Filtering of Climate Data

One of the frustrating aspects of climatology as a science is in the cavalier treatment of data that is often shown, and in particular through the potential loss of information through filtering. A group of scientists at NASA JPL (Perigaud et al) and elsewhere have pointed out how constraining it is to remove what are considered errors (or nuisance parameters) in time-series by assuming that they relate to known tidal or seasonal factors and so can be safely filtered out and ignored. The problem is that this is only appropriate IF those factors relate to an independent process and don’t also cause non-linear interactions with the rest of the data. So if a model predicts both a linear component and non-linear component, it’s not helpful to eliminate portions of the data that can help distinguish the two.

As an example, this extends to the pre-mature filtering of annual data. If you dig enough you will find that NINO3.4 data is filtered to remove the annual data, and that the filtering is over-zealous in that it removes all annual harmonics as well. Worse yet, the weighting of these harmonics changes over time, which means that they are removing other parts of the spectrum not related to the annual signal. Found in an “ensostuff” subdirectory on the NOAA.gov site:

Continue reading

Lemming/Fox Dynamics not Lotka-Volterra

Appendix E of the book contains information on compartmental models, of which resource depletion models, contagion growth models, drug delivery models, and population growth models belong to.

undefinedOne compartmental population growth model, that specified by the Lotka-Volterra-type predator-prey equations, can be manipulated to match a cyclic wildlife population in a fashion approximating that of observations. The cyclic variation is typically explained as a nonlinear resonance period arising from the competition between the predators and their prey. However, a more realistic model may take into account seasonal and climate variations that control populations directly. The following is a recent paper by wildlife ecologist H. L. Archibald who has long been working on the thesis that seasonal/tidal cycles play a role (one paper that he wrote on the topic dates back to 1977! ).

Continue reading

Stratospheric Sudden Warming

Chapter 11 of the book describes a model for the QBO of stratospheric equatorial winds. The stratified layers of the atmosphere reveal different dependencies on the external forcing depending on the altitude, see Fig 1.

Figure 1 : At high altitudes, only the sun’s annual cycle impacts the stratospheric as a semi-annual oscillation (SAO). Below that the addition of the lunar nodal cycle forces the QBO. The earth itself shows a clear wobble with the lunar cycle interacting with the annual.

Well above these layers are the mesosphere, thermosphere, and ionosphere. These are studied mainly in terms of space physics instead of climate but they do show tidal interactions with behaviors such as the equatorial electrojet [1].

The behaviors known as stratospheric sudden warmings (SSW) are perhaps a link between the lower atmospheric behaviors of equatorial QBO and/or polar vortex and the much higher atmospheric behavior comprising the electrojet. Papers such as [1,2] indicate that lunar tidal effects are showing up in the SSW and that is enhancing characteristics of the electrojet. See Fig 2.

Figure 2 : During SSW events, a strong modulation of period ~14.5 days emerges, close to the lunar fortnightly period as seen in these spectrograms. Taken from ref [2] and see quote below for more info.

“Wavelet spectra of foEs during two SSW events exhibit noticeable enhanced 14.5‐day modulation, which resembles the lunar semimonthly period. In addition, simultaneous wind measurements by meteor radar also show enhancement of 14.5‐day periodic oscillation after SSW onset.”

Tang et al [2]

So the SSW plays an important role in ionospheric variations, and the lunar tidal effects emerge as the higher atmospheric density of a SSW upwelling becomes more sensitive to lunar tidal forcing. That may be related to how the QBO also shows a dependence on lunar tidal forcing due to its higher density.

References

  1. Siddiqui, T. A. Relationship between lunar tidal enhancements in the equatorial electrojet and stratospheric wind anomalies during stratospheric sudden warmings. (2020). Originally presented at AGU 2018 Fall Meeting
  2. Tang, Q., Zhou, C., Liu, Y. & Chen, G. Response of Sporadic E Layer to Sudden Stratospheric Warming Events Observed at Low and Middle Latitude. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics e2019JA027283 (2020).

Lunisolar Forcing of the Chandler Wobble

In Chapter 13 of the book, we have a description of the mechanism forcing the Chandler Wobble in the Earth’s rotation. Even though there is not yet a research consensus on the mechanism, the prescribed lunisolar forcing seemed plausible enough that we included a detailed analysis in the text.  Recently we have found a recent reference to a supporting argument to our conjecture, which is presented below …

Continue reading

AO

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).

Top panel is a model fit for AO between 1900-1950, and below that is a model fit for NAO between 1950-present. The lower pane is the correlation for a common interval (left) and for the constituent lunisolar factors for the orthogonal interval (right)

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

NAO

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.

The QBO and ENSO models only show a common-mode correlated response with respect to the Draconic forcing. The Draconic forcing drives the quasi-periodicity of the QBO cycles, as can be seen in the lower right panel, with a small training window.

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.

ENSO vs NAO cross-validation

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.

NAO model fit with validation spanning 1960 to 1990

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.

ENSO, AMO, PDO and common-mode mechanisms

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.

An obvious clue from tidal data

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 Science 8, 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:

Raw data for NYC station  (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 Science 8, no. 1 (n.d.): 55–71.)

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).

Histogram for transformed data for NYC station  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 Science 8, no. 1 (n.d.): 55–71.

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

Sydney histogram does not show a clear delineated quantization

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.

NINO34 vs SOI

Experiment to compare training runs from 1880 to 1980 of the ENSO model against both the NINO34 time-series data and the SOI data. The solid red-curves are the extrapolated cross-validation interval..

NINO34

SOI

Many interesting inferences one can potentially draw from these comparisons. The SOI signal appears more noisy, but that could actually be signal. For example, the NINO34 extrapolation pulls out a split peak near 2013-2014, which does show up in the SOI data. And a discrepancy in the NINO34 data near 1934-1935 which predicts a minor peak, is essentially noise in the SOI data.  The 1984-1986 flat valley region is much lower in NINO34 than in SOI, where it hovers around 0. The model splits the difference in that interval, doing a bit of both. And the 1991-1992 valley predicted in the model is not clear in the NINO34 data, but does show up in the SOI data.

Of course these are subjectively picked samples, yet there may be some better combination of SOI and NINO34 that one can conceive of to get a better handle on the true ENSO signal.

Continue reading

The ENSO Forcing Potential – Cheaper, Faster, and Better

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.

F(t) propto frac{1}{(R_0 + a(t) + d(t))^2}'

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:

F(t) propto -frac{a'(t)+d'(t)}{(R_0 + a(t) + d(t))^3}

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.