# Solar, Terrestrial, & Lunisolar Components of Rate of Change of Length of Day

Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc.

Without a good handle on its simple geometry, a seemingly complex time series can appear as a changeling yielding to the pressures of mysterious statistical manipulation.

For example, a fundamentally important seminal observation reported by Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010) revealed the quasistationary 11 year solar cycle in the rate of change of length of day (LOD’), but newcomers taking a preliminary look at daily resolution LOD’ are more likely to fixate on the 18.6 year lunisolar envelope.

Multiscale variance summaries highlight obvious envelopes:

Zooming in, a semi-annual envelope is also evident:

(WIDE GRAPH ABOVE –Click to view elongate graph^1 & then click again to magnify.)

(WIDE GRAPH ABOVE –Click to view elongate graph^2 & then click again to magnify.)

A parsimonious weekly-to-monthly timescale model of daily LOD’, explaining ~93% of the variance (r = 0.965), can be constructed using the following information (with model terms in bold italics):

 Year Period (days) Half-Period (days) Defined by… Tropical 365.24219 182.621095 equinoxes Lunar Month Period (days) Half-Period (days) Defined by… Tropical 27.321582 13.660791 equator/equinoxes Nodal or Draconic 27.212221 13.6061105 ecliptic Anomalistic 27.55455 13.777275 apogee/perigee Synodic 29.530589 14.7652945 new/full moon

(27.321582)*(27.212221) / (27.321582 – 27.212221)

= 6798.410105 days = 18.61343046 years

(6798.410105)*(13.6061105) / (6798.410105 – 13.6061105)

= 13.63339592 days

(27.55455)*(13.660791) / (27.55455 + 13.660791)

= 9.132933018 days

Noteworthy envelopes apparent in the variance structure of LOD’ relate to:

1) lunar nodal cycle (LNC) = 18.6 years

2) lunar apse cycle (LAC) = 8.85 years

3) terrestrial year (1 year)

4) harmonics (e.g. 0.5 years & 4.42 years)

 Beat Period (years) Tropical Nodal Anomalistic Synodic 27.321582 27.212221 27.55455 29.530589 Tropical 27.321582 – 18.6134 8.8475 1.0000 Nodal 27.212221 18.6134 – 5.9970 0.9490 Anomalistic 27.55455 8.8475 5.9970 – 1.1274 Synodic 29.530589 1.0000 0.9490 1.1274 – Beat Period (years) Tropical/2 Nodal/2 Anomalistic/2 Synodic/2 13.660791 13.6061105 13.777275 14.7652945 Tropical/2 13.660791 – 9.3067 4.4238 0.5000 Nodal/2 13.6061105 9.3067 – 2.9985 0.4745 Anomalistic/2 13.777275 4.4238 2.9985 – 0.5637 Synodic/2 14.7652945 0.5000 0.4745 0.5637 –

Beat Period = (A*B) / ( |A-B| )

| | indicates absolute value

The model:

 Relative Cumulative Term Period (days) Amplitude r^2 r Contribution 1 13.660791 1 0.713 0.844 | polarity | 2 13.63339592 0.41 0.824 0.908 LNC 3 9.132950896 0.30 0.881 0.939 LAC alternation 4 27.55455 0.26 0.926 0.962 LAC alternation 5 14.7652945 0.08 0.931 0.965 semi-annual

(WIDE GRAPH ABOVE – Click to view elongate graph^3 & then click again to magnify.)

eLOD’ = estimated LOD’

The above tables & figures, while certainly nothing new to science, have been summarized here for the benefit of those striving to efficiently develop the foundations necessary to appreciate and build upon the recent seminal work of Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010). From their conclusions:

“The solid Earth behaves as a natural spatial integrator and time filter, which makes it possible to study the evolution of the amplitude of the semi-annual variation in zonal winds over a fifty-year time span. We evidence strong modulation of the amplitude of this lod spectral line by the Schwabe cycle (Figure 1a). This shows that the Sun can (directly or undirectly) influence tropospheric zonal mean-winds over decadal to multi-decadal time scales. Zonal mean-winds constitute an important element of global atmospheric circulation. If the solar cycle can influence zonal mean-winds, then it may affect other features of global climate as well […]”

Caution

Exclusive &/or excessive focus on the first moment (the mean) should not be at the expense of attention to higher moments (such as the variance), as the following graph should emphasize:

SOI = Southern Oscillation Index (an index of El Nino / La Nina)

[ ] indicates boxcar averaging [applied here to highlight interannual variability]

When studying the preceding graph, it is important to understand that the blue line is the normalized interannual average of the black line. (Take a minute to think about this carefully.)

To reinforce this point, here is another graph of the normalized mean at the semi-annual to annual timescale:

The occurrence of such patterns in the mean despite the maintenance of stationary variance limits suggests a need to carefully consider which equators (geographic, celestial, magnetic, meteorological, etc.) are relevant to the phenomena under study. (See for example Leroux (1993).)

Multimoment multiscale spatiotemporal integration reveals nonrandom harmonic pattern-summary discontinuities, exposing the comedy tragically advocated by deceitful &/or naive theoreticians who are in part constrained by a dominant culture that clings seemingly religiously to maladaptive traditions such as unjustifiable assumptions of randomness, independence, uniformity, linearity, etc. that are routinely misapplied (for example to conveniently render abstract conceptions mathematically tractable).

Bear in mind that for some phenomena, such as ice-jacking freeze/thaw cycles, the properties of the variance play a critically fundamental role in dynamics.

Conclusion

With awareness of key wavelengths and a solid conceptual understanding of the effect of integration across harmonics, we arrive at something truly simple: Earth, Sun, Moon.

Both of the ~11 year waves summarize the semi-annual wave, which summarizes biweekly & monthly LOD’ variations bounded by lunisolar limits.

While the magenta wave is isolated via complex wavelet methods, the sky-blue wave is accessible to any member of the general public with an understanding of this article, 5 minutes to spare, & a spreadsheet.

Acknowledgement

Tim Channon generously shared LOD’ models developed using his synthesizer software. Access to Tim’s models facilitated expeditious cross-checking of lunisolar theory, mainstream literature, & data.

Suggestion

I encourage responsible readers to download & archive daily LOD data. Scientifically-engaged citizens can keep a vigilant watch on potentially-arising future data vandalism.

Data

LOD

International Earth Rotation Service (IERS)

http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/DataProducts/EarthOrientationData/eop.html

Li, G.-O.; & Zong, H.-F. (2007). 27.3-day and 13.6-day atmospheric tide. Science in China Series D – Earth Sciences 50(9), 1380-1395.

http://www.scichina.com:8080/sciDe/fileup/PDF/07yd1380.pdf

Sidorenkov, N.S. (2007). Long-term changes in the variance of the earth orientation parameters and of the excitation functions.

http://syrte.obspm.fr/journees2005/s3_07_Sidorenkov.pdf

Sidorenkov, N.S. (2005). Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 24(5), 425-439.

http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/09/28/0001230882/425-439.pdf

Gross, R.S. (2007). Earth rotation variations – long period. In: Herring, T.A. (ed.), Treatise on Geophysics vol. 11 (Physical Geodesy), Elsevier, Amsterdam, in press, 2007.

http://geodesy.eng.ohio-state.edu/course/refpapers/Gross_Geodesy_LpER07.pdf

http://geodesy.geology.ohio-state.edu/course/refpapers/Gross_Geodesy_LpER07.pdf

Schwing, F.B.; Jiang, J.; & Mendelssohn, R. (2003). Coherency of multi-scale abrupt changes between the NAO, NPI, and PDO. Geophysical Research Letters 30(7), 1406. doi:10.1029/2002GL016535.

Maraun, D.; & Kurths, J. (2005). Epochs of phase coherence between El Nino-Southern Oscillation and Indian monsoon. Geophysical Research Letters 32, L15709. doi10.1029-2005GL023225.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~douglas/papers/maraun05a.pdf

Leroux, M. (1993). The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes. Global and Planetary Change 7, 69-93.

http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf

Trenberth, K.E.; Stepaniak, D.P.; & Smith, L. (2005). Interannual variability of patterns of atmospheric mass distribution. Journal of Climate 18, 2812-2825.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/massEteleconnJC.pdf

Abarca del Rio, R.; Gambis, D.; & Salstein, D.A. (2000). Interannual signals in length of day and atmospheric angular momentum. Annals Geophysicae 18, 347-364.

http://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/32/91/24/PDF/angeo-18-347-2000.pdf

Abarca del Rio, R.; Gambis, D.; Salstein, D.; Nelson, P.; & Dai, A. (2003). Solar activity and earth rotation variability. Journal of Geodynamics 36, 423-443.

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.

Vaughan, P.L. (2010). Semi-annual solar-terrestrial power.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/

Technical Aside

For those interested in exploring LOD’ variance patterns that are not necessarily evident at first glance, another noteworthy envelope is the following:

(13.777275)*(13.63339592) / (13.777275 – 13.63339592)

= 1305.478517 days = 3.574281812 years

This polar-equatorial eclipse cycle is evident in the sequence of diagrams here:

From:

Espenak, F.; & Meeus, J. (2009). Five millennium canon of solar eclipses: -1999 to +3000 (2000 BCE to 3000 CE). NASA Technical Publication TP-2009-214172.

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MCLE.html

h/t to WUWT commenter “lgl” for initially drawing attention to this pattern some time ago.

Earlier & Future Articles

I wrote the following articles before (a) acquiring access to Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010), (b) coming across Leroux (1993), and (c) re-reading Sidorenkov (2005) with consequently improved awareness:

Related articles could have been written on All India Rainfall Index & other variables, but the audiences’ handle on the solar, lunisolar, & spatiotemporal nature of interannual variations was revealed to be inadequate in comments here:

[Some audience members may benefit from careful consideration of issues raised by Tomas Milanovic at Dr. Judith Curry’s blog Climate Etc.]

Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot’s (2010) game changing observation rendered earlier results much less mysterious:

For capable individuals striving to render these & related findings disgestible by a mainstream audience, I strongly recommend:

A) gleaning the primary point made by Schwing, Jiang, & Mendelssohn (2003) about the effect of windowing parameters on apparent phase, which can be reversed by spatial patterns, not just temporal evolution.

B) heeding the advice of Maraun & Kurths (2005) about “periods of coupling which are invisible to linear methods.”

Future posts in this series (if it continues) may draw attention to:

a) nonrandom relations between interannual terrestrial oscillations and interannual [not to be confused with decadal] rates of change of solar variables.

b) the guaranteed potential for naive investigators to be irrecoverably derailed by Simpson’s Paradox due to stubborn &/or blind adherence to seriously misguided conventional mainstream statistical inference paradigms & malpractices that rigidly & dogmatically insist on falsely assuming independence when none exists.

c) the [counterintuitive &/or paradoxical for some] influence of grain & extent – & aggregation criteria more generally – on summaries of spatiotemporal pattern.

Grain” & “extent?

Grain is another term for spatiotemporal resolution. Important: Extent is a term which concisely encompasses the properties of spatiotemporal summary windows. The vast majority of mainstream researchers are either absolutely ignorant or insufficiently cognizant of the effect of extent on integrals across spatiotemporal harmonics (including the nonstationary variety). The consequences are serious: blindness and rejection of valid findings on nonsensical grounds.

Best Regards to All.

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
Mark Wagner
April 10, 2011 7:15 pm

Multimoment multiscale spatiotemporal integration reveals nonrandom harmonic pattern-summary discontinuities
that’s uhm… EXACTLY what I was thinking as I was reading along.

savethesharks
April 10, 2011 7:22 pm

Thank you for this, Paul.
Have you had a chance to review “Solar Minima, Earth’s rotation and Little Ice Ages in the past and in the future The North Atlantic–European case”?
I think you will find it quite interesting if you have not.
Email me at sharkhearted@gmail.com and I will send you a copy.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

u.k.(us)
April 10, 2011 7:39 pm

hyperzombie
April 10, 2011 8:27 pm

Wow, I read the whole thing. The graphics look good, but what is with the techno speak, I need a “Solar, Terrestrial, & Lunisolar Components of Rate of Change of Length of Day” for DUMMIES post.

dp
April 10, 2011 8:39 pm

I’d love to know how this LOD change on the surface interacts with the mantle and core. That surface change can’t possibly be affecting the iron core, I would think, so the mantle has to absorb the energy of the friction. I understand the core normally has a different period of rotation than does the surface so that has to create quite a bit of churn in the mantle. Illustrations of the core tend to show it smooth and round as a pool ball but I suspect it is actually quite irregular. I suspect too that regional viscosity/temperature variations of the mantle perturb the rotation of both the core and the surface. And I wonder too what happens at the poles where the mantle is less impacted by the relative surface speeds of the core and the surface.
Being old and curious about nature is frustrating given how little time is left to discover, but it’s still better than just being old.

TomRude
April 10, 2011 9:41 pm

Very interesting work and glad to see Leroux’s work in good place!

April 10, 2011 10:11 pm

I have previously criticized the Le Moeul et al. paper and found reasons to reject it. First, instead of studying a proxy for the zonal winds, one should investigate the zonal wind directly. Second, the data is heavily smoothed [4-year sliding window which reduces the number of degrees of freedom enormously and makes the data points very dependent on each other]. Third, the cosmic ray data compared with are not correct. They seem to have been manipulated to improve the fit, as previously pointed out. Fourth, most of the time series used in sun-climate research have no spatial dimension, e.g. TSI, the sunspot number, or the galactic ray flux. Fifth, the mumbo-jumbo level is just too high. Sixth, the venom directed at mainstream scientists is inappropriate.

April 10, 2011 10:15 pm

Fourth, most of the time series used in sun-climate research have no spatial dimension, e.g. TSI, the sunspot number, or the galactic ray flux. Fifth, the mumbo-jumbo level is just too high. Sixth, the venom directed at mainstream scientists is inappropriate.
These points are of course for the present posting.

rbateman
April 10, 2011 10:15 pm

So, if your spatialtemporal window on the data isn’t wide enough (or you purposely narrow it’s focus) then the results will be grainy and ignorant of the cyclic and/or harmonic nature of the data.
Manns Nature Trick purposely tacked on a narrow window of different data to the tree ring data. Had he left the recent tree ring data attached and run the full length of instrument data, it would not have been misleading. The two do NOT correlate so well, and that much would be instantly obvious. Had he averaged the overlap, he would have committed Simpsons Paradox.

don penman
April 10, 2011 10:53 pm

I know that the length of day varies with wind and changing ocean currents and it is getting longer due to the moon, I also know that the variation in length of day is very small(fractions of a second).Do these very small changes alter the temperature of the earth?Some claim that the Sun alters wind patterns such as the jet stream if it does then it is obvious that it will have some correlation with the length of day.How do you fit solar cycles so precisely to the length of day ?(the lod measurements must have error bars).

Paul Vaughan
April 10, 2011 10:58 pm

Tim Channon, if you’re around & you have time, I think some people might be interested in seeing a pdf of an expanded model (one that doesn’t exclude any of the higher amplitude terms). I imagine people would also be interested in hearing the story of the synthesizer, its development, why it was developed, etc., if you are inclined to share.
Best Regards,
Paul.

Paul Vaughan
April 10, 2011 11:10 pm

I have a few questions for anyone who is willing to answer (to see if people are absorbing the message):
1) How would you crudely go about isolating the semi-annual + annual wave using nothing but simple (boxcar) averaging?

Paul Vaughan
April 10, 2011 11:18 pm

rbateman says, “So, if your spatialtemporal window on the data isn’t wide enough (or you purposely narrow it’s focus) then the results will be grainy and ignorant of the cyclic and/or harmonic nature of the data.”
Using the “wrong” extent doesn’t eliminate the cycles, but it can introduce phase reversals (& change the amplitude).

Paul Vaughan
April 10, 2011 11:26 pm

Leif Svalgaard, wrote [of Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010)], “Second, the data is heavily smoothed [4-year sliding window which reduces the number of degrees of freedom enormously and makes the data points very dependent on each other].”
As I’ve explained in a recent WUWT thread, I don’t think they chose their extent with proper cognizance of the properties of the time series. They did, however, get “close enough” to optimal to harness the pattern.
I’ve varied the wavelet extent parameter and found that there’s a fairly wide range around the optimum that will capture the pattern. Base on intuition, this is in absolutely no way surprising.

April 10, 2011 11:28 pm

dp “Being old and curious about nature is frustrating given how little time is left to discover, but it’s still better than just being old.”
Love it.
Look on the bright side. One has more time and there is less distraction. You do really know what you want to do and you can get into it at 4.30 in the morning if you wish and snooze in the afternoon to recover. I like being old. And I like the feeling of focus and patience that comes after that afternoon nap.
It is not surprising that the SOI varies with some aspect of length of day. SOI relates directly to the differential pressure driving the major wind systems which impact the speed of rotation of the Earth and are the essence of the climate system as it evolves day by day basis.
But what does the following mean?
‘When studying the preceding graph, it is important to understand that the blue line is the normalized interannual average of the black line’.
Is this simply de-seasonalised data obtained by averaging over 12 months , or anomalies with respect to the monthly mean or what of?
The real interest is in what lies behind the SOI. I don’t think this analysis is going to help with that question. That’s the big question in my mind.

April 10, 2011 11:29 pm

Thanks Paul,
Well and concisely put together, trying to make progress into the mechanics behind the drivers of climate, would be harder with out a good understanding of these basic Solar, Terrestrial, & Lunisolar harmonic interactions, and their further application to the longer periods of climate periodicities of oscillations.
You do the world a service in helping others to gain a good understanding of how the rest of the interplanetary harmonic interactions, that drive the decadal and longer period cycles, and to extend the thinking to the similarly inter-modulated Inner planet, solar, and moon harmonic period.
As opposed to the longer period cycles of synod conjunction of the outer planets, which jointly swings the sun and the inner planetary system, around the SSB which beats the two long period set together, the inner planets at a rate of once every 17.95 Years and the outer planets periodicity of ~179.5 years.

Paul Vaughan
April 10, 2011 11:31 pm

Leif Svalgaard wrote [of Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010)],“First, instead of studying a proxy for the zonal winds, one should investigate the zonal wind directly.”
…which is exactly why I extended their analysis soon after first reading it:
Vaughan, P.L. (2010). Semi-annual solar-terrestrial power.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/

Paul Vaughan
April 10, 2011 11:38 pm

Leif Svalgaard wrote [of Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010)], “Third, the cosmic ray data compared with are not correct. They seem to have been manipulated to improve the fit, as previously pointed out.”
NO manipulations have been performed on the cosmic ray data presented here:
Vaughan, P.L. (2010). Semi-annual solar-terrestrial power.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/
Direct links to the CR graphs:
1) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1a.png
2) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1b.png

Paul Vaughan
April 10, 2011 11:44 pm

Leif Svalgaard wrote, “Fourth, most of the time series used in sun-climate research have no spatial dimension, e.g. TSI, the sunspot number, or the galactic ray flux.”
EARTH is not uniform. See for example Trenberth, Stepaniak, & Smith (2005).

April 11, 2011 1:15 am

Multimoment multiscale spatiotemporal integration reveals nonrandom harmonic pattern-summary discontinuities, exposing the comedy tragically advocated by deceitful &/or naive theoreticians who are in part constrained by a dominant culture that clings seemingly religiously to maladaptive traditions such as unjustifiable assumptions of randomness, independence, uniformity, linearity, etc. that are routinely misapplied (for example to conveniently render abstract conceptions mathematically tractable).

Paul, I am fascinated by your work but I can never understand it well enough to reach the point where I can begin to cross-check it, except to note that it looks as if there really are significant harmonic resonance patterns. If you want to avoid “corrupt science” taking it over, it would help if you made your work accessible to ordinary intelligent generalists (like Willis E). I think if you did this, your dark desire to rant against scientists would actually mostly evaporate.
Focus on straightforward communication – please!

Tony
April 11, 2011 1:23 am

The music of the spheres ?… including the harmonics? Did those old guys in their stone-age observatories come to the same conclusions?
BTW … is this what Leif means by ‘venom’?
“Multimoment multiscale spatiotemporal integration reveals nonrandom harmonic pattern-summary discontinuities, exposing the comedy tragically advocated by deceitful &/or naive theoreticians who are in part constrained by a dominant culture that clings seemingly religiously to maladaptive traditions such as unjustifiable assumptions of randomness, independence, uniformity, linearity, etc. that are routinely misapplied (for example to conveniently render abstract conceptions mathematically tractable).”

April 11, 2011 1:38 am

Richard Holle says:
April 10, 2011 at 11:29 pm
the inner planets at a rate of once every 17.95 Years and the outer planets periodicity of ~179.5 years.
Not technically correct, Jose when looking at the data only went back several hundred years. The 4 outer planets never really come back to the same position, but they roughly come back to a similar position on average about every 172 years, or the rough synodic period of Uranus & Neptune.

Carla
April 11, 2011 5:37 am

Geoff Sharp says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:38 am
~
Question for Geoff, bit off the topic here or not..
The Earth has a roid, asteroid that is orbiting in its zone.
They are saying that this roid has a “horseshoe” type orbit. Now how can that be, Geoff? Check out the orbit of this thing Geoff.
Astronomers Find Newly Discovered Asteroid is Earth’s Companion
http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/2011/aac_horseshoe_orbit.html
I know you like it when I show you things like this. . or not. .
One more thing if you know Geoff. It is particularly interesting to me, the way that the planetary magnetic dipoles are laid out from the sun to interstellar space. Do you know how closely we monitor the magnetic dipoles of the other planets? Or have any information about this? Saturn appears to be a far enough out of solar influence to vary more in its magnetic dipole locations. A cutoff point..
Now related to the topic or not, was wondering how GCR or ACR could stall vertical currents in Earths upper atmosphere. This would lower the earth electric potential thereby affecting…….

April 11, 2011 6:21 am

Carla says:
April 11, 2011 at 5:37 am
Carla, the queen of left field 🙂
Asteroids are numerous but have no real effect on planetary systems in this current age other than posing potential threats to life. The 4 outer planets only, have the clout to make solar system changes on big scales in my way of thinking, but leaving the door open re the inner planets on solar cycle length.
On the magnetic front, I see no evidence of any planetary magnetic feedback. The Tsunami like solar wind obliterates all.

Paul Vaughan
April 11, 2011 6:48 am

What I’ve said:
“Regrettably, some mainstream climate science leaders fell victim to Simpson’s Paradox decades ago; the point is not to issue blame, but rather to suggest that we help pick up the pieces now to enable more efficient data exploration moving forward.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/
Leif Svalgaard wrote, “Sixth, the venom directed at mainstream scientists is inappropriate.”
What is inappropriate is your motion to reject a landmark conceptual finding that opens key doors for generations of researchers. Stalling the authors for a few hours with your editing demands would in no meaningful way affect their core empirical finding.
I would be very curious to see the authors respond to your criticisms here.

April 11, 2011 6:55 am

While the above article provides much detail I have been unable to discern what amount of time is denoted by the verticle scale of the graphs.
Is the +/- 1 a second, a dimensionless number or a nanosecond?
While it may be possible to torture numerological correlations from the LOD data and the quasi-periodic SOI or other observations – zonal high wind etc – that corellation only has any possibility of indicating a causal relationship rather than a coincidental one if the physical processes can be defined that operate.
If, as I suspect, the energy in Joules of these variations is several orders of magnitude smaller than the solar varation around the 11 year cycle or the extra downwelling energy measured from the extra CO2 then it is ridiculous to ascribe causation to something that has no chance of influencing the processes because its energy signiture is way below the level of many other influences.
So what change in energy received at the surface do the graphs indicate ?

Paul Vaughan
April 11, 2011 6:56 am

I’ll make this my 2nd question (in the check to see if the conceptual elements of the message are being absorbed):
2) erlhapp asks, “Is this simply de-seasonalised data obtained by averaging over 12 months , or anomalies with respect to the monthly mean or what of?”
Hint: No anomalies have been used and while boxcar averaging is enough, it’s not a one-step procedure (see the tables above).

Paul Vaughan
April 11, 2011 7:16 am

Lucy Skywalker suggests, “[…] it would help if you made your work accessible to ordinary intelligent generalists […]”
Solid conceptual understanding of the effect of integration across harmonics is something folks will have to develop independently. Then it’s dead simple (and the results can be reproduced in mere minutes).
The target audience of these communications may not be the one you prefer, but I sincerely appreciate your interest in the topic.
Best Regards.

netdr2
April 11, 2011 7:45 am

The LOD also should vary due to sea level rise. [It is like the figure skater that pulls her arms in to spin faster.]
Axel Moerner claims that the effect of rising sea levels on LOD limits the sea level rise to 1.1 MM per year or 1 cigarette length per century.
Is he right ?

Paul Vaughan
April 11, 2011 7:46 am

2 more questions (slightly more advanced):
3) Did Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010) make the most sensible choice of window width (1 month) when isolating the semi-annual to annual timescale derivative series?
Hint: …or did they just come “close enough” somehow?
4) Are the optimal kernel widths determined by maximal correlation (with CR) or by dominant temporal modes of the mean & variance (of LOD’)?

April 11, 2011 8:06 am

Geoff Sharp says:
April 11, 2011 at 6:21 am
On the magnetic front, I see no evidence of any planetary magnetic feedback. The Tsunami like solar wind obliterates all.
Something we can agree on.
Paul Vaughan says:
April 11, 2011 at 6:48 am
your motion to reject a landmark conceptual finding that opens key doors for generations of researchers.
Sorry, i see no landmark conceptual finding, just a poorly written paper with fudged data.
Paul Vaughan says:
April 11, 2011 at 6:56 am
Hint: No anomalies have been used …
Is no way to answer a sincere question.
Paul Vaughan says:
April 11, 2011 at 7:16 am
“Lucy Skywalker suggests, “[…] it would help if you made your work accessible to ordinary intelligent generalists […]“”
Solid conceptual understanding of the effect of integration across harmonics is something folks will have to develop independently.

Same comment here.
It is simple enough: by heavily smoothing, filtering, windowing, torturing, etc the authors come up with a simple time series [their blue curve] which they compare with another simple time series, the doctored or inaccurate GCR flux [red curve]. No conceptual breakthrough here.

Paul Vaughan
April 11, 2011 8:10 am

Re: izen
The vertical scales are normalized to optimize visualization. As a contribution to this multidisciplinary discussion, I explore data, leaving physics to physicists & other qualified parties. A limiting factor in quantitative musings about physical mechanisms is insufficient human knowledge of clouds (and hence insolation [not to be confused with irradiance]]). Producing yet more estimates based on untenable assumptions is not the answer. That the atmosphere experiences thermal as well as gravitational tides is accepted. Given the public’s growing awareness of the spatiotemporal cloud/circulation issue, assumptions such as uniformity are now a deal-breaking problem for advocates of oversimplified models. The data have spoken. Are the physical modelers listening? Or do they remain caught in the deep grooves of their abstract imaginations?
Best Regards.

Paul Vaughan
April 11, 2011 8:37 am

Leif, your conceptual understanding of the effect of integration across harmonics is deficient.

Agile Aspect
April 11, 2011 8:42 am

Carla says:
April 11, 2011 at 5:37 am
Geoff Sharp says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:38 am
~
Question for Geoff, bit off the topic here or not..
The Earth has a roid, asteroid that is orbiting in its zone.
They are saying that this roid has a “horseshoe” type orbit. Now how can that be, Geoff? Check out the orbit of this thing Geoff.
Astronomers Find Newly Discovered Asteroid is Earth’s Companion
http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/2011/aac_horseshoe_orbit.html
————————————————————————————————————-;
The asteroid has a circular orbit around the Sun but at a different speed than the Earth so the motion appears to be like a horse shoe orbit when viewed from Earth. Even the planets at times appear to have retrograde orbits when viewed from the Earth.

Laurie Bowen
April 11, 2011 8:47 am

And to think . . . .all this time I defined “length of day” as how long the “sun was up.”
and night was how long the sun was not up!

Bernie McCune
April 11, 2011 8:52 am

A little history on some of these concepts might be of interest. I worked for several years (in the 1970s) at a “polar motion” observatory in Mizusawa Japan (International Latitude Observatory – ILO). The ILO at Mizusawa for many years had been using optical methods to determine the Chandler period (an approximate 14 month cycle of the earth’s pole through about 8 to 12 meter circles). The Chandler phenomenon (1891) was discovered over 100 years ago and from just a few years before 1900 a small group of world wide observatories located in the northern hemisphere spread in longitude along latitude 39 deg N began observing latitude shift of zenith stars. The observed shift (in latitude) appeared as an approximate sine wave of about 14 months long. My support was to use satellite based geodesy methods to obtain the same information in spite of cloudy bad weather conditions which limited optical data quantity and quality. This network grew to a multi-station, multi-nation system with the Paris observatory eventually becoming the headquarters of the International Earth Rotation Service – IERS. Just to let you understand that earth rotation variation has a time component and a spatial component.
I wonder if we might be able to tie some of the pole spatial movement effects to other physical elements – especially climate effects (and polar tides)? It is well known that one the drivers of the pole speed and position is the atmosphere (as well as ocean currents, magma, gravity, extra-terrestrial effects, etc.)
Bernie

April 11, 2011 9:32 am

Paul Vaughan says:
April 11, 2011 at 8:37 am
Leif, your conceptual understanding of the effect of integration across harmonics is deficient.
No, that is a straightforward mathematical exercise which is irrelevant for the Le Mouel paper. Show us where the relevance is rather than giving ‘hints’ and asking us to ‘think about it’.

Tim Channon
April 11, 2011 9:46 am

The replies have covered a lot of ground and raised a lot of questions, too much to cover fully on WUWT. Nor does Paul say all.
Background.
The work is Paul Vaughan’s where I was using the effect of years of technical work and experience to produce numbers and models for him. There is cross discipline involved. I only understand part of what he is doing.
In this case Paul emailed out of the blue with an xls containing data attached and more or less what could I do with it. I recognised the data as daily LoD first difference, hence first data point 2nd Jan 1962 but that is all I know, nor have I checked which version of LoD nor how exactly Paul produced it.
Since then a few emails and attachments have bounced between us as we drove to whatever Paul wanted and found mutually compatible file formats.
First I knew about what Paul was up to other than he was going to published something was seeing the WUWT post.
Tools used.
Over some years I have developed unique software intended for use on climatic kind of data. Some of this goes back to a novel development for commercial usage during the 1980s. Some think I am nuts to write this in C; there are several very solid reasons.
The key to the result is a selective non discrete Fourier Transform created by data matching discrete input data (qualifications there are critical). This outputs the parameters for matched Fourier terms and a spreadsheet model of the matched data. (it doesn’t have to be Fourier but this is usually best and is used here)
A spreadsheet row comprises an inverse transform, simply the sum of computed terms for that index value, in this case a decimal date. It is literally simple.
Column meaning: –
index sum-of-terms+offset term1 term2 term3 .. termx
Multiple rows with say a one month index increment, plot sum column against index column and you have a computed monthly time series. The spreadsheet maths engine is doing the result computation from the parameters and formula. The software derived the parameters and wrote out two rows of the formula, copy and paste extends this as the user wants. Conceptually simple.
Why a fancy way of doing a Fourier Transform?
There are finite limits on the capability of a DFT (discrete fourier transform) which is the only kind that can be done on discrete data (regularly sampled in time). The time increment defines the width of each output value, called bin as in garbage bin, where a transform outputs a long row of them, one for each frequency it is capable of showing. This means the numbers are approximate, only is within that bin which has a finite width. Accurate phase is very hard to compute.
The values can to some extent be improved by interpolation and other trickery but this only goes so far.
A further problem is the need to Window the input data, a large subject.
Very roughly I am subtracting the contents of a bin from the input data and fine tuning the frequency, phase and amplitude for zero error. Those are the answer. the limits of binning are to a degree sidestepped: the bins have zero width, just that there not very many of them. (useful results in practice tend to 3 to 30 bin range)
It is also possible to put more than one item in a single bin and this spins off into ambiguity and validity, where the human brain is necessary.
In this case the presence of doublets (two very closely spaced (eg. 0.25%) frequencies) and more makes the problem interesting. When computed this turns out to mean 18.6 years… get the idea?
Put simply, it works.
In this case the input data has chronometric causes (orbitals) and therefore the model will be predictive (not been confirmed).

George E. Smith
April 11, 2011 10:50 am

Say Anthony, do you have an English language transcript of this paper ? It has some pleasnat looking graphs, and it would be nice to read it in English, so we could tell what they are talkiing about. This is either a tardy April 1st paper, or perhaps an early entrant in the Bullwer-Lytton prize competition.

Tim Channon
April 11, 2011 10:51 am

Here is an extended version of the PDF PV mentioned, on WP servers.
Might help as a starting point.
http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/comment-on-pv3-a.pdf

George E. Smith
April 11, 2011 10:58 am

“”””” netdr2 says:
April 11, 2011 at 7:45 am
The LOD also should vary due to sea level rise. [It is like the figure skater that pulls her arms in to spin faster.]
Axel Moerner claims that the effect of rising sea levels on LOD limits the sea level rise to 1.1 MM per year or 1 cigarette length per century.
Is he right ? “””””
Well hardly.
Sea level rises because water flows down hill. so that means that a water mass that was previously rotating at a larger radius about earth axis, has now moved down to a lower orbit; namely sea level. So the global moment of inertia must go down, not up, with sea level rise. If there is any LOD change, it would be a shortening.

April 11, 2011 10:58 am

Tim Channon says:
April 11, 2011 at 9:46 am
Multiple rows with say a one month index increment, plot sum column against index column and you have a computed monthly time series. […] Conceptually simple.
And where in this do you do spatiotemporal integration over harmonics? Or is this just mumbo-jumbo for adding up the contribution of each frequency? As is always done when reconstructing a signal from its frequency components.

April 11, 2011 11:06 am

George E. Smith says:
April 11, 2011 at 10:50 am
Say Anthony, do you have an English language transcript of this paper ?
——————–
/seconded

Richard Sharpe
April 11, 2011 11:18 am

George E. Smith says on April 11, 2011 at 10:58 am

“”””” netdr2 says:
April 11, 2011 at 7:45 am
The LOD also should vary due to sea level rise. [It is like the figure skater that pulls her arms in to spin faster.]
Axel Moerner claims that the effect of rising sea levels on LOD limits the sea level rise to 1.1 MM per year or 1 cigarette length per century.
Is he right ? “””””
Well hardly.
Sea level rises because water flows down hill. so that means that a water mass that was previously rotating at a larger radius about earth axis, has now moved down to a lower orbit; namely sea level. So the global moment of inertia must go down, not up, with sea level rise. If there is any LOD change, it would be a shortening.

Isn’t one of the components of sea-level rise due to thermal expansion of the water?
Secondly, most of the ice that will melt and contribute to sea-level rise is currently closer to the spin axis than it would be if it were uniformly distributed across the surface of the planet… so, I am not sure it would lead to a shortening of the LOD but I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.

netdr2
April 11, 2011 12:08 pm

It seems that both Smith and Sharpe have valid points about sea level rise vs LOD.
Which is greater ?
Heating of the oceans has stopped in the last few years according to NOAA
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
The earlier apparent heating may be caused by using ships and XBT’s to measure temperature. As technology changed to the Argo the apparent heating went away.
The argument that water always seeks to reduce the distance to the center of mass is very compelling. The LOD may very well decrease as ice melts and flows into the sea.
Both arguments may be correct.
Thanks for the insight. This site has some smart and knowledgeable people and I wanted your opinions.
Is the LOD actually deceasing due to melting glaciers ? Can this effect be teased out from the other effects ?

Carla
April 11, 2011 1:16 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 11, 2011 at 8:06 am
Geoff Sharp says:
April 11, 2011 at 6:21 am
On the magnetic front, I see no evidence of any planetary magnetic feedback. The Tsunami like solar wind obliterates all.
Something we can agree on.
~
I was going to mention Geoff, that you were sounding a bit like Dr. S.
Not the point. The “Princess” in left field, is suggestingt that the closer your dipole is to the energy source ‘within’ your system, the more influence the solar electra magno reconnection regime, well have upon it. Saturn’s dipole looks undecided..like maybe he’s the queen in left field, with a by directional dipole depending on ISMF forces present in Saturn’s orbital field of ref..or somethin like that. Ah yep that would change Saturns LOD. lol..
But seriously .. how would you slow down ionospheric plasmas moving across field lines? I have read that the ionosphere is coupled to the solar wind IMF. And the ionosphere is coupled to this rotating electro dynamo. The ionosphere is suggested to be directly coupled with the polar vortex and may vary it by strong variations of ionospheric winds. Seems lately we have seen a stalling of regional weather systems moving across the N. Hem, causing an unusually shaped jetstream. . kinda like its being forced back down. . lost connection?

pochas
April 11, 2011 1:30 pm

If asked what is responsible for this LOD phenomenon I would naively say it is ocean circulation. In the northern hemisphere the oceans circulate clockwise and there is a component of this circulation that aligns with the counterclockwise rotation of the earth as viewed from above the north pole, a sort of negative angular momentum, so I would think that if the ocean currents slow down the earth’s rotation would speed up. Does this make sense? Are ocean circulation velocities tied to the solar/lunar orbits? We know that the ocean tides definitely are.

George E. Smith
April 11, 2011 1:33 pm

“”””” Richard Sharpe says:
April 11, 2011 at 11:18 am
George E. Smith says on April 11, 2011 at 10:58 am
“”””” netdr2 says:
April 11, 2011 at 7:45 am
The LOD also should vary due to sea level rise. [It is like the figure skater that pulls her arms in to spin faster.]
Axel Moerner claims that the effect of rising sea levels on LOD limits the sea level rise to 1.1 MM per year or 1 cigarette length per century.
Is he right ? “””””
Well hardly.
Sea level rises because water flows down hill. so that means that a water mass that was previously rotating at a larger radius about earth axis, has now moved down to a lower orbit; namely sea level. So the global moment of inertia must go down, not up, with sea level rise. If there is any LOD change, it would be a shortening.
Isn’t one of the components of sea-level rise due to thermal expansion of the water?
Secondly, most of the ice that will melt and contribute to sea-level rise is currently closer to the spin axis than it would be if it were uniformly distributed across the surface of the planet… so, I am not sure it would lead to a shortening of the LOD but I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. “””””
Tut tut Richard; I know you are sharper than that. You are contemplating that the melt water unaided, by human hand can actually run uphill to a higher potential energy location.
Is not the (mean) surface a gravitational equipotential surface. As far as the earth is concerned it is gravitationally flat. Yes it does have some rather large periodic bumps in it caused by tides and weather; but over the course of a thirty year climate period, it is quite flat.

Richard Sharpe
April 11, 2011 1:35 pm

To be clear, what I think I was saying in my comment above is that both mechanisms should place water further away from the axis of rotation, thus increasing angular momentum. This should result in a slowing of the rate of rotation in order to preserve angular momentum, and thus lead to a lengthening of LOD.
Perhaps I am wrong.

April 11, 2011 1:38 pm

Carla says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:16 pm
I was going to mention Geoff, that you were sounding a bit like Dr. S.
Because he is correct on this one.
closer your dipole is to the energy source ‘within’ your system, the more influence the solar electra magno reconnection regime, well have upon it.
The sun does influence the planets magnetically, but not the other way around. The planets and the interstellar medium do not influence the Sun via magnetic forces.

Richard Sharpe
April 11, 2011 1:45 pm

George says:

Tut tut Richard; I know you are sharper than that. You are contemplating that the melt water unaided, by human hand can actually run uphill to a higher potential energy location.

No. Simply that the earth is approximately a shere rotating on its axis.
The ice is predominately located towards the poles, or at higher latitudes. When it melts it distributes roughly uniformly across the surface of the globe and contributes about the same sea-level rise everywhere (its actually an oblate spheroid with a bulge around the equator which would seem to improve my argument).
The ice that was at higher latitudes contributes less angular momentum than the water that is now at lower latitudes. I guess it will depend on where the ice was. If it was all at 30 degrees on either side it would seem to be a wash, but most of it seems to be further away than 30 degrees. Of course ice melting on Kilimanjaro will be different and will lead to a shortening of the LOD, I imagine.
However, if the discussion was predominately about ice at lower latitudes melting, then I am wrong.

don penman
April 11, 2011 2:37 pm

The LOD varies during the year as the earth speeds up and slows down in its orbit round the Sun but its rotation period is not affected by its solar orbit.I think that graphs are showing the apparent LOD during the year not just the actual rotation of the Earth.

April 11, 2011 3:18 pm

Where is the ftp with the code and data.
Until then you have an advertisement for science, not the science itself.
And no, verbal descriptions of algorithms will not be enough. Hansen used that
excuse.

sophocles
April 11, 2011 3:25 pm

I always knew the global economy was run by Lunatics! Every 9 years (approx) there is a collapse in the world’s domestic land markets (corresponding to the Lunar Apse Cycle = 8.85 years) and every 18 years there is a huge collapse into economic depression as the commercial, agricultural and (again) domestic land markets die more or less together (which corresponds to the Lunar Nodal Cycle= 18.6 years).
In 1801, Herschel announced he had spotted a correlation between sunspots and wheat prices. Now we have a correlation between economic cycles and rates of change in Length of Day Lunar cycles (sunspots involved too!—gosh, they do get around!)
🙂
It’s all driven by sunspots and the moon!

Paul Vaughan
April 11, 2011 4:13 pm

“Not even wrong” (a category worse than wrong) as you would say Leif. You really do not understand extent (nor do you even seem to make an effort to understand).

George E. Smith
April 11, 2011 4:14 pm

“”””” Richard Sharpe says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:45 pm
George says:
Tut tut Richard; I know you are sharper than that. You are contemplating that the melt water unaided, by human hand can actually run uphill to a higher potential energy location.
No. Simply that the earth is approximately a shere rotating on its axis. “””””
Well of course the earth is not a rotating sphere; it is an oblate spheroid, that is flatter at the poles. I’m sure this flattening is largely a direct result of the earth rotating on its axis. If the earth wqas not rotating on its axis at 1000 mph at the equator it would not be oblate it would be more speherical. The earth’s shape is such that on average it is not uphill in any direction. There is no reason for ocean water to run north and south to the poles becaue the altitude there is lower. Gravitationally, the poles are not any lower than the equator, and there is no gravitation reason for water to run from the equator tyo the poles. Well it does on the surface of course; but then it returns towards the bottom depths, so that there is no net flow. The ocean surface at the equator is as far downhill as it can possibly get on the long term averaged earth. So melting of ice on land, or precipitation from the atmosphere can only decrease the moment of inertia, so the rotation speeds up as land ice melts, and runs down to sea level. It doesn’t matter whether it is Antarctic polar ice, or tropical ice from Mt Kilimajaro, it will go down hill locally, and the zero datum is the same everywhere due to the earth not being a rigid body, on geological time scales.

April 11, 2011 6:35 pm

Carla says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:16 pm
The ionosphere is suggested to be directly coupled with the polar vortex and may vary it by strong variations of ionospheric winds. Seems lately we have seen a stalling of regional weather systems moving across the N. Hem, causing an unusually shaped jetstream.
Now your talking about something realistic. This may also have something to do with LOD. There could be a ionosphere/vortex coupling, but what is controlling it is not obvious. There has been wild swings in the AO/AAO over the past 6 months that suggests a seasonal factor or something else controlling the strength of the planetary wave.

April 11, 2011 8:08 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
April 11, 2011 at 4:13 pm
I think most of the readers here cannot be misled. Let the ones who are prone to be misled speak up now.
“Not even wrong” (a category worse than wrong) as you would say Leif. You really do not understand extent (nor do you even seem to make an effort to understand).
The case is one of direct and simple comparison of two heavily smoothed [and for one, fudged] time series. This is straight forward. How the time series are constructed is irrelevant.

A G Foster
April 11, 2011 8:54 pm

Lots of confusion around here. One poster confuses LOD=sunrise to sunset with sidereal LOD, equals one spin of the earth relative to a star. I’m surprised at George Smith, but I will try to enlighten him. When polar ice melts the earth changes shape: mass (ice) which was concentrated at the poles, with a short arm of inertia, is spread evenly around the ocean surface, averaging something like 63 degrees latitude. If the the mantel were totally elastic nothing would happen, but it isn’t. It is part elastic, part plastic, so there is an instantaneous change of shape (more oblate) followed by slow inelastic recovery (back to round, or oblate spheroid). The earth has been speeding up in recent years due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment from a combination of the Last Glacial Maximum and the Little Ice Age. The GIA due to the LGM is insufficient to counteract tidal deceleration, but rebound from the LIA is apparently adequate to the task. Barring unknown interference from the likes of core/mantle coupling the LOD decrease of the last 40 years indicates that melting has decreased and GIA from the LIA is now winning.
Get that? Melting is decreasing. End of LIA. Insignificanat GW, AGW, CAGW, etc. I’m not the first to make the claim. See the more careful remarks of Walter Munk at http://www.pnas.org/content/99/10/6550.full. –AGF

Paul Vaughan
April 11, 2011 9:06 pm

Thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion.
Best Regards,
Paul Vaughan.

April 11, 2011 9:16 pm

” “Grain” & “extent“?…
Grain is another term for spatiotemporal resolution. Important: Extent is a term which concisely encompasses the properties of spatiotemporal summary windows.”
This confirms my argument against comparing average temperature with solar variabilty. The grain is different. You should be comparing temperature change with solar variability.
solar variability = energy/time
temperature change = temperture/time
average temperature = temperature
Temperature change and solar variability are at the same grain. Average temperature is not. As the author quotes:
“The vast majority of mainstream researchers are either absolutely ignorant or insufficiently cognizant of the effect of extent on integrals across spatiotemporal harmonics (including the nonstationary variety). The consequences are serious: blindness and rejection of valid findings on nonsensical grounds.”
Here here. Climate Science has missed the boat. They have rejected solar variability as a significant climate forcing due to the use of the wrong gain in their analysis. They made this mistake 60 years ago with Milankovitch, they have done it again with CO2.

April 11, 2011 9:31 pm

Does this remind anyone of global temperature sets? And the argument that Global Average temperature is robust because it has been averaged over many samples?
It’s a well accepted rule of thumb that the larger the data set, the more reliable the conclusions drawn. Simpson’ paradox, however, slams a hammer down on the rule and the result is a good deal worse than a sore thumb. Unfortunately Simpson’s paradox demonstrates that a great deal of care has to be taken when combining small data sets into a large one. Sometimes conclusions from the large data set are exactly the opposite of conclusion from the smaller sets. Unfortunately, the conclusions from the large set are also usually wrong.

April 11, 2011 9:36 pm

ferd berple says:
April 11, 2011 at 9:16 pm
This confirms my argument against comparing average temperature with solar variabilty. The grain is different. You should be comparing temperature change with solar variability.
solar variability = energy/time
temperature change = temperature/time
average temperature = temperature

No, as wrong as can be. In another thread you said solar variability was in Watt/square meter*times area. This is solar irradiance*area. The irradiance, TSI, is proportional to temperature to the 4th power, so are of the same ‘grain’, if you want to use that useless concept. In physics we deal in dimensions [units], not grain. Temperature is just another way of expressing the Wattage per unit area.
Both TSI and average temperature can be determined at any given time and two time series can be formed, so both vary in time [one as the fourth power of the other].

April 11, 2011 10:03 pm

ferd berple says:
April 11, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Simpson’ paradox, however, slams a hammer down on the rule and the result is a good deal worse than a sore thumb.
Nonsense, the paradox comes from combining unequal group sizes, and no real scientists [but many economists] do such a silly thing.

Agile Aspect
April 11, 2011 10:04 pm

In general, the forward transform of the Morlet wavelet is well defined but in general the inverse transform is ill defined (since support for the Gaussian is the entire real line.) The inverse transform can be made well defined but without knowing the number of oscillations in the Gaussian window, I view the smoothing (inverse) as Morlet art :).
In any case, since you’re never going to post the phase or energy plots of the forward Morlet transform, would it be possible to get a spreadsheet dump of the LOD data you used?

April 11, 2011 11:07 pm

Its always a little disappointing if you ask a question that gets no answer. You suspect the question was ‘wrong’ or irrelevant in some way…
But it is FAR more frustrating when you ask a question and you get an reply that appears to avoid giving a meaningful answer.
@-Paul Vaughan says:
April 11, 2011 at 8:10 am
“The vertical scales are normalized to optimize visualization. As a contribution to this multidisciplinary discussion, I explore data, leaving physics to physicists & other qualified parties.”
I had asked what time-period was represented by the vertical scale on the graphs and what amount of energy variation this implied. This on the basis that as in politics its follow the money, in science its follow the energy.
This reply clearly does nothing to answer the question – very disappointing.
Perhaps somebody else can answer what amount of time all these curves actually represent ?

P. Solar
April 11, 2011 11:49 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
April 10, 2011 at 11:10 pm

I have a few questions for anyone who is willing to answer (to see if people are absorbing the message):
1) How would you crudely go about isolating the semi-annual + annual wave using nothing but simple (boxcar) averaging?

Don’t use a running mean if you are looking for time/phase correlations between different datasets. RM introduces significant distortions other than the simple low pass filter you are assuming you get.
Peaks will be shifted left or right depending on the surrounding data. The frequency response of this as a filter is very poor, the phase distortion is even worse. It is a particularly bad choice for this kind of analysis.

P. Solar
April 12, 2011 12:02 am

“But it is FAR more frustrating when you ask a question and you get an reply that appears to avoid giving a meaningful answer.”
Agreed.
“Normalising” to a non-dimensional scale does not in any way change the graph , hence it in no way “optimize visualization”. What it does do is make interpretation of the data impossible. Labelling an axis [-1:1] is meaningless , it may as well have no scale or label.
I have no time at all for graphs without meaningful quantities on the axes.
The changes in LOD are probably something like microseconds per year , which makes the idea that it affects climate laughable. I expect such a presentation to tell me that not hide it.
The fact that you did not get a clear reply to a simple question and the false “optimisation” argument says a lot about the author’s objectivity and openness.
He should probably apply some of his vitriolic criticism of mainstream science to his own efforts.

don penman
April 12, 2011 12:16 am

wikipedia.org/wiki/Day
Hope that link works it say that the length of day noon to noon over the year is about + or- 7.9 seconds.

P. Solar
April 12, 2011 12:22 am

Leif Svalgaard says:

In physics we deal in dimensions [units], not grain. Temperature is just another way of expressing the Wattage per unit area.
Both TSI and average temperature can be determined at any given time and two time series can be formed, so both vary in time [one as the fourth power of the other].

Where I studies physics temperature was measured in kelvin which is in no way “just another way of expressing” watt/metre*2 . I don’t know what you are trying to say here but the way you said it is clearly wrong.
Equally TSI may be simplistically said to be related to T*4 of the sun. But where the “average temperature” in question is that of the earth your comment is “as wrong as can be”.
As a supposed correction to ferd berple’s comment that is a surprisingly messy effort from someone of your level of competence.

P. Solar
April 12, 2011 12:35 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 11, 2011 at 10:03 pm

ferd berple says:
April 11, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Simpson’ paradox, however, slams a hammer down on the rule and the result is a good deal worse than a sore thumb.
Nonsense, the paradox comes from combining unequal group sizes, and no real scientists [but many economists] do such a silly thing.

Isn’t that exactly fred’s point? That what is being done with climate weather station data is combining a whole lot of very unequal data sets.
So it looks like your comment is says that compiling a global average is not the kind of thing real scientists would do (only economists). Despite declaring fred’s comment “nonsense” you appear to endorse what he is saying.

P. Solar
April 12, 2011 12:37 am

Isn’t that exactly fred’s point? That what is being done with climate weather station data is combining a whole lot of very unequal data sets.
So it looks like your comment is says that compiling a global average is not the kind of thing real scientists would do (only economists). Despite declaring fred’s comment “nonsense” you appear to endorse what he is saying.

Ed Dahlgren
April 12, 2011 2:49 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 11, 2011 at 8:08 pm

I think most of the readers here cannot be misled. Let the ones who are prone to be misled speak up now.

That would be me. I hope I haven’t missed the deadline for “now.” Does that depend on Length of Day? ‘Cause something led me to believe that it might.

April 12, 2011 3:08 am

The agenda dances,
and personal stances,
of all become clear,
nice to see all present,
have their own mindset.

April 12, 2011 4:08 am

P. Solar says:
April 12, 2011 at 12:22 am
Where I studies physics temperature was measured in kelvin which is in no way “just another way of expressing” watt/metre*2 . I don’t know what you are trying to say here but the way you said it is clearly wrong.
Perhaps I was not clear enough. “The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan’s law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body per unit time (known variously as the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T (also called absolute temperature):
The constant of proportionality σ, called the Stefan–Boltzmann constant or Stefan’s constant, derives from other known constants of nature. The value of the constant is
5.67×10^-8 W/m2. Thus at 100 K the energy flux density is 5.67 W/m2, at 1000 K 56,700 W/m2, etc.”
Watt/Square-meter is just another measure of temperate. This holds for both the sun and the earth [the earth is radiating too]. Fred is trying to convince you that TSI is a measure of the rate of change of T. Unfortunately, he may have succeeded.
P. Solar says:
April 12, 2011 at 12:37 am
Isn’t that exactly fred’s point? That what is being done with climate weather station data is combining a whole lot of very unequal data sets.
In doing so, the data is weighted by area to avoid Simpson’s paradox. If there are 1000 stations in Europe with an average temperature of 15C, and 10 stations in North Africa with an average temperature of 25C, then if you calculate the average as T = (15*1000 + 25*10)/(1000+10) = 15.099C you run into Simpson’s paradox, but if you do it correctly [assuming for the sake of the argument that Europe and North Africa have the same area], then you get the correct T=(15+25)/2 = 20C. This is how the average temperature is constructed.

April 12, 2011 4:36 am

Paul,
Frankly, I do not know if this is relevant, but after staring at hundreds of land (and some ocean and some satellite where applicable) temperature graphs, many from around Australia, there are 4 persistent peaks that show hot years about 28 years apart. These are in years 1915, 1943, 1970 and 1998, most +/- 1 year. There are cold years 14 years +/-1 after these, in 1929, 1956, 1985, ?2012. At a given site, not all of these need be present, but commonly at least 5 are. I have the impression of an alternating global factor related to the Sun’s energy input, moderated at any particular site by local events such as cloudiness for a part of the year. Am I reading too much into noisy data?

Paul Vaughan
April 12, 2011 6:29 am

Leif Svalgaard says, “Nonsense, the paradox comes from combining unequal group sizes, and no real scientists [but many economists] do such a silly thing.”

Paul Vaughan
April 12, 2011 6:43 am

Have either of you noticed that LOD’ is clearly not a random time series? Suggestion: Do a color-contoured time-integrated autocorrelation plot for some insight. Clearer awareness of the effect of integration across harmonics is needed (rather than reliance on rote memorization of procedures advocated by some for dealing with less well-structured time series).

Paul Vaughan
April 12, 2011 6:52 am

Re: izen & P. Solar
I have provided a link to the data. The units are indicated. Take the first difference.
Quantities like correlation are not affected by normalization. Data visualization objectives used here (simply using the whole graph instead of leaving most of it blank & white) may be at odds with your analysis priorities. Please share whatever analysis you have to contribute.

Paul Vaughan
April 12, 2011 6:59 am

P. Solar charged, “vitriolic criticism”
On the contrary, I have volunteered an objective assessment.

April 12, 2011 7:01 am

Paul Vaughan says:
April 12, 2011 at 6:29 am
You clearly have not thought carefully about the ways in which Simpson’s Paradox can arise.
Of course, I have. It is not that complicated. Any variation between the groups not compensated for by careful weighting will get you into trouble. A classical example actually occurred at a company where I once worked. The CEO had gotten one of those new-fangled PCs with Lotus 1-2-3 [early spreadsheet program] and used that to report on the profitability of the company. We had three divisions. for the Quarter in question the fiscal results were [profit in col.3]:
Div1: 10M -0.5M = -5%
Div2: 10M -1.0M = -10%
Div3: 1M +0.5M = +50%
Total: 12% profit, when it actually was a 1.6% loss.
Hint: calculate the average percentage profits as (-5-10+50)/3
you do not understand what is meant by grain & extent
Of course I do, how about: grain and extent are the upper and lower limits of data resolution. You can’t find patterns finer than the grain or coarser than the extent. But it is not relevant to the time series comparisons made in the Le Mouel paper. And, BTW, it is not helpful to stoop to the spatiotemporal cult’s jargon to explain something that simple.

Paul Vaughan
April 12, 2011 7:02 am

P. Solar, what is at issue is not what some abstractly-idealized time-filter does, but rather what the Earth does.

Paul Vaughan
April 12, 2011 7:10 am

Re: Agile Aspect
I have not performed any inverse transforms. I have provided a link to the data. If you run wavelet analyses, be sure to vary the extent (rather than just picking one extent as per conventional mainstream misguidance).

Paul Vaughan
April 12, 2011 7:20 am

Re: Richard Holle
“…Workin’ on a mystery,
– Tom Petty

lgl
April 12, 2011 7:29 am

Leif
Fred is trying to convince you that TSI is a measure of the rate of change of T. Unfortunately, he may have succeeded.
Fortunately he knows what heat capacity means.

April 12, 2011 7:40 am

lgl says:
April 12, 2011 at 7:29 am
Fortunately he knows what heat capacity means.
Show us what the evidence for that is.

A G Foster
April 12, 2011 8:30 am

don penman says:
April 12, 2011 at 12:16 am
wikipedia.org/wiki/Day
Hope that link works it say that the length of day noon to noon over the year is about + or- 7.9 seconds.
You and I may be off topic but the LOD you refer to is solar, not sidereal. It has to do with how long the earth faces the sun, and depends on which part of the orbit the earth is in. A Foucalt Pendulum, if it were accurate enough, would measure a sidereal day, not a solar day, since its movement is governed by an inertial frame of reference. The LOD used by JPL and the IERS is sidereal, not influenced by the annual revolution, and is measured with great accuracey, to within hundredths of milliseconds. It varies from fortnight to fortnight by 2ms, and from winter to summer by 2ms. The seven seconds you speak of is another matter entirely, referring to the length of visible day and night.

A G Foster
April 12, 2011 8:33 am

True, sidereal LOD is converted to a mean solar day equal to 86,400 seconds, but it remains an inertial frame of reference, and when astronomically measured (by star transit, or whatever) is initially sidereal.

lgl
April 12, 2011 9:10 am

Leif
Are you kidding? ΔT=q/C , where q is heat in joule an C is heat capacity. TSI is in J/s so to know what ΔT is you need to know for how long TSI is applied.
“TSI is a measure of the rate of change of T”, and not a measure of T.

April 12, 2011 9:41 am

lgl says:
April 12, 2011 at 9:10 am
Are you kidding? ΔT=q/C , where q is heat in joule an C is heat capacity.
“TSI is a measure of the rate of change of T”, and not a measure of T.

No, as T=100K is TSI=5.67 W/m2, T=1000K is TSI=56,700 W/m2. What comes in must go out. At the Sun’s temperature TSI is 62,970,000 W/m2. Since we are 215 solar radii away, at Earth that reduces to 62,970,000/215^2 = 1362 W/m2. Reduce that by a factor of four, subtract what is reflected, add the greenhouse effect from having an atmosphere you calculate T to be 289K. TSI is very much an measure of T.
TSI is in J/s so to know what ΔT is you need to know for how long TSI is applied.
TSI is applied all the time and has been for billions of years. That is ~200 J for some 4 billion years, for a ‘q’ of 100,000,000,000,000,000 J. Quite a ΔT you’ll get from that…

April 12, 2011 9:47 am

What struck me is that mainstream science is likely to reject the 11 solar cycle affecting the LOD.
What is not accounted for in climate and solar science is that the solar cycle is a cycle. It can create resonance and thus amplify its effects, well in excess of the calculated forcing.
Thus, one must be extremely careful in assuming a cyclical forcing is too small to cause the observed effect. A cyclical forcing can create effects significantly larger than might be naively assumed.
From Wikipedia:
“In physics, resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate with larger amplitude at some frequencies than at others. These are known as the system’s resonant frequencies. At these frequencies, even small periodic driving forces can produce large amplitude oscillations, because the system stores vibrational energy.”
“Resonance occurs widely in nature”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance

April 12, 2011 10:16 am

ferd berple says:
April 12, 2011 at 9:47 am
What is not accounted for in climate and solar science is that the solar cycle is a cycle. It can create resonance and thus amplify its effects, well in excess of the calculated forcing.
what you are missing [and I have pointed that to you before, but you are a slow learner, apparently] is that for resonance to occur, the forcing must occur at a natural frequency of the system, so the climate must already have an 11-yr cycle [due to other things] for the solar cycle to be creating resonance.

A G Foster
April 12, 2011 10:55 am

I always have a hard time navigating the IERS site, but here’s an easy reference for the tinkering novice–the latest LOD (up to 3900 days) with or without tidal variations (best to remove them for annual variations–not for stat analysis):
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/index.php?index=realtime&lang=en

lgl
April 12, 2011 10:59 am

Leif
What comes in must go out
No, that’s what heat capacity is about. Some of what comes in can remain in the ocean for centuries. On a very long time scale on avarage what comes in must go out, but not on a decadal scale.

April 12, 2011 11:05 am

@-Paul Vaughan says:
April 12, 2011 at 6:52 am
“I have provided a link to the data. The units are indicated. Take the first difference.”
Is there some reason you declined to simply state – ‘the graphs represent changes of a few milliseconds’ instead of this indirect hinting ?
So the periodic variation in the sidereal day length (not solar) is several hundred times LESS than the time a single frame appears in a movie.
Given the infinitesimally small energy variation this represents it must be swamped by several orders of magnitude by… well just about every other variable that affects the amount of energy the Earth receives. There is no possible physical process I can envisage that could causally connect such minute fluctuations with GCR flux or SOI changes.
Any correlation must be just that – a spurious correlation.
The quick and dirty way to check for that is to move one of the curves an arbitrary number of peaks laterally in either direction and see if the correlation changes significantly…. just tried it with the LOD/SOI graph, the match looks almost as good if you move the red curve forward three years and somewhat better if you move it back four…!

April 12, 2011 11:17 am

lgl says:
April 12, 2011 at 10:59 am
No, that’s what heat capacity is about. Some of what comes in can remain in the ocean for centuries. On a very long time scale on avarage what comes in must go out, but not on a decadal scale.
Explain that to Paul and Le Mouel who claim
1: no lags
2) direct correlation with cosmic rays and LOD’ [assumed to be climate related – although Paul never commits to anything]. http://www.leif.org/research/Courtillot-GRL-Cosmic-Rays.png or the discussion here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/tisdale-update-on-ocean-heat-content/
Some, a very small part, will stay deep for centuries, but most clearly will not.

April 12, 2011 11:19 am

izen says:
April 12, 2011 at 11:05 am
Any correlation must be just that – a spurious correlation.
that is what you get when the data is tortured by people disclaiming any physics.

lgl
April 12, 2011 11:54 am

Leif
No need to complicate this. ΔT=q/C says T is determined by J. TSI is J/s and has to be integrated to become J, very simple.
The GCR-LOD link is not a A causing B, it’s a case of C causing both A and B. The planets accelerate both the Sun and the Earth, changing the rotation of both. Probably the same with sun-climate link.

April 12, 2011 12:30 pm

lgl says:
April 12, 2011 at 11:54 am
No need to complicate this. ΔT=q/C says T is determined by J. TSI is J/s and has to be integrated to become J, very simple.
Too simple. As it is assumed that there is no heat losses. The oceans radiate to space all the time. Study Tisdale’s discussion to learn more: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/tisdale-update-on-ocean-heat-content/

April 12, 2011 12:57 pm

lgl says:
April 12, 2011 at 11:54 am
No need to complicate this. ΔT=q/C says T is determined by J. TSI is J/s and has to be integrated to become J, very simple.
so, integrated over a solar cycle, the temperature increases by 164,000C. This makes sense to you? If so, you should join Al Gore and his 2 million degree temperature of the Earth’s interior.

lgl
April 12, 2011 1:30 pm

Leif
No it doesn’t, but I never said TSI is the net energy transfer. Of course you have to subtract the loss but that still doesn’t mean 1 J in must result in 1 J out over the same time period. The loss is always delayed because of the heat capacity so temperature will always lag the energy input.

GeoChemist
April 12, 2011 1:31 pm

Dr. Svalgaard you are a man of immense patience it seems. Hope some of this sinks in around here so that there is less noise and more real science.

April 12, 2011 1:32 pm

“so the climate must already have an 11-yr cycle [due to other things] for the solar cycle to be creating resonance.”
There is no problem with this. The cyclic ocean currents (for example) operate on time scales similar to the solar cycle. Over time, those that are in phase with the solar cycle will tend to strengthen and persist and those that are out of phase will tend to weaken and die.
Over time this will encourage the formation of semi-permanent ocean currents that resonate with the solar cycle.
ENSO for example averages about 2x the frequency of the solar cycle. The longer ocean cycles also appear to be close integer multiples of the solar cycle, similar to the resonance we see in orbital cycles.

April 12, 2011 1:52 pm

“You can’t find patterns finer than the grain or coarser than the extent.”
Averaging temperature over 30 years to yield climate pretty much guarantees you are not going to find any 11 year solar cycles affecting the climate. Sampling theory says you probably will be limited to finding 60 year cycles or longer.
“you are a slow learner, apparently”
If you are in fact a scientist as you claim then there is no need for this. It makes it appear you are out of your depth when you resort to insult to try and win your point.

April 12, 2011 1:56 pm

lgl says:
April 12, 2011 at 1:30 pm
so temperature will always lag the energy input.
I guess this didn’t sink in:
“Explain that to Paul and Le Mouel who claim
1: no lags
2) direct correlation with cosmic rays and LOD’ [assumed to be climate related – although Paul never commits to anything]. http://www.leif.org/research/Courtillot-GRL-Cosmic-Rays.png or the discussion here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/tisdale-update-on-ocean-heat-content/
Some, a very small part, will stay deep for centuries, but most clearly will not.”
GeoChemist says:
April 12, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Dr. Svalgaard you are a man of immense patience it seems. Hope some of this sinks in around here so that there is less noise and more real science.
No such luck can be hoped for, I’m afraid.
ferd berple says:
April 12, 2011 at 1:32 pm
There is no problem with this. The cyclic ocean currents (for example) operate on time scales similar to the solar cycle. Over time, those that are in phase with the solar cycle will tend to strengthen and persist and those that are out of phase will tend to weaken and die.
You have this backwards. The natural cycles involve huge amounts of energy and will not weaken and die because of some gnat pissing on them. It will be the solar influence that either will or not will not have any effect if not in the right phase. Hence what we see is normally the dominant natural cycles. There is also the coincidence problem that since the rotation of the Earth changes over time [it slows down] we live in the special period where the natural cycles just happen to match that of the Sun.
cycles also appear to be close integer multiples of the solar cycle, similar to the resonance we see in orbital cycles.
In fact a solar cycle is a close integer multiple of the yearly cycle. Perhaps that explains the seasons. What do you say? Yet another cyclomania theory confirmed.
GeoChemist, see what I mean.

April 12, 2011 2:02 pm

ferd berple says:
April 12, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Averaging temperature over 30 years to yield climate pretty much guarantees you are not going to find any 11 year solar cycles affecting the climate.
People find cycles no matter what the averaging interval is…
“you are a slow learner, apparently”
If you are in fact a scientist as you claim then there is no need for this.

I have carefully explained this to you several times. It is, of course, possible that the fault is mine for not explaining it well enough, but then I would have expected you to ask for clarification. Ah, well, perhaps one should not project one’s own approach onto others.

lgl
April 12, 2011 2:39 pm

Leif
Give us one example of heating of water where temperature does not lag the energy input.

April 12, 2011 2:48 pm

lgl says:
April 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Give us one example of heating of water where temperature does not lag the energy input.
It is not about a lag, but about how big it is. Also, if I stop the energy input, how long time after that does the temperature keep going up?

April 12, 2011 3:34 pm

lgl says:
April 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Give us one example of heating of water where temperature does not lag the energy input.
The ARGO measurements of ocean temperatures with depth shows that the seasonal variation penetrates hundreds of meters deep with a lag of only a few months, so lags are small.
http://www.jcommops.org/FTPRoot/Argo/Doc/PO_Roem_2009_ArgoClim.pdf

George E. Smith
April 12, 2011 3:49 pm

“”””” A G Foster says:
April 11, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Lots of confusion around here. One poster confuses LOD=sunrise to sunset with sidereal LOD, equals one spin of the earth relative to a star. I’m surprised at George Smith, but I will try to enlighten him. When polar ice melts the earth changes shape: mass (ice) which was concentrated at the poles, with a short arm of inertia, is spread evenly around the ocean surface, averaging something like 63 degrees latitude. If the the mantel were totally elastic nothing would happen, but it isn’t. It is part elastic, part plastic, so there is an instantaneous change of shape (more oblate) followed by slow inelastic recovery (back to round, or oblate spheroid). The earth has been speeding up in recent years due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment from a combination of the Last Glacial Maximum and the Little Ice Age. “””””
I’ll have to think on that.
We are constantly told that when all the Greenland ice slips off into the ocean and melts that the Greenland land will rebound.
Presumably a similar thing happens if the Antarctic ice melts, and if the weight of all that ice stops pushing on Antarctica, so it rises, surely the equatorial radius of the earth will diminish.
If the ice caps are currently melting as we are assured by the NSIDC is happening, then your scenario would be happening, so the earth should be slowing down; yet you say it is speeding up.
It’s not clear to me you’ve made your case; but as I said, I will think on it.
Should not the earth be slowing down due to the recession of the moon, and the transfer of angular momentum from earth to moon ?

Paul Vaughan
April 12, 2011 9:05 pm

Leif, I’ve reviewed your comments and this is a note to confirm that we have different definitions of extent. Your example of Simpson’s Paradox is a different variety from the 2 specific types I have in mind. I take responsibility for not having enough time to explain that properly. It would take 10 to 1000 times more time than I can presently volunteer to make myself more clear on some of these points. I accept the responsibility.

Paul Vaughan
April 12, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: izen
You appear to be under the impression that some relations are controversial to the mainstream when in fact they are well accepted by the mainstream. See for example the literature links I listed above. Here’s another:
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
I appreciate your interest in these phenomena. Thanks sincerely for your contributions to the discussion.

Paul Vaughan
April 12, 2011 9:22 pm

Leif & lgl,
regarding what Leif wrote: “direct correlation with cosmic rays and LOD’”
This is a misunderstanding. This is not what is being claimed. Reading other comments here I can also see that most are still fixating on patterns in the mean and not realizing that the ~11 year pattern is an envelope. There are several other ways to demonstrate the pattern. Certainly we’re going to need more cooperation to understand one another better. I apologize for my constraint: shortage of time. It concerns me that some will misunderstand and misrepresent what they perceive as a “direct correlation with cosmic rays and LOD’”.

Paul Vaughan
April 12, 2011 9:36 pm

lgl, Leif is correct that I might have some issues with your conceptions of heat storage & lags. However, I’ve miles of data exploration to go before I will be anywhere near a point where I can appropriately articulate my suspicions about multidecadal variations.

Paul Vaughan
April 12, 2011 9:42 pm

A G Foster wrote, “See the more careful remarks of Walter Munk […]”

April 12, 2011 9:43 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
April 12, 2011 at 9:22 pm
fixating on patterns in the mean and not realizing that the ~11 year pattern is an envelope.
Except that is is not. You [and they] subtract all the other components and isolate the semiannual amplitude. This is not an envelope. It would be an envelope if the the semiannual variation would be a modulation of all the rest, but it isn’t. The semiannual variation rides on top of all the rest.
BTW, in mainstream solar physics we are extracting information about the solar interior by analyzing the superposition of millions of simultaneous standing waves all over the visible disk of the Sun, all with different lifetimes, frequencies and spatial extents. The ultimate in spatio-temporal integration over harmonics! Perhaps even better: solving the inverse problem: finding the patterns and the physics in the chaos. We find no reason to use the special jargon that newcomers to such analysis have obscured the methods and concepts with.

lgl
April 13, 2011 1:58 am

Leif
Also, if I stop the energy input, how long time after that does the temperature keep going up
The integral of energy input will peak when you stop it so that’s when temperature peaks. If you let the water cool down and repeat the process, you will see that the energy input curve leads the temperature curve by 1/4 period.
Same with the diurnal cycle: http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Webster_JC9.pdf fig.4 Temperature lags several hours.
The ARGO measurements of ocean temperatures with depth shows that the seasonal variation penetrates hundreds of meters deep with a lag of only a few months
or around 3 months, 1/4 of a period, to be more precise.
So that’s three cases of temperature lag, still missing one with no lag.
What is the magic cycle length where there suddenly is no lag any more?

Carla
April 13, 2011 5:40 am

George E. Smith says:
April 12, 2011 at 3:49 pm
“”””” A G Foster says:
April 11, 2011 at 8:54 pm
..The earth has been speeding up in recent years due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment from a combination of the Last Glacial Maximum and the Little Ice Age..
~
The melting of the ice and perma frost over that period has also helped to increase the Earth’s surface electric potential. Ice is not a good conductor..
~
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:38 pm
..closer your dipole is to the energy source ‘within’ your system, the more influence the solar electra magno reconnection regime, well have upon it.
The sun does influence the planets magnetically, but not the other way around. The planets and the interstellar medium do not influence the Sun via magnetic forces..
~
The Interstellar Magnetic Field shapes the heliosphere. That in itself is an influence upon it. The primary reconnection zone at the nose of the heliosphere is very simular to the reconnecton process we experience daily several times a time here at Earth. They think one of the differences in the reconnection processes is that the the sun is capable of more multiple reconnection regions. The primary being at the nose in the direction of solar orbit. Maybe that unravelling knot at the edge of the bubble was just a diminishing reconnection site.

A G Foster
April 13, 2011 6:36 am

George Smith says: “Should not the earth be slowing down due to the recession of the moon, and the transfer of angular momentum from earth to moon ?”
It depends on the time scale. We’re already speaking of scales that have little to do with PV’s contribution. Between secular and millenial scales you are correct, but we need to account for the current decadal scale–LOD has decreased in the last 40 years, and the simplest explanation is increased Antarctic snow. Gravity sensing is sufficiently inaccurate to allow for it, and core/mantle coupling is likewise poorly understood. The LOD decrease I speak of is beyond dispute: google “leap second” to see a Wikipedia chart of LOD since the introduction of the atomic clock. The causes are certainly not beyond dispute, but as I say, the simplest explanation is more snow, i.e., decreased melting. I’m a know nothing in the field but Walter Munk was one of the best–still alive but no longer current in the field. I suppose Richard Gross has replaced him, and I understand he is now working on the ice problem. –AGF

pochas
April 13, 2011 6:44 am

lgl says:
April 13, 2011 at 1:58 am
Leif:
“Also, if I stop the energy input, how long time after that does the temperature keep going up”
lgl:
“The integral of energy input will peak when you stop it so that’s when temperature peaks. ”
The actual timing of the peak depends on the system parameters (mass, heat capacity, rate of energy input). With a step change in energy input the system will approach a new equilibrium following an exponential decay and there will be no overshoot. But with a sinusoidal input, the system never reaches equilibrium so that the temperature continues to rise whenever the equilibrium temperature is higher than the system temperature, which is about 1/4 of the time. Thus the observed (and highly variable) time lags, which depend on the mass being affected. The earth’s oceans can be modeled (shudder) as series of masses corresponding to different layers with energy inputs decreasing with depth, and with the low mass, low heat capacity atmosphere on top. With such a system the observed lag times will vary with the frequency of the applied signal.

April 13, 2011 6:58 am

@-Paul Vaughan says:
April 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm
“You appear to be under the impression that some relations are controversial to the mainstream when in fact they are well accepted by the mainstream. See for example the literature links I listed above. Here’s another:”
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.
Ah.
That makes things clearer.
I see I need to offer my sincere apologies for the earlier skepticism I was expressing.
I had got things COMPLETELY inverted as to what you might be claiming here.
For some reason I had infered that there was some claim that the variation in day length had some causal influence on SOI, ENSO and Zonal winds.
That of course would not just be controversial but ridiculous.
But what is really the subject of the research is how the SOI, ENSO etc have a causal effect on the LOD. As other posters have indicated with the point about how ice lost from ice-caps changes the angular momentum, the movement of water and atmosphere over the surface has an impact on the angular momentum and therefore a major ENSO event will show up in a LOD fluctuation.
There is also the fact that as LOD is influenced by tidal effects from the Sun and Moon and ENSO, zonal winds etc are also to some extent modulated by the same tidal effects the same influence shows up in both.
Again, I am sorry I got things completely backwards and thought you were claiming a causal path from LOD to climate, rather than the other way round.

April 13, 2011 7:07 am

lgl says:
April 13, 2011 at 1:58 am
What is the magic cycle length where there suddenly is no lag any more?
According to the article we are discussing [Le Mouel et al.], a good choice would be 11 years as they find no lag between cosmic ray intensity [and a negative lag of one year for sunspots] and LOD’. Svendsmark and friends see no lag either at that period. Your own graphs of long-term changes do not show a 25 year lag between the 100-yr long period of solar activity and temperatures, and so on.
Carla says:
April 13, 2011 at 5:40 am
The Interstellar Magnetic Field shapes the heliosphere. That in itself is an influence upon it.
But not on the Sun itself, as such changes cannot travel upstream in the solar wind, anymore than a log floating down a fast-flowing river cannot alter the flow at the headwaters.

April 13, 2011 7:09 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 13, 2011 at 7:07 am
[and a negative lag of one year for sunspots]
I wanted to say ‘negligible’ lag…

Paul Vaughan
April 13, 2011 7:10 am

Leif, every time I find a new comment from you there are a dozen more misunderstandings to address. Looking at millions of things won’t help if you’ve got your fundamentals wrong. As I’ve indicated, you’re using a different definition of extent than the one to which I was introduced by the post-secondary education system (at both undergraduate & graduate level in different departments at different universities). You also appear in comments you address to Tim Channon to misunderstand that his synthesizer has isolated the 11 year pattern. It has not, but the more important misunderstanding is on the definition of extent. Looking at “the superposition of millions” isn’t necessarily going to improve your vision if you & your colleagues have overlooked something fundamental.

Paul Vaughan
April 13, 2011 7:21 am

Leif, bear in mind that daily LOD’ is itself a summary of higher frequency oscillations (and that there is currently unresolved spatial variability in the measurement of the higher frequency oscillations).

April 13, 2011 8:09 am

Paul Vaughan says:
April 13, 2011 at 7:10 am
As I’ve indicated, you’re using a different definition of extent than the one to which I was introduced by the post-secondary education system (at both undergraduate & graduate level in different departments at different universities).
A simple way to address that is to give your understanding of ‘extent’ right here, in your own words.
Looking at “the superposition of millions” isn’t necessarily going to improve your vision if you & your colleagues have overlooked something fundamental.
Tell us what that might be. The method we use works very well in extracting the amplitudes and phases of all these waves. We use those to calculate the sound speed [and bulk movements] in the solar interior.
Paul Vaughan says:
April 13, 2011 at 7:21 am
Leif, bear in mind that daily LOD’ is itself a summary of higher frequency oscillations (and that there is currently unresolved spatial variability in the measurement of the higher frequency oscillations).
And so is the solar record. At the very least one could ask that both records be analyzed the same way [another of of my criticisms of the Le Mouel paper], after all they are simple time series.

A G Foster
April 13, 2011 10:12 am

One minor point: changes in the distribution of mass of the earth alter its rotational inertia but not its angular momentum; the momentum can only be altered by tidal friction through displacement of the earth/moon and earth/sun, whence long term LOD increase. Internal mass movement with its associated altered inertia is both short term and reversible. Momentum loss due to tidal friction is irreversible.

lgl
April 13, 2011 1:23 pm

So now Le Mouel et al. would be a good choice. A few comments back it was not:
Third, the cosmic ray data compared with are not correct. They seem to have been manipulated to improve the fit
Regardless, it’s just absurd that basic physics should stop functioning beyond 11 years periods. And my own graphs of long-term changes do show that Temp~Integral of TSI http://virakkraft.com/TSI-integral-temp.png

April 13, 2011 1:54 pm

lgl says:
April 13, 2011 at 1:23 pm
So now Le Mouel et al. would be a good choice. A few comments back it was not
None of the claimed correlations, yours included, are good choices as they are all spurious. But since you are a believer, it might work for you. Are you saying that it didn’t?
Regardless, it’s just absurd that basic physics should stop functioning beyond 11 years periods.
It doesn’t, but the effects are so minute that they drown in the noise.
And my own graphs of long-term changes do show that Temp~Integral of TSI
With a 25-yr lag (1/4 of the 100-yr slow solar cycle) or a 550-yr lag [1/4 of the even slower Hallstatt cycle]?
All you show is that solar cycle mean wiggles can be cherry picked to match some T means [Loehle’s T are also ‘integrals’ of T], but only for a limited period after 1200AD. Ignoring [and not even daring to show] what happened in the 1200 year before that.

George E. Smith
April 13, 2011 2:42 pm

“”””” Carla says:
April 13, 2011 at 5:40 am
George E. Smith says:
April 12, 2011 at 3:49 pm “””””
Not sure just what it was I said, that you are referring to Carla. I found nothing following the above that was anything that I said.

George E. Smith
April 13, 2011 2:52 pm

“”””” A G Foster says:
April 13, 2011 at 6:36 am
George Smith says: “Should not the earth be slowing down due to the recession of the moon, and the transfer of angular momentum from earth to moon ?”
It depends on the time scale. “””””
One would infer from that statement, that you are implying that there are times scales at which the earth is speeding up (or at least NOT slowing down) “”””” due to the recession of the moon, and the transfer of angular momentum from earth to moon ?” “””””
What would be the mechanism for that ?
As to your original premise that the melting of polar (land) ice would slow down the rotation because of sea level rise in the equatorial regions, I am still thinking on that question. It does seem that the prompt response would be water addition to the equator, supporting your thesis. But would there not be a simultaneous elastic bounce of the land, raising the poles, and shrinking the equatorial diameter; followed by a slower inelastic continuation of that reshaping.
In any case; food for thought; and I thank you for that stimulus.

lgl
April 13, 2011 2:57 pm

Leif
Ok ΔT=q/C is not true and J=J/s
Try explaining your pseudo-science to guys working in the field and publishing. These for instance: http://www.wri.org/publication/content/7684 How many publications do you have on the oceans thermal inertia? But of course you know this too better than the specialists anyway.

George E. Smith
April 13, 2011 3:03 pm

“”””” lgl says:
April 13, 2011 at 1:58 am
Leif
Also, if I stop the energy input, how long time after that does the temperature keep going up
The integral of energy input will peak when you stop it so that’s when temperature peaks. If you let the water cool down and repeat the process, you will see that the energy input curve leads the temperature curve by 1/4 period.
Same with the diurnal cycle: http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Webster_JC9.pdf fig.4 Temperature lags several hours.
The ARGO measurements of ocean temperatures with depth shows that the seasonal variation penetrates hundreds of meters deep with a lag of only a few months
or around 3 months, 1/4 of a period, to be more precise. “””””
Interesting point lgl; that “around three months”.
As an old analog circuits practitioner, I can conjure up the flow of a current, through a resistive conduit to a capacitive (or capacious) storage element, having an RC time constant that is large compared to the 12 months cycle time of the driving signal frequency. One would then expect the “Voltage” on the Capacitor, being a measure (via the Capacitance) of the total stored charge (energy) to lag the current by exactly 90 degrees phase shift.
So I posit, that the “lag time” is not simply “about three months”; but is in fact precisely one quarter of a cycle.
So the about three months lag is NO accident.

April 13, 2011 5:38 pm

lgl says:
April 13, 2011 at 2:57 pm
How many publications do you have on the oceans thermal inertia? But of course you know this too better than the specialists anyway.
The specialists operate with temperature forcing of several degrees. As the solar activity induced ΔT is one to two orders of magnitude smaller, any effects will be correspondingly smaller, and unobservable. Try your wiggle matching on the full dataset and see for yourself. The issue is not the oceans thermal inertia, but the much too small solar forcing. For the ocean heat content to vary appreciably [the lag is a red herring], the energy input [your q] has to vary appreciably too, and it doesn’t. In your ΔT=q/C, for ΔT to be negative [which it is at times, right?], your q has to be negative. Perhaps you really mean ΔT=Δq/C. And since Δq ~ ΔTSI, you mean ΔT ~ ΔTSI, which is, in fact very nearly the case, as ΔT/T = 1/4 ΔTSI/TSI, where T and TSI can be regarded as constant compared to the Δs.

Tim Channon
April 13, 2011 6:56 pm

Given the bunfights I assume no-one is interested in an elephant.
Nothing to do with Paul Vaughan as such, I decided out of curiosity to produce a more comprehensive model etc. and reconstruct to LoD.
Anyone seriously interested I’ve made it available here. Dead horse watchers, nit pickers, the lazy, etc. do not bother. Some might find it educational.
http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/length-of-day-modelling-the-lunar-and-annual-effect/

Paul Vaughan
April 13, 2011 8:11 pm

A G Foster wrote, “[…] Richard Gross […] I understand he is now working on the ice problem.”
Excellent news. Thanks for sharing.

Paul Vaughan
April 13, 2011 8:49 pm

Tim Channon wrote, “I decided out of curiosity to produce a more comprehensive model etc. and reconstruct to LoD. […] http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/length-of-day-modelling-the-lunar-and-annual-effect/
Thanks for sharing that Tim. What did you find most noteworthy &/or interesting about your results? And did the exercise arouse any noteworthy curiosities tempting further exploration?

Paul Vaughan
April 13, 2011 9:20 pm

izen wrote,
“I had got things COMPLETELY inverted as to what you might be claiming here.
For some reason I had infered that there was some claim that the variation in day length had some causal influence on SOI, ENSO and Zonal winds. […] thought you were claiming a causal path from LOD to climate, rather than the other way round.”

I get that reaction a lot and I find the reaction itself quite interesting.
The sign of the phase relationship between interannual SOI & interannual LOD is not static as many seem to think. SOI is just a part of AAM (a big part, but certainly not the only part). In studying interannual phase relations of various climate indices, the interesting thing is the nonrandom distribution of phase differences. There is a preference for co-phasing or anti-phasing (with switching). Loosely speaking, this is something like the eddies on opposite sides of a global jet swirling in opposite directions (…and then the position of the jet moves).
I haven’t presented related results here, but they are a much bigger topic than the current post. There is coherence with the rate of change of solar variables. The ‘messy’ aspect of the 11 year envelope we’ve been discussing relates to these changes. I’ve audited many claims about cycles since November 2007 and pursued many curiosities arising along the way; most of them run into dead ends of one form or another, but the ones I describe in this comment keep getting cleaner as I look more carefully (an activity for which I no longer have much time, unfortunately).

April 13, 2011 10:12 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
April 13, 2011 at 9:20 pm
I’ve audited many claims about cycles since November 2007 and pursued many curiosities arising along the way; most of them run into dead ends of one form or another
If you audit 20 claims, just by chance you’ll find one that looks significant at the 95% level [without really being it]… It looks like you just found yours.

lgl
April 14, 2011 4:48 am

George
Right, in an ‘ideal’ setting it will be precisely one quarter of a cycle. In real world there are losses so it will always be a little less than 1/4. Temp will peak when the net energy transfer goes below average and not when the solar input goes below average.

lgl
April 14, 2011 5:10 am

Leif
Δq ~ ΔTSI
No, J still isn’t J/s
For the ocean heat content to vary appreciably, the energy input has to vary appreciably too
No, that’s the nice thing with integrals. With an 0.1W/m2 imbalance for 400 years q=6.3*10^23 J I’d call that appreciably.

April 14, 2011 5:13 am

George E. Smith April 13, 2011 at 3:03 pm
George,
You wrote:-

As to your original premise that the melting of polar (land) ice would slow down the rotation because of sea level rise in the equatorial regions, I am still thinking on that question. It does seem that the prompt response would be water addition to the equator, supporting your thesis. But would there not be a simultaneous elastic bounce of the land, raising the poles, and shrinking the equatorial diameter; followed by a slower inelastic continuation of that reshaping.

Here is a paper by Walcott, R. I. (1973) Structure of the Earth from Glacio-Isostatic Rebound; Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 1, pp15-37
The question you pose of “simultaneous elastic bounce of the land” is addressed by these statements.

The vertical movements that occurred during retreat of the ice sheets in late glacial time are very much more complex than during postglacial time. One particular deformation effect of considerable significance was a downward flexure of the earth’s surface adjacent to the ice edge. In North America this depression had a width of 300-400 km and an amplitude of about 150 m, and followed the retreat of the ice edge. The depression is interpreted as the near-equilibrium flexure of the lithosphere by the ice load. (p22).

However the deformation of the solid Earth by ice sheet loading is so extensive that both the elastic crust and plastic mantle are involved. Continental ice sheet melting and water redistribution to the oceans resulting in a volumetric change in sea-level at the equator is virtually instantaneous compared to the process of land level rise due to plastic rebound of the mantle following unloading.
See the post glacial uplift graph on p17 where the ongoing 7,000 year uplift of the rocks that supported the former ice sheets is recorded.
In his discussion of the gravitational data (p20) Walcott comments that estimates of the remaining rebound are 300m for the Laurentide & 120m for Fennoscandinavia.
Clearly the regional land surface adjustment following ice sheet melting is a slow long-term process with significant vertical effect.

Paul Vaughan
April 14, 2011 5:26 am

Leif Svalgaard wrote, “If you audit 20 claims, just by chance you’ll find one that looks significant at the 95% level [without really being it]… It looks like you just found yours.”
You’re misleading people by assuming independence where none exists. Remember, I taught stats for years. You can’t fool me on this (but it seems you may be fooling yourself…)

Paul Vaughan
April 14, 2011 6:38 am

Leif, you seem to be using the word extent the way many people use the word global (i.e. to refer to the whole series).
Here’s what I wrote above:
“Extent is a term which concisely encompasses the properties of spatiotemporal summary windows.”
There are bodies of literature, books, courses, etc. on the variation of pattern measures with variations in the properties of spatiotemporal summary windows.
Your choice to label people pursuing such legitimate work as a “cult” was in poor taste.
Let’s get this nonsense over with.
While I don’t have time to write an essay or short course for you, I can ask a pointed question to diagnose your deficiency. (If you were not so defiant & intransigent [“learning resistant” as you would say] – and if I had more time – I might be more patient, but under the circumstances I need to be practical…)
1) If you average pressure over some region of the world – and then you move the spatial window to another region while making it a different shape & size, will you necessarily get the same summary?
2) If you do a wavelet analysis with Morlet 2pi and then do the same analysis with Morlet 10pi, will you necessarily get the same summaries?
These are just 2 off-the-cuff examples with the answer “no”.
Elaborating succinctly is challenging (but maybe we are identifying here an important challenge for educators …discussion generally goes on for hours when profs introduce these concepts to newcomers)
In landscape ecology, a problem field researchers were having was that they were getting COMPLETELY different results depending on what summary windows they used (Simpson’s Paradox). This is no trivial matter warranting rude labeling of serious researchers – doing legitimate & IMPORTANT research – as a “cult” [Leif Svalgaard’s term].
Depending on the nature of the spatiotemporal heterogeneity, there can be abrupt scale breaks as one adjusts windowing parameters. Many researchers have never taken time to think about this carefully, in part perhaps because formal education on the subject remains in its infancy, still working its way in from the periphery on the mainstream radar.
I suggest taking some time to run systematic investigations, paying attention to how scale-dependent (window scale, to clarify) integration over harmonics (using a variety of kernels) affects summaries.
For those playing around with GIS (Geographic Information Systems), systematically investigate how changes of summary window sizes & shapes change pattern summary. (This exercise should give some idea of the importance of the main point raised by Schwing, Jiang, & Mendelssohn (2003).)

April 14, 2011 7:54 am

Paul Vaughan says:
April 14, 2011 at 5:26 am
Leif Svalgaard wrote, “If you audit 20 claims, just by chance you’ll find one that looks significant at the 95% level [without really being it]… It looks like you just found yours.”
You’re misleading people by assuming independence where none exists. Remember, I taught stats for years. You can’t fool me on this (but it seems you may be fooling yourself…)

If you always look at many variations of the same thing [search for your lost car keys under the lamp post] then you have not really ‘audited’ many relationships.
Paul Vaughan says:
April 14, 2011 at 6:38 am
“Extent is a term which concisely encompasses the properties of spatiotemporal summary windows.”
That is just mumbo-jumbo.
Your choice to label people pursuing such legitimate work as a “cult” was in poor taste.
A cult implies a group which is a minority in a given society, i.e. not part of the mainstream which you so vehemently deride for not embracing the spatio-temporal jargon and conceptual box.
1) If you average pressure over some region of the world – and then you move the spatial window to another region while making it a different shape & size, will you necessarily get the same summary?
As you say, “no”, but that is such a triviality that no self-respecting scientist [that I know of] would ever do such a silly thing.
Depending on the nature of the spatiotemporal heterogeneity, there can be abrupt scale breaks as one adjusts windowing parameters.
Again self-evident, and at least in the physical sciences this never is a problem as everybody knows this. This is a non-issue. Now, for economists, social ‘sciences’, and such, there may be problems, but you don’t solve that problem by mumbo-jumbo, but by simple examples you feed the students up front. This is not rocket science.

April 14, 2011 8:00 am

lgl says:
April 14, 2011 at 5:10 am
No, that’s the nice thing with integrals. With an 0.1W/m2 imbalance for 400 years q=6.3*10^23 J I’d call that appreciably.
And over 4 billion years it is even worse than we thought: 6.3*10^30 J. You cannot ignore the losses.

April 14, 2011 8:13 am

lgl says:
April 14, 2011 at 5:10 am
With an 0.1W/m2 imbalance for 400 years q=6.3*10^23 J I’d call that appreciably.
Schwartz has a nice analysis of the energy balance:
http://folk.uio.no/clausn/APPC/Stephen_Schwartz.pdf
He finds a time constant of the order of a decade.
It doesn’t matter how large the ‘imbalance’ is. The temperature will not continue to rise.

A G Foster
April 14, 2011 9:13 am

In further response to G Smith at 2:52 (thankyou Mr. Mulholland):
Even when the earth is speeding up with a loss of rotational inertia, it is losing angular momentum through an entirely separate mechanism. That is, there is always tidal friction and loss of kinetic energy, but the angular momentum can only be transferred to the moon, or the earth/sun. In other words, while the earth speeds up, say from full moon to half moon or when post glacial rebound overtakes melting (both strictly terrestrial processes), it is still losing angular momentum to the moon. Again, the internal process are reversible–there is no change in angular momentum where the sun and moon are not involved. But the kinetic energy that was converted to heat will never be converted back to mechanical potential, nor will the moon ever get any closer.
Tidal friction from the mantle depends mainly on the rate of earth rotation (constant except over the aeons), while that from the seas depends on coastal configuration: continental drift and some slight influence from sea level and ice formation–not really quantifiable. It’s fairly constant and its average is well known–we only have to measure the rate of the moon’s recession by laser ranging. Before that ancient eclipses were used to calculate (negative) acceleration. But since the advent of the atomic clock we have been in a period of no average deceleration–slight acceleration, and this must be explained through terrestrial processes. Atmospheric coupling can’t account for more than a few years’ worth; core/mantle coupling patterns may have been identified but of course cannot be expected to permanently offset tidal friction, or to have recently kicked in to do the same. Again, ice balance is the prime suspect, and odds are high that polar ice is increasing. If sea level is really rising it must be due to thermal expansion.
From my limited perspective two of the strongest arguments against AGW are the LOD problem and the fact that only ice sheet extension (hence, temperature) explains the correlation between Milankovitch Cycles and CO2 fluctuations in the ice cores; that is, T forces CO2 or both are forced in tandem by ice sheet extension.

George E. Smith
April 14, 2011 10:19 am

“”””” lgl says:
April 14, 2011 at 4:48 am
George
Right, in an ‘ideal’ setting it will be precisely one quarter of a cycle. In real world there are losses so it will always be a little less than 1/4. Temp will peak when the net energy transfer goes below average and not when the solar input goes below average. “””””
Sure lgl, I was not of course being critical of your “waffling” around the about three months thing; simply pointing out that there was a good model reason to expect it to be three months or a quarter cycle. And for all the reasons you mentioned, one wouldn’t be surprised to see the delay time vary somewhat, since the “circuit diagram” parameters, are themsleves not fixed.
But is not the roughly 1/4 year phase lag, a good indication that the solar input/ocean storage system, is a pretty damn good picture of what is going on with the vast majority of the thermal energy in the system. So a lot of these “other” perturbations are lttle more than a scrawny Mexican rat dog nipping at ones trouser cuffs.

A G Foster
April 14, 2011 10:41 am

I can see I will get into trouble by calling any tidal action a “strictly terrestrial process,” so I’d better explain myself. True, the moon is causing the fortnightly zonal tides, and all tides (along with the sun), but those tides are 99.99% or thereabouts reversible–frictionless–the earth recovers its spin speed when the tide goes down. Wouldn’t that pull the moon back in? That question is beyond my pay scale, but here are a few considerations: it is the longitudinal component of the zonal (north/south, fortnightly) tides that torques the moon; diurnal tides are more effective since they are both diurnal and primarily longitudinal. While part of the tidal energy is dissipated on the coasts, another part turns into the circumpolar current and is ultimitely dissipated on the ocean floor, and that current could be reduced or eliminated if the Strait of Magellan froze deep, reducing the rate of deceleration and allowing the core to catch up a little (in its deceleration). Then when the strait melted braking torque from the core would be reduced, but braking torque from the polar current would return to normal. It will be a while before any such mechanisms are detected, and this applies to irreversible mantle braking. The reversible effect of melting ice on LOD would also be transmitted to the core, so that the core/mantle torque varies according to the LOD and climate history. Electromagnetic core/mantle coupling may be influenced by the sun.
I don’t think the moon is affected by reversible tidal action–the earth’s center of gravity doesn’t move with tides. It is the constant tidal bulge which torques the moon, and a tiny part of that bulge is converted in the ocean to currents which flow past land. But I’m in over my head. –AGF

lgl
April 14, 2011 11:15 am

Leif
And over 4 billion years it is even worse than we thought: 6.3*10^30 J
No, the 6.3*10^23 J will be lost the next 400 years when the forcing is -0.1 W/m2, but I agree 400 years is probably long enough for most of the ocean to reach equilibrium so my number is to high.
Schwartz has a nice analysis of the energy balance
Good, then you realize TSI is not a measure of T “C*dT/dt=dH/dt=Q-E”
and “Time constant τ varies linearly with heat capacity”
The longer cycles will mix more of the ocean, thus larger heat capacity and larger time constant. This paper confirms my main points.

April 14, 2011 11:42 am

lgl says:
April 14, 2011 at 11:15 am
Good, then you realize TSI is not a measure of T “C*dT/dt=dH/dt=Q-E”
and “Time constant τ varies linearly with heat capacity”
The longer cycles will mix more of the ocean, thus larger heat capacity and larger time constant. This paper confirms my main points.

I don’t think so. The forcing is dTSI. dT=q/C means that your q is really a dq as I don’t think the total energy input from the Sun is only 0.1 W/m2, more like 1360 W/m2. So we have dT ~ dq ~ dTSI, which is what I have been saying all along [dT/T= 1/4 dTSI/TSI, remember]. You mistake is to forget that the q is actually a dq.
In any event the time constant seems to be ~10 years, not 1/4 of [2*400] years. Do me a favor and repeat your plot using all 2000 years.

Agile Aspect
April 14, 2011 11:45 am

ferd berple says:
April 12, 2011 at 1:32 pm
ENSO for example averages about 2x the frequency of the solar cycle. The longer ocean cycles also appear to be close integer multiples of the solar cycle, similar to the resonance we see in orbital cycles.
—————————————————-;
Which is the Hale cycle or the rotation of the center of mass of Sun.

Agile Aspect
April 14, 2011 12:06 pm

A G Foster says:
April 12, 2011 at 10:55 am
I always have a hard time navigating the IERS site, but here’s an easy reference for the tinkering novice–the latest LOD (up to 3900 days) with or without tidal variations (best to remove them for annual variations–not for stat analysis)
—————————————————————————————————-;
Great – I’ll take a look. Thanks for posting the URL.

A G Foster
April 14, 2011 2:05 pm

Make that 4900 days. Have fun.

A G Foster
April 14, 2011 2:16 pm

Backtracking here, I believe the effect of precession on core mantle coupling would be many orders of magnitude greater than the miniscule variation in LOD. Like I said, I’m in over my head.

lgl
April 14, 2011 2:26 pm

Leif
The example of 0.1 W/m2 was net forcing, not TSI.
So we have dT ~ dq
In the real world we have C*dT ~ dq
In any event the time constant seems to be ~10 years
The Schwartz paper says: “The time constant of Earth’s climate system is 5 ± 1 years
OR 16 ± 3 years” My guess is when they do not detrend they get the contribution from the longer cycle and ends up with 16 years. But back to 1880 still isn’t long enough to get the right picture. Secondly, time constant is not the same as time lag. I agree we will not see a 200 years lag on a 800 years cycle. The heat capacity is big but not that big.
There is no point plotting 1000 years of inaccurate data. The troughs are often caused by volcanoes and the timing of those pre-1000 is very uncertain so impossible to make the right adjustment.

April 14, 2011 2:50 pm

lgl says:
April 14, 2011 at 2:26 pm
So we have dT ~ dq
In the real world we have C*dT ~ dq

But C does not vary much so we are back to dT ~ dq, and thus dT ~ dTSI.
There is no point plotting 1000 years of inaccurate data. The troughs are often caused by volcanoes and the timing of those pre-1000 is very uncertain so impossible to make the right adjustment.
The trough in 1810 was very likely caused by volcanoes [perhaps also around 1700]. The timing is pretty good. 14C and 10Be agree pretty well [and they have different timing issues]. See slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Of course, if your definition of bad data is that data that don’t fit are bad, then you may have a point, otherwise not. Please don’t chicken out, but make that plot [you can already see the result on slide 20] so you can see for yourself.

George E. Smith
April 14, 2011 2:50 pm

“””””” A G Foster says:
April 14, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Backtracking here, I believe the effect of precession on core mantle coupling would be many orders of magnitude greater than the miniscule variation in LOD. Like I said, I’m in over my head. “””””
Well I had one of those Tiger Woods moments; and ended up busting my number 3 sand stick over my knees, after thinking about your Antarctic melt water situation.
I guess I should have seen that having the ice slip off the beach in Antarctica, and melt at sea level was peanuts compared to moving most of it up past Australia, to where it can really rotate.
So I’m going to just sit over here in the corner, with the dunce hat on, and spend a while whittling me a new sand stick; well hell that other one had got a little blunt anyway.
Sometimes it helps to draw a little 1000 word picture, and then you can see what matters, and what doesn’t.
But note that I did say that it was an elastic bounce that promptly followed the exit of the ice water; and I realize the plastic readjustment would take a few days; maybe more.
And Phillip Mulholland’s dissertation was very instructive too. Well I come here to learn.

April 14, 2011 4:30 pm

George E. Smith April 14, 2011 at 2:50 pm
George,
Your observation on the significance of the instantaneous elastic response had never occurred to me, so answering your question forced me to learn too.
Win win I say.

Paul Vaughan
April 14, 2011 8:03 pm

Leif Svalgaard wrote, “by simple examples you feed the students up front.”
Exactly. (Just need more time.)

April 14, 2011 9:25 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
April 14, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Leif Svalgaard wrote, “by simple examples you feed the students up front.”
Exactly. (Just need more time.)

Time is something you ‘make’ according to your priorities. Often people spend more time explaining that they don’t have enough time than it takes to do what they say they don’t have time for…

lgl
April 15, 2011 3:05 am

Leif
But C does not vary much so we are back to dT ~ dq, and thus dT ~ dTSI
No we are not, we are back to C*dT/dt=dH/dt=Q-E and it does not say d(Q-E) so you are wrong. It says a constant positive forcing will increase the heat content and temperature. A short cycle will mostly mix the top 300 m where C is 6.5 (Schwartz), a long cycle will mix all the ocean with a C of 14 (or 17). In the first case temp will rise faster (short lag) than in the latter (long lag). This is getting boring. Why don’t we switch to F=ma and discuss how many ds and ~s are hidden in there.
I ment the timing (guess dating is the right word) of volcanoes, not solar. Look at the link I gave you. And newer temperature data is better that older data. That’s just a fact and not my ‘definition’.

April 15, 2011 4:17 am

lgl says:
April 15, 2011 at 3:05 am
“But C does not vary much so we are back to dT ~ dq, and thus dT ~ dTSI”
No we are not, we are back to C*dT/dt=dH/dt=Q-E and it does not say d(Q-E)

Q is the energy supplied over a certain time, hence is actually dQ.
I meant the timing (guess dating is the right word) of volcanoes, not solar. Look at the link I gave you. And newer temperature data is better that older data.
Timing of volcanoes is actually much better than timing of solar changes. Both written records and physical evidence show that, e.g. Vesuvius :
“Mount Vesuvius has erupted many times. The famous eruption in 79 AD was preceded by numerous others in prehistory, including at least three significantly larger ones, the best known being the Avellino eruption around 1800 BC which engulfed several Bronze Age settlements. Since 79 AD, the volcano has also erupted repeatedly, in 172, 203, 222, possibly 303, 379, 472, 512, 536, 685, 787, around 860, around 900, 968, 991, 999, 1006, 1037, 1049, around 1073, 1139, 1150, and there may have been eruptions in 1270, 1347, and 1500.[14] The volcano erupted again in 1631, six times in the 18th century, eight times in the 19th century (notably in 1872), and in 1906, 1929, and 1944. There has been no eruption since 1944, and none of the post-79 eruptions were as large or destructive.”

Ulric Lyons
April 15, 2011 6:28 am

“…but newcomers taking a preliminary look at daily resolution LOD’ are more likely to…”
See it as curious, and swiftly move on to something meaningful, as LOD variations do not force or drive anything.

Paul Vaughan
April 15, 2011 6:39 am

Tim Channon wrote, “[…] I assume no-one is interested in an elephant.”

“Even on a cloudy day,
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun.”
– Cage the Elephant.

lgl
April 15, 2011 8:29 am

Leif
Q is J/s. It isn’t actually something else just because you like that better. It equals dH/dt. What’s that actually then? The second derivative of heat content?
Look at the accuracy here http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm the large eruptions around year 1000 for instance. +/-75, +/-100 and so on.

don penman
April 15, 2011 8:39 am

I think that the observed length of day is more real than the lod measured by radio telescopes using distant quasars,the fact that the Earths orbit is elliptical and that the Earth is inclined to the rotation gives us real changes here on Earth(just because something is more accurate does not mean more relevant).Why the precise rotation of the Earth varies I could speculate though not in the complicated statistical way used here.I think that statistical speculation is replacing real science in climate science ,because it is impossible to to experimentally test any theory apparently, then everything is judged on how clever your computer models are.

April 15, 2011 9:27 am

lgl says:
April 15, 2011 at 8:29 am
Q is J/s.
So is TSI, but in both cases, the dT is for that expected for a further increase [or decrease] from the level T is already at, due to Q or TSI in the past, so the relevant Q or TSI is the delta over those.
Look at the accuracy here http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm the large eruptions around year 1000 for instance. +/-75, +/-100 and so on.
Some of the biggest have pretty good dating [e.g. Vesuvius, and the Japanese ones] , and the temperature depends not only on volcanoes. Loehle’s reconstruction [see his discussion] has better timing than 100 years, and in any case should still show the larger Grand Minina/Maxima signals if they exist. You reluctance to do the analysis is not good. You have spent more time trying to avoid it than it would take to do it.

lgl
April 16, 2011 1:35 am

Leif
“So is TSI” exactly, and J/s will tell how fast temperature is increasing. What you are saying is you can find the temperature of the water in a kettle just by looking at the wattage input. You are right only after equilibrium is reached and in the case of the ocean that is centuries, for a small imbalance. I don’t have more time for this nonsense, all this plotting you know 🙂

Agile Aspect
April 19, 2011 2:14 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 14, 2011 at 8:13 am
Schwartz has a nice analysis of the energy balance:
http://folk.uio.no/clausn/APPC/Stephen_Schwartz.pdf
—————————————————;
Now that my taxes are out of the way, I had little time to look at the above PDF but it appears this thread has died.
The author starts with a physical model where the heat source is on the wrong side of the water/air interface – which implies the internal heat of the earth is driving the Earth’s climate to the extent of causing the oceans to boil at constant temperature.
The model is useless when looking at the Earth’s climate.
Then on page 16, after the author has progressed from making a cup of tea to the Earth’s climate, states the following equations
C*dT_s/dt=Q-E
C*dT_s/dt=gamma*J-espilson*sigma*T^4_s
where
Q is absorbed solar energy (Joules)
E is the emitted longwave flux (Watts/m^2)
However, since the difference term in the first equation is dimensionally incorrect, it’s nonsense.
Re-writing the second equation in an attempt to try and make some sense of it as
C*dT_average=gamma*J-espilson*sigma*T^4_average
since the Stefan-Boltzmann (the integral of the Planck radiation law) predicts an average temperature for a black body (one doesn’t get to choose the temperature.)
Note, it’s not possible to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann to any portion of the atmosphere since gas molecules don’t emit approximately continuous radiation, i.e., they are *not* black body radiators. Their radiation is discrete and extremely narrow band. And since atmospheric gases play a vital role in the Earth’s climate system, ignoring them be confusing masterbation with sex.
But I digress.
The average temperature calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the Earth-atomsphere system is roughly -10C at 5km. Assuming J was measured at the top of the troposphere, in order to compare the Stefan-Boltzmann prediction to experimental measurements – which again is the only interpretation of the author’s equations which make any sense – one needs to add a thermodynamic piece to the above equation based on the equations of state (since the top of the troposphere is roughly 10 km.)
Also, note, one can equate the differences in power to anything they like but if C is set to C=1 in the above equation, then the temperature scale needs to be re-scaled to the “Swartz temperature scale”.

April 19, 2011 2:33 pm

Agile Aspect says:
April 19, 2011 at 2:14 pm
C*dT_s/dt=Q-E
C*dT_s/dt=gamma*J-espilson*sigma*T^4_s
where
Q is absorbed solar energy (Joules)
E is the emitted longwave flux (Watts/m^2)
However, since the difference term in the first equation is dimensionally incorrect, it’s nonsense.

Nonsense is spouted all the time on this blog. E.g.
lgl says:
April 15, 2011 at 8:29 am
“Q is J/s.”
Note, it’s not possible to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann to any portion of the atmosphere since gas molecules don’t emit approximately continuous radiation, i.e., they are *not* black body radiators.
A single molecule is not, but an aggregate can be. E.g. the Sun is a gas and does emit ‘approximately continuous radiation’. The condition of the medium has to be specified correctly and precisely to use the various ‘laws’. And it is not the atmosphere that radiates into space, but the opaque surface.

lgl
April 25, 2011 8:43 am

Agile Aspect
However, since the difference term in the first equation is dimensionally incorrect, it’s nonsense.
It’s only dimensionally incorrect after you made it incorrect. Q=gamma*J, where gamma is planetary albedo and J is 1/4 TSI, which is W/m2. Also Q=dH/dt, which of course is in J/s, also known as W. And then you have to choose calculation /m2 or the globe in total.

lgl
April 25, 2011 8:48 am

Leif
And it is not the atmosphere that radiates into space, but the opaque surface
It’s both.