This essay by Paul Vaughn is very interesting because it shows correlation between cosmic rays (via neutron count), terrestrial angular momentum, and length of day. – Anthony
Semi-Annual Solar-Terrestrial Power
Guest Post by Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc.
Using different methods, I have confirmed the findings of the following paper:
Le Mouël, J.-L.; Blanter, E.; Shnirman, M.; & Courtillot, V. (2010). Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day. Geophysical Research Letters 37, L15307. doi:10.1029/2010GL043185.
I have also verified that the results extend directly to global atmospheric angular momentum (AAM):
CR = cosmic rays (neutron count rate)
LOD = length of day (inversely relates to earth rotation rate)
AAM = global atmospheric angular momentum (in layman’s terms, “global wind”)
‘ indicates rate of change
Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010) did not use complex wavelet methods, nor did they directly extend their analysis to AAM’, so the preceding results establish:
A) the robustness of the original result for LOD’ across differing methodology.
B) direct extensibility of inferred results to AAM’, even though AAM is known to have less power than LOD at the semi-annual timescale [for example, see Schmitz-Hubsch & Schuh (1999), listed below].
Cautionary Notes:
1) Sensible interpretation of the preceding data exploration requires awareness of the confounding of numerous solar variables.
2) Extrapolation of the pattern to other eras might require assumptions that cannot be physically substantiated using current mainstream knowledge.
Supplementary
1. The (max-min normalized) time series:
2. WUWT articles citing Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010):
a) Full article by Anthony Watts:
“Length of day correlated to cosmic rays and sunspots” (Oct. 3, 2010)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/03/length-of-day-correlated-to-cosmic-rays-and-sunspots/
b) First mention (Aug. 28, 2010):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/28/weekly-climate-news-roundup/
3. Concise primers for those lacking familiarity with AAM/LOD relations:
a) Schmitz-Hubsch, H.; & Schuh, H. (1999). Seasonal and short-period fluctuations of Earth rotation investigated by wavelet analysis. Technical Report 1999.6-2 Department of Geodesy & Geoinformatics, Stuttgart University, p.421-432.
http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/gi/research/schriftenreihe/quo_vadis/pdf/schmitzhuebsch.pdf
b) Zhou, Y.H.; Zheng, D.W.; & Liao, X.H. (2001). Wavelet analysis of interannual LOD, AAM, and ENSO: 1997-98 El Nino and 1998-99 La Nina signals. Journal of Geodesy 75, 164-168.
http://202.127.29.4/yhzhou/ZhouYH_2001JG_LOD_ENSO_wavelet.pdf
Such results have been addressed by many authors. Nonrandomness is evident using even the crudest high-frequency interannual filter [f(x) = 1 year moving average minus 3 year moving average]:
SOI = southern oscillation index (the “SO” part of ENSO)
QBO = quasi-biennial oscillation (of stratospheric winds)
4. Select passages from Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010):
a) “The zonal winds contributing to lod seasonal variations are dominantly low altitude winds.”
b) “[…] solar activity can affect the radiative equilibrium of the troposphere in an indirect way, which cannot be simply deduced from the magnitude of TSI variations.”
c) “The semi-annual oscillation extends to all latitudes and down to low altitudes, as does the annual term. But, unlike the annual term, the main part of the oscillation is symmetrical about the equator; the partial cancellation of the angular momentum of the two hemispheres, which occurs for the annual oscillation, does not happen there [Lambeck, 1980]. Thus, we have here a measure of the seasonal variation of the total angular momentum of the atmosphere of the two hemispheres at the semi-annual frequency.”
d) “When considering separately monthly averages rather than annual ones, differences in the net radiative flux distribution appear, due to the seasonal variation in insulation which is asymmetric with respect to the equator. Seasonal variations of insulation result in seasonal variations of poleward meridional transport, hence of averaged zonal wind.” [Typo: “insulation” should read “insolation”.]
e) “The argument above serves to show that the semiannual variation in lod is linked to a fundamental feature of climate: the latitudinal distribution and transport of energy and momentum.”
5. Technical Notes:
a) The Morlet wavenumber has been chosen such that average solar cycle length is ~2/3 of the Gaussian envelope. In layman’s terms, this is like adjusting a “microscope” set to semi-annual “magnification” to ~11 year “focal length”.
b) Towards the end of the wavelet power time series, there is an edge effect; the shape of gross features can be trusted, but amplitudes should be interpreted conservatively.
Data
CR:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/COSMIC_RAYS/STATION_DATA/
LOD:
http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/DataProducts/EarthOrientationData/eop.html
AAM:
Hub:
http://www.aer.com/scienceResearch/diag/sb.html
Directory:
http://ftp.aer.com/pub/anon_collaborations/sba/
File:
http://ftp.aer.com/pub/anon_collaborations/sba/aam.ncep.reanalysis.1948.2009
Documentation (including references):
http://ftp.aer.com/pub/anon_collaborations/sba/readme.aam.ncep.reanalysis
Supplementary:
Monthly anomalies (which convey only interannual variation, not semi-annual):
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/clim/glaam.monthly.data
QBO:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/correlation/qbo.data
SOI:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/soi/soi.dat
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi Paul
Some interesting ideas there, number of useful links to go through.
My own observations show that the LOD could be directly linked to the interaction between the solar storms and the Arctic magnetic field.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
p.s. I hope visits to my website and graphs (400 + in the recent weeks) were of some help.
e) “The argument above serves to show that the semiannual variation in lod is linked to a fundamental feature of climate: the latitudinal distribution and transport of energy and momentum.”
There is no argument over this. The shifting of air masses changes the moment of inertia and because of conservation of angular momentum we get a variation of LOD. All this is well-known and accepted.
One thing that is always bothersome is the omission of years from both ends of the curves. We have cosmic rays data back to 1952 [LOD back hundreds of year], and new data through at least 2009. Paul, I suggest you add these.
vukcevic says:
December 23, 2010 at 12:44 am
interaction between the solar storms and the Arctic magnetic field.
The Arctic magnetic field is generated deep within the Earth’s liquid core and there is no influence of solar storms on that field.
Very nice work Paul.
The amplitude of changes in LOD produced by angular momentum exchange between the Earth’s crust and the atmosphere are around 10-15% of the amplitude of the multidecadal swings in LOD which seem to be linked to the large oceanic oscillations and global temperature inflexions. Those lag behind similar periodicities and proportional changes in the disposition of solar system masses. Your inclusion of the CR count indicates the link which exists between the changing solar system mass distribution (planetary positions) and the solar cycle.
I have recently been looking at SOI in relation to the outgoing longwave radiation and incoming solar shortwave, and have created an index which looks like it bears some relationship with detrended global temperature too.
Your inclusion of the SOI in the correlation points the way to an integrated understanding of these semi-annual and multidecadal LOD variations and their relationship to global temperature via Bob Tisdale’s studies showing the cumulative nature of ENSO released energy. It’s all starting to come together.
Congratulations and merry Christmas!
OK, I’ve read this over a couple of times and I’m still not sure what it means.
I suspect that the lack of an assertion of any causality is what’s causing me to wonder where the “money quote” might be…
So, they all go together when they go, and that means?…
Is it that “The Sun Did It” is more supported now?
Is it that solar diven mass air flows impact LOD?
Is it that the various air / weather oscillations are solar driven (and didn’t we already know that?)?
And how does this connect with Ian Wilson’s paper that found a Solar cycle / LOD / PDO connection?
I’m left to wonder if this has anything to do with the forbidden “barycenter” option, or is it just saying “sun light heating moves air”?
So while I’m glad to see some confirmation of “The sun drives things in the air” I suspect that this is just saying “see, these correlate”, and I’m wanting more to chew on…
E.M.Smith says:
December 23, 2010 at 1:10 am
I’m left to wonder if this has anything to do with the…
Hush, hush, whisper who dares
😉
I read somewhere that LOD affects the trade winds in Pacific. Trade winds govern ENSO. The rest is history..
With all the learned posts above I hesitate to admit that my first reaction to seeing the heading was ‘Is it April Fool’s Day’?!
@Vukcevic & Tallbloke:
I explore the way the polar vortex might drive the ENSO and / or AO here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/drakes-passage/
I think you would find it interesting, if a bit speculative. I ask the question “What drives the Polar Vortex” but answer had I none… Now if a bunch of spinning things vary, like LOD and all those loverly atmospheric thingys, might not that vary the Polar Vortex as well? That then would work through the bits I speculate about. (Higher Antarctic Circumpolar Current slopping into South America making a run up the Humbolt Current to surface as cold Central Pacific…)
At any rate, I either need to go to bed or start another pot of coffee … it being “pushing 2 AM” I think I’ll settle for sleep over inspiration…. Sigh…
Leif Svalgaard says:
The Arctic magnetic field is generated deep within the Earth’s liquid core and there is no influence of solar storms on that field.
Since you recently resorted to guesswork (as here) than you guess is as good as anyone’s else including mine.
E.M.Smith says:
Is it that “The Sun Did It” is more supported now?
Absolutely. See http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
Juraj V. says:
I read somewhere that LOD affects the trade winds in Pacific. Trade winds govern ENSO. The rest is history.
I think they are parallel effects, LOD is affected by solar storms break on the Earth’s rotation, and at same time change in shallow Hudson Bay magma vortex (still experiencing a rapid uplift due to melt of the Laurentide ice sheet), this is reflected in the Arctic atmosphere’s vortex, jet stream and so on..
See http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
E.M.Smith says:
“What drives the Polar Vortex” but answer had I none…
In the winter difference in insolation between mid and high latitudes is the greatest. Deprived of energy, the stratosphere over the Arctic grows cold creating a low-pressure system in the stratosphere that sits over the Arctic throughout the winter. Further south the air is warmer and air pressure is higher in the stratosphere causing the air to flow away from the high-pressure system towards the low-pressure system. Due to the Earth’s rotation strong counter-clockwise Arctic vortex is generated.
Polar vortex in the arctic often is split up, and this appear to affect not only stratosphere but troposphere too. In contrast Antarctica vortex is pretty constant, only one case of sudden stratospheric warming SSW was recorded since 1950 (in 2002, science is puzzled by the event, but there is a simple explanation for it). Polar vortex is frequently (but not all the time) under the influence of the geomagnetic field, I suspect it depends on the extent of ionisation.
vukcevic says:
December 23, 2010 at 1:51 am
“The Arctic magnetic field is generated deep within the Earth’s liquid core and there is no influence of solar storms on that field.”
Since you recently resorted to guesswork (as here) than you guess is as good as anyone’s else including mine.
The location of where the field is generated is not guesswork [we even had a WUWT thread on this which I can refer you to if needed].
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 23, 2010 at 2:07 am
……………..
WUWT is one of the major successes of internet, possibly of historic importance for the early 21st century’s climate science and its direction. It is a great platform for voicing views and opinions, but I am sure that the WUWT and its editorial personnel do not stand behind or even less guaranty the scientific accuracy of its many contributors.
May it long continue!
vukcevic says:
December 23, 2010 at 2:01 am In contrast Antarctica vortex is pretty constant, only one case of sudden stratospheric warming SSW was recorded since 1950 (in 2002,
What about the Antarctic SSW in June-July this year Vuk?
Linked to the extreme cold experienced in South America around that time in my opinion.
E.M.Smith says:
December 23, 2010 at 1:32 am
@Vukcevic & Tallbloke:
I explore the way the polar vortex might drive the ENSO and / or AO here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/drakes-passage/
I think you would find it interesting, if a bit speculative. I ask the question “What drives the Polar Vortex” but answer had I none… Now if a bunch of spinning things vary, like LOD and all those loverly atmospheric thingys, might not that vary the Polar Vortex as well?
E.M. for the pressure changes which drive the variation in the AO and AAO maybe you should take a look at Erl Happ’s ideas.
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/the-solar-wind-shifts-in-the-atmosphere-climate-change/
vukcevic says:
December 23, 2010 at 2:48 am
WUWT and its editorial personnel do not stand behind or even less guaranty the scientific accuracy of its many contributors.
May it long continue!
Pseudo-science lives forever, no matter what the evidence.
I am surprised that most of the contributors have overlooked the role of the Moon in the rotational behaviour of the planet.
I understand that the moon has a ‘declination period’ (please correct me) of 19 years, and by that I take it that the elevation of the moon rises and falls from peak to peak over this period.
Given the layout of the oceans, the vast expanses, the gulfs and straits, the capes and bays – might one not assume that the subtle gravitational/tidal emphasis in certain regions at certain times might not drive or at least influence the currents that we now realize are the true engines of weather?
Could the tides act as a gravitational brake and tweak the rotation of the planet?
I would be interested in hard science on this topic.
tallbloke says: December 23, 2010 at 3:29 am
……………..
July-Aug 2010, SSW in Antarctica at 30-hPa doesn’t register, only very high up at 5-hPa has broken trough the normal bandwidth, so you may well be right. I haven’t paid much attention to the SH, too many events to keep an eye on.
Leif Svalgaard says: December 23, 2010 at 3:46 am
…………….
At least my projection for next 2-3 cycles being low, is based on solid astronomical data
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
(coincidence or not), once dismissed by Hathaway, whose record since then (much-loved joke) is even worse than a guesswork you are now resorting to. I say, better pseudoscience than no science at all.
I am only but a speck ‘on the shoulders of giants’ of the science history, who were declared ‘frauds’ and ‘charlatans’ from those that build reputations on a dogma.
I look forward for my projects to be dissected and scrutinised, by anyone who wishes to do so, and any comments are welcome, even from those who do not read what I written.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
If you read my notes and than commented on what is there which is in contradiction with the laws of classic physics, would be fine.
Aaccepted consensus I do not care for; I am here to challenge it not sing ‘Amen alleluia’….
Charles nelson,
re moon.
I believe the moon is one of the parameters Piers Corbyn uses in make weather forecasts.
charles nelson says:
December 23, 2010 at 4:16 am
I understand that the moon has a ‘declination period’ (please correct me) of 19 years, and by that I take it that the elevation of the moon rises and falls from peak to peak over this period.
That is the problem charles, to my knowledge nothing happens over that time frame.
One magnetic field (terrestrial) spinning in another (solar) results in drag. Change the solar field, get a change in the drag and the CR influx. Change the drag, get a change in the rotational velocity; change the rotational velocity, preserve the angular momentum via changing the (GL)AAM.
Sorry, as a physicist I do not understand this.
The angular momentum of the atmosphere pales into insignificance in comparison with the angular momentum of the Earth itself. The atmosphere has a boundary layer with the surface of the Earth, and higher up viscosity must be considered. Cosmic rays (both solar and galactic) are attenuated by magnetic fields (of the Earth, sun and galaxy), but what physical coupling is being propoesed here completely eludes me.
Perhaps my physics is out of date, but a clear explanation of the physical process being proposed would be helpful.
Paul,
You have pointed out how the lunar nodal cycle may be synchronized with other cosmological phenomena. If the earth were a water planet with vertical baffles dividing the water into discrete volumes, would the moon/sun/earth gravitational configuration produce a definable circulation within the cells? Would there be any asymmetry in the circulations(s)? Would any such asymmetry affect LOD? If we have “yes” to all of the above then we need to know how this phenomenon affects climate.
If I’m visualising the galactic coordinates correctly, doesn’t the LOD happen to plummet at about the same time as the Earth moves from behind the Sun toward the basic solar motion through the galaxy? However, if the solar system’s motion was a significant factor, I’d expect the LOD’s pattern to be more symmetrical. I am aware the Earth’s motion and orientation are not symmetrical, as its axis of rotation and rotational motion are not aligned with the solar motion. I have no idea why the direction of travel nor the interstellar medium’s relative motion might be relevant.
” Leif Svalgaard says:
December 23, 2010 at 3:46 am
vukcevic says:
December 23, 2010 at 2:48 am
WUWT and its editorial personnel do not stand behind or even less guaranty the scientific accuracy of its many contributors.
May it long continue!
Pseudo-science lives forever, no matter what the evidence.”
Without intentionally trying to kick the dog, all of current science is, in a manner of speaking, pseudo-science. Even that to which we ALL give consensus, not infrequently rears up and demonstrates that its not immutable.
Cheers to all for a peaceful, comforted and comforting Christmas season, however you embrace it.