With the recent total solar eclipse, it revived lots of thought of Earth’s ecliptic plane. In terms of forcing, having the Moon temporarily in the ecliptic plane and also blocking the sun is not only a rare and (to some people) an exciting event, it’s also an extreme regime wrt to the Earth as the combined reinforcement is maximized.
In fact this is not just any tidal forcing — rather it’s in the class of tidal forcing that has been overlooked over time in preference to the conventional diurnal tides. As many of those that tracked the eclipse as it traced a path from Texas to Nova Scotia, they may have noted that the moon covers lots of ground in a day. But that’s mainly because of the earth’s rotation. To remove that rotation and isolate the mean orbital path is tricky. And that’s the time-span duration where long-period tidal effects and inertial motion can build up and show extremes in sea-level change. Consider the 4.53 year extreme tidal cycle observed at the Bay of Fundy (see Desplanque et al) located in Nova Scotia. This is predicted if the long-period lunar perigee anomaly (27.554 days and the 8.85 absidal precessional return cycle) amplifies the long period lunar ecliptic nodal cycle, as every 9.3 years the lunar path intersects the ecliptic plane, one ascending and the other descending as the moon’s gravitational pull directly aligns with the sun’s. The predicted frequencies are 1/8.85 ± 2/18.6 = 1/4.53 & 1/182, the latter identified by Keeling in 2000. The other oft-mentioned tidal extreme is at 18.6 years, which is identified as the other long period extreme at the Bay of Fundy by Desplanque, and that was also identified by NASA as an extreme nuisance tide via a press release and a spate of “Moon wobble” news articles 3 years ago.
What I find troubling is that I can’t find a scholarly citation where the 4.53 year extreme tidal cycle is explained in this way. It’s only reported as an empirical observation by Desplanque in several articles studying the Bay of Fundy tides.
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.
Based on the previous post on applying Dynamic Time Warping as a metric for LTE modeling of oceanic indices, it makes sense to apply the metric to the QBO model of atmospheric winds. A characteristic of QBO data is the sharp transitions of wind reversals. As described previously, DTW allows a fit to adjust the alignment between model and data without incurring a potential over-fitting penalty that a conventional correlation coefficient will often lead to.
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.
Annotated10/11/2023
ontological classification according to wavenumber kx, ky, kz and fluid/solid.
Added so would not lose it — highlighted tidal factor is non-standard
In the book Mathematical GeoEnergy, I mention the word heuristic or heuristics 82 times. In scientific research, it’s an important signpost because it identifies where a physical understanding is lacking, which is the point I was trying to make in a recent online discussion.
In the preface, I specifically cite the sunspot cycle as a heuristic, which I commented on:
Heuristic: The wobble is approximately 433 days, thought to be excited by fluctuations of mass on Earth achieving a natural resonance condition. Physics: The wobble of precisely 433 days is a frequency side-band of the lunar draconic cycle interacting with the annual cycle. Not resonant just as the annual wobble is not resonant, and due to a forced angular momentum response.
Heuristic: The oscillation is approximately 2+ years, thus the name “quasi-biennial”, thought to be excited by atmospheric waves. Physics: The oscillation of 2.37 years period follows from the semi-annual oscillation at higher altitudes locked to the longer period by the lunar tidal forcing at lower altitudes of the stratosphere. The cycle is commensurate with simultaneous nodal crossings of both the moon and sun across the ecliptic plane.
In both these cases, the heuristic could be discarded and the description of the behaviors updated. Another example may be Milankovitch cycles, which replaces the heuristic of glacial cycles with a plausible physical mechanism that matches the observations. Whether Chandler, QBO, or Milankovitch will stand the test of time is another question, but these new models aren’t considered heuristics because they predict precise values for the observations. Discovering replacements for heuristics are rare nowadays as most of the heuristics (such as ocean tidal cycles) were resolved long ago. Circadian rhythms were a heuristic replaced by an encoded mechanism 20-30 years ago. Explaining predator-prey population cycles are at the heuristic stage still, IMO and may not get resolved as humans modify the environment.
The suggestion is that an unresolved heuristic is always a good candidate for a thesis topic.
NEW
Discussing relatively recent discoveries that replaced a heuristic, one that also came up is the Quantum Hall Effect. This is a subtle one because although the effect was experimentally discovered by von Klitzing, a Japanese team did roughly predict it a few years earlier, but added a caveat that they did not believe their own calculations! They also did not predict the quantization was in exact integer multiples. So that remained a heuristic for only a short time until it was physically explained (I remember giving a talk on this derivation for my solid-state physics class, which the instructor was very happy about). But then the experimental discovery of a fractional Quantum Hall Effect occurred, which apparently is still a heuristic because a strong consensus has yet to emerge on the physics behind it. Over the years, there have been at least 3 Nobel Prizes shared among 7 physicists to topological QHE research.
I bring this up because there’s a recent Quanta Magazine article dated July 18 titled “How Quantum Physicists Explained Earth’s Oscillating Weather Patterns” which describes how the QHE math can be conceivably applied to making predictions for equatorial patterns, and thus removing at least some of the heuristic nature. Geoffrey Vallis, who is an expert on geophysical fluid dynamics, is quoted in the article saying that the new result is a significant advance that will provide a “foundational understanding” of Earth’s fluid systems. The intriguing aspect is that this did not require the periodic order of a lattice — quoting from the article:
“I was surprised to see that topology could be defined in fluid systems without periodic order,” said Anton Souslov, a theoretical physicist at the University of Bath
Curry has a tweet on this, a reply tweet here because I am blocked
Well I guess I should not have foregone the opportunity to take a topology class! Amazing incredible stuff!
The ocean is stunning at the moment. Many hotspots. This viz puts the recent global SST anomalies into the context of the last 4 decades. Look closely. Some regions are "on trend," some are short-term spikes, and some are combinations.#GlobalWarming#ClimateEmergencypic.twitter.com/0xf188RPgJ
These correspond to the geographically defined climate indices
Overall I’m confident with the status of the published analysis of Laplace’s Tidal Equations in Mathematical Geoenergy, as I can model each of these climate indices with precisely the same (save one ***) tidal forcing, all calibrated by LOD. The following Threads allow interested people to contribute thoughts
Sorry to have to point this out, but it’s not my fault that geophysicists and climatologists can’t perform controlled experiments to test out various hypotheses. It’s not their fault either. It’s all nature’s decision to make gravitational forces so weak and planetary objects so massive to prevent anyone from scaling the effect to laboratory size to enable a carefully controlled experiment. One can always create roughly-equivalent emulations, such as a magnetic field experiment (described in the previous blog post) and validate a hypothesized behavior as a controlled lab experiment. Yet, I suspect that this would not get sufficient buy-in, as it’s not considered the actual real thing.
And that’s the dilemma. By the same token that analog emulators will not be trusted by geophysicists and climatologists, so too scientists from other disciplines will remain skeptical of untestable claims made by earth scientists. If nothing definitive comes out of a thought experiment that can’t be reproduced by others in a lab, they remain suspicious, as per their education and training.
It should therefore work both ways. As featured in the previous blog post, the model of the Chandler wobble forced by lunar torque needs to be treated fairly — either clearly debunked or considered as an alternative to the hazy consensus. ChatGPT remains open about the model, not the least bit swayed by colleagues or tribal bias. As the value of the Chandler wobble predicted by the lunar nodal model (432.7 days) is so close to the cited value of 433 days, as a bottom-line it should be difficult to ignore.
There are other indicators in the observational data to further substantiate this, see Chandler Wobble Forcing. It also makes sense in the context of the annual wobble.
As it stands, the lack of an experiment means a more equal footing for the alternatives, as they are all under equal amounts of suspicion.
Same goes for QBO. No controlled experiment is possible to test out the consensus QBO models, despite the fact that the Plumb and McEwan experiment is claimed to do just that. Sorry, but that experiment is not even close to the topology of a rotating sphere with a radial gravitational force operating on a gas. It also never predicted the QBO period. In contrast, the value of the QBO predicted by the lunar nodal model (28.4 months) is also too close to the cited value of 28 to 29 months to ignore. This also makes sense in the context of the semi-annual oscillation (SAO) located above the QBO .
Both the Chandler wobble and the QBO have the symmetry of a global wavenumber=0 phenomena so therefore only nodal cycles allowed — both for lunar and solar.
Next to ENSO. As with LOD modeling, this is not wavenumber=0 symmetry, as it must correspond to the longitude of a specific region. No controlled experiment is possible to test out the currently accepted models, premised as being triggered by wind shifts (an iffy cause vs. effect in any case). The mean value of the ENSO predicted by the tidal LOD-caibrated model (3.80 years modulated by 18.6 years) is too close to the cited value of 3.8 years with ~200 years of paleo and direct measurement to ignore.
In BLUE below is the LOD-calibrated tidal forcing, with linear amplification
In BLUE again below is a non-linear modulation of the tidal forcing according to the Laplace’s Tidal Equation solution, and trained on an early historical interval. This is something that a neural network should be able to do, as it excels at fitting to non-linear mappings that have a simple (i.e. low complexity) encoding — in this case it may be able to construct a Taylor series expansion of a sinusoidal modulating function.
The neural network’s ability to accurately represent a behavior is explained as a simplicity bias — a confounding aspect of machine learning tools such as ChatGPT and neural networks. The YouTube video below explains the counter-intuitive notion of how a NN with a deep set of possibilities tends to find the simplest solution and doing this without over-fitting the final mapping.
So that deep neural networks are claimed to have a built-in Occam’s Razor propensity, finding the most parsimonious input-output mappings when applied to training data. This is spot on with what I am doing with the LTE mapping, but bypassing the NN with a nonlinear sinusoidal modulation optimally fit on training data by a random search function.
I am tempted to try a NN on the ENSO training set as an experiment and see what it finds.
April 2, 2023
“I am tempted to try a NN on the ENSO training set as an experiment and see what it finds.”
I don’t immediately trust the research published by highly cited atmospheric scientists. By my count many of them seem more keen on presenting their personal views rather than advancing the field. Off the top of my head, Richard Lindzen, Murry Salby, Roy Spencer, Tim Dunkerton, Roger Pielke, Cliff Mass, Judith Curry are all highly cited but come across as political and/or religious zealots. One guy on the list, Dunkerton, is also a racist, who happened to make the Washington Post twice : “Physicist ousted from research post after sending offensive tweet to Hispanic meteorologist” and “Atmospheric scientist loses honor, membership over ethics violation“. Awful stuff and he hasn’t stopped spouting off on Twitter.
Granted that Dunkerton says dumb stuff on Twitter but his highly cited research is also off-base. That’s IMO only because recent papers by others in the field of atmospheric science do continue to cite his ideas as primary, if not authoritative. For example, from a recently published paper “The Gravity Wave Activity during Two Recent QBO Disruptions Revealed by U.S. High-Resolution Radiosonde Data”, citations 1 & 12 both refer to Dunkerton, and specifically to his belief that the QBO period is a property of the atmospheric medium itself
Straight-forward to debunk this Dunkerton theory since the length of the cycle directly above the QBO layer is semi-annual and thus not a property of the medium but of the semi-annual nodal forcing frequency. If we make the obvious connection to the other nodal forcing — that of the moon — then we find the QBO period is fixed to 28 months. I have been highlighting this connection to the authors of new QBO papers under community review, often with some subsequent feedback provided such as here: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-792-CC1 . Though not visible yet in the comments, I received some personal correspondence that showed that the authors under peer-review are taking the idea seriously and attempting to duplicate the calculations. They seem to be methodical in their approach, asking for clarification and further instructions where they couldn’t follow the formulation. They know about the GitHub software, so hopefully that will be of some help.
In contrast, Dunkerton also knows about my approach but responds in an inscrutable (if not condescending) way. Makes you wonder if scientists such as Dunkerton and Lindzen are bitter and taking out their frustrations via the media. Based on their doggedness, they may in fact be intentionally trying to impede progress in climate science by taking contrarian stances. In my experience, the top scientists in other research disciplines don’t act this way. YMMV
As a review, this was after commenting earlier this year on a Copernicus open-science research article on atmospheric cycles and QBO (with proposed links to sunspots and ENSO) that was undergoing a review, making a suggestion to consider analyses I had presented and published 4 years ago and also prior to that.
Thought that was that and was happy to see that the authors indicated they would revise the manuscript and perhaps advance understanding. But then several days ago, the editor interceded and essentially demanded that the authors not cite my research work. Apparently, the authors were influenced by the editor’s instructions, as they immediately removed my cite and replaced it with a citation to a review article that the editor preferred. The discussion on the article was then closed with no way for me to rebut.
This was all after I spent several hours working with the primary author as they worked to replicate my analysis, sending emails back and forth several times. The editor claimed that my contribution was “a new idea that has not been published in a recognized journal and received peer review”. This is not the case as I said above: Google Scholar citations all ignored.
This blog is late to the game in commenting on the physics of the Hollywood film Moonfall — but does that really matter? Geophysics research and glacially slow progress seem synonymous at this point. In social media, unless one jumps on the event of the day within an hour, it’s considered forgotten. However, difficult problems aren’t unraveled quickly, and that’s what he have when we consider the Moon’s influence on the Earth’s geophysics. Yes, tides are easy to understand, but any other impact of the Moon is considered warily, perhaps over the course of decades, not as part of the daily news & entertainment cycle.
what if the Moon was closer?
My premise: The movie Moonfall is a more pure climate-science-fiction film than Don’t Look Up. Discuss.
Trying to understand QBO may lead to madness, if the plights of Richard Lindzen (Macbeth) and Timothy Dunkerton (Hamlet) are any indication. It was first Lindzen — the primary theorist behind QBO — in his quest for scientific notoriety that led to lofty pretentiousness and eventually bad blood with his colleagues. Now it’s the Lindzen-acolyte Dunketon’s turn, avenging his “uncle” with troubling behavior
