picture of what causes ENSO. However, it captures a real, measurable effect — but the volume displaced is surprisingly small relative to the basin, and the “piling” is tiny compared to other forces. The real driver of ENSO is not just wind dragging water, but wind changing the slope of the thermocline (the boundary between warm surface water and cold deep water).

Let’s do the math and physics.

Continue reading →

Global Forcing, Local Modulation Revealed

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 1 Comment

Gemini — Conversation with Gemini

The two CSV files are for NINO4 (lte_results) and MSL at Warnemunde (lte_results11). The 1st column is a shared time base. The 3rd column is data, and 2nd column is a model that takes a nearly shared 4th column (a hidden latent forcing manifold) and applies non-autonomous sinusoidal modulations to the 4th column to arrive at the 2nd column. In each case, the model matches the data very well despite there being little correlation to the time-series. It is known that El Nino have far-reaching effects but little is know on the common-modes of expression. Deep think about how this can be further explicated.

The results from your provided data clearly confirm your premise. When we compare the raw Data (Column 3) for NINO4 and Warnemünde Mean Sea Level (MSL), there is virtually no correlation (Pearson r≈−0.0878). However, looking at the hidden latent forcing manifold (Column 4), the signals are nearly identical, showing a massive correlation of r≈0.9775.

Line graphs showing three columns: Original Data (top), Model (middle), and Latent Forcing Manifold (bottom) with time on the x-axis ranging from 1850 to 2025. Original Data and Model columns display variations using variable orange lines with blue reference lines for NINO4 and Warremunde MSL data. The Latent Forcing Manifold shows fluctuations in latent values with similar color coding.

This is a profound observation. It suggests that two geographically and dynamically distinct systems—equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures and Baltic/North Sea coastal water levels—are actually synchronized to the same low-dimensional global “pacemaker,” despite their raw time-series appearing entirely decoupled.

To further explicate this finding, we can break the “deep think” into three primary dimensions: Physical Mechanisms, Mathematical/Dynamical Explication, and Future Analytical Pathways.

Continue reading →

Forcing selection

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 5 Comments
Top graph showing the composed sum of 31 tidal factors from 1936 to 2004, displaying periodic fluctuations in blue tones.
The two images attached are a lunar-oriented forcing cycle for model of ENSO (top) and another lunar-oriented forcing cycle for LOD of Earth’s rotation (bottom). Analyze the modulation and consider that for the top curve the primary cycle is the draconic 27.2122 day period and for the bottom curve the primary cycle is the 13.6608 day Mf period. Do best to give a physical basis for why this might occur.

The Perplexity response:

Continue reading →

The mystery of El Nino

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 1 Comment

Google Gemini makes predictions on the next El Nino when prompted — scroll to the end.

https://gemini.google.com/app/8d7c963c197e05c0

There has ALWAYS been stratification in the ocean via the primary thermocline. The intensity of an El Nino or La Nina is dependent on the “tilt” of the thermocline across the equatorial Pacific, like a see-saw or teeter-totter as the colder waters below the thermocline get closer to the surface or recede more to the depths.

The only mystery is to what provokes the motion. For a playground see-saw, it’s easy to understand as it depends on which side a kid decides to junp on the see-saw.

For the ocean, the explanation is less facile than that, explain.

Continue reading →

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
  • Stroboscopic effect — these researchers were close but made the mistake of comparing to a sunspot cycle
Text excerpt discussing the influence of solar cycles and quasi-biennial oscillation on stratospheric temperature variations.

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 →

Proof for allowed modes of an ideal QBO

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 6 Comments

In formal mathematical terms of geometry/topology/homotopy/homology, let’s try proving that a wavenumber=0 cycle of east/west direction inside an equatorial toroidal-shaped waveguide, can only be forced by the Z-component of a (x,y,z) vector where x,y lies in the equatorial plane.

To address this question, let’s dissect the components involved and prove within the constraints of geometry, topology, homotopy, and homology, focusing on valid mathematical principles.

Continue reading →

Dynamic Time Warping

/ Paul Pukite (@whut) / 9 Comments

Useful to note that the majority of the posts written for this blog are in support of the mathematical analysis formulated in Mathematical Geoenergy (Wiley/AGU, 2018). As both new data becomes available and new techniques for model fitting & parameter estimation — aka inverse modeling (predominantly from the machine learning community) — are suggested, an iterative process of validation, fueled by the latest advancements, ensures that the GeoEnergyMath models remain robust and accurately reflective of the underlying observed behaviors. This of course should be done in conjunction with submitting significant findings to the research literature pipeline. However, as publication is pricey, my goal is to make the cross-validation so obvious that I can get an invitation for a review paper — with submission costs waived. Perhaps this post will be the deal-maker — certainly not the deal-breaker, but you can be the judge.

Continue reading →