Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc. – October 2011
This post has no introduction, per the author’s request, start with the graphs. A PDF of a more complete paper is linked at the end. – Anthony
Motivation
One purpose of this article is to direct the attention of sensible observers to a serious oversight in the mainstream quest for understanding of multidecadal solar-terrestrial relations (section I).
Another is to ask the community to start thinking carefully about what can be learned from rotating multivariate lunisolar spatiotemporal phase relations shared by Earth Orientation Parameters (EOP) and terrestrial climate records, while seizing the same opportunity to highlight critical omissions in “classic” works on alleged solar-barycentric terrestrial influences (section II).
These data exploration notes are volunteered in support of ongoing publicly collaborative multidisciplinary research.
Audience
The diverse audiences addressed might not be the ones preferred by some readers. Addressing rotates priority across a spectrum of functional numeracy & orientation.
Format
Volunteer time & resources are limited, so presentation is skeletal & informal.
Conclusion
The majority of recent multidecadal terrestrial variability is due to natural spatiotemporal aliasing of differential solar pulse-position by terrestrial topology over basic terrestrial cycles including the year.
It’s not the deviation of solar cycle frequency from average solar cycle frequency that’s of practical significance from a terrestrial perspective. Earth, the receiver, has no clock locked to the average solar cycle length, so the pulse-position modulation is differential.
These observations depend on neither the success nor failure of CERN’s CLOUD experiment.
Details
Vaughan, P.L. (2011). Shifting Sun-Earth-Moon Harmonies, Beats, & Biases.
Vaughn Sun-Earth-Moon Harmonies Beats Biases (1MB 25pp PDF)
Best Regards to All,
Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc.
Well, that’s a relief. For a while I was getting worried about rotating multivariate lunisolar spatiotemporal phase relations.
The pdf file may be a great piece of work – I’ll never know. The introduction was an awful load of jargon and multi-syllable gibberish.
Wiggle matching, never my favorite. This is, on the other hand, wiggle matching over a long term. Morlets don’t thrill me, I’m not 100% sure how or why they are derived, what mathematical jiggery-pokery is involved in them, nor what they do to confidence intervals and the like. I always associate morlets with “The Time Machine.” It’s common to run data through a “Ronco Math-o-Matic” and get something out the other end that looks nifty but has little significance. Let’s see if this has legs. With a 155 year data span, I sure hope so. Only 2.5 major cycles, but still might be useful.
Paul;
This site is not exclusively or even dominantly the domain of what ever discipline you article relates to. Your paper is full of labels and acronms which you do not define nor do you seem to explain what the whole thing is about. Phases such as “rotating multivariate lunisolar spatiotemporal phase relations” would make any buzz phrase generator proud.
Regrettably, what I am suggesting is that though your article may be very worthwhile it is largely incomprehensible (at least to me). If you want to promote discussion and thought please give more explanation and use simpler language.
I am hoping this is a high level introduction to a more detailed piece by piece discussion. As presented, it makes little sense to me. It is sort of like being hit by a seven course Italian dinner shot out of a cannon at me. I hope the plan is to go back and look at each course as it was loaded into that cannon.
Gotta agree with the previous posters. I have no information in this that I can make an informed decision on. The graphs have no explantion of the acronyms. I don’t have the raw data. I don’t have the methodolgy.
Fail, until I get some coherent explanations. Its gibberish right now.
rotating multivariate lunisolar spatiotemporal phase relations
mumbo-jumbo
I have never seen, before now, a more complete “paper” of pure gibberish.
I have never seen, before now, such a butchering of the english language.
I know what to do with this “paper” get it published in E&E.
An infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriter and what do you get?
Contrarian blog pseudoscience.
.
As dense as this article is; I wouldn’t mind seeing articles on orientation parameters, tidal variations in length-of-day, variations in atmospheric angular momentum, etc. and their relationship sto climate variation, expressed in intelligible terms for the educated layman.
Anthony do you have this in English? Google translate doesn’t seem to work on it.
does addressing also rotate priority across a spectrum of grammatical & vocabulary?
Clear simple language is the best way to communicate a complex idea. Sadly many people seem to think that scientific publication requires you to use “BIG WORDS” to be taken seriously.
There are no doubt lots of ‘beats’ and ‘resonances’ in the climate system from a multitude of internal system factors but what is the point of trying to isolate them all ?
I can’t even tell whether Paul has successfully done so because the language is so personal to him that I cannot follow the logic.
What we want to know is whether the composite outcome which presumably resulted in the climate swings from MWP to LIA to date has been in any significant manner disrupted by human activity.
Does this article help ?
Paul-
“rotating multivariate lunisolar spatiotemporal phase relations”?
Did you mean-
“statistical analysis involving two or more variable quantities, including both time and space factors, and based upon sequences of Chinese calendars, in search of periodic variations”
Or am I missing something blindingly simple here?
CQ CQ CQ Willis Eschenbach. Dear OM, we need your help at QTH WUWT. Heavy interference in communication between QTH sun – earth – moon and readeres at QTH WUWT. TX.
For the record, I asked for an introduction and was told the post is “as is”. While I consider that unfortunate, perhaps the author will take note of the issues raised above and clarify the terms and the method. Reading the PDF reveals a bit more info, and I suggest people do that.
crosspatch says:
October 15, 2011 at 2:19 pm
I am hoping this is a high level introduction to a more detailed piece by piece discussion. As presented, it makes little sense to me. It is sort of like being hit by a seven course Italian dinner shot out of a cannon at me. I hope the plan is to go back and look at each course as it was loaded into that cannon.
It is sort of like being hit by a seven course Italian dinner shot out of a cannon at me.
Stop saying that about me, I’ve never been shot at by a seven course Italian dinner out of a cannon, but it makes little sense to me is correct. 😆
Aw, you guys. Can’t you handle a simple concept like “rotating multivariate lunisolar spatiotemporal phase relations”?
Look at it another way. This is simply a delta of the moving average of least-squares, derived from the spatio/temporal interface of the SFA component.
Got it now? Sheesh!
Anthony: I read the PDF. It didn’t help. I can see a correlation in the graphs, but until I know what the underlying data is, and the methodology, it is still gibberish.
For what it is worth, this looks a lot like a engineer talking to a non-engineer. Blinding simple to the engineer, and exceedingly complex and opaque to the non-engineer.
reply to: Baa Humbug says: October 15, 2011 at 2:39 pm, who said:
Ok, this one ought to get the quote of the week – it sure got me grinning!
Baa, I do believe you are on to something – Google translate needs to incorporate “science” as one of the languages it recognizes and translates!! It would have to have three user option selections: “science literate, but this is not my area,” “bright, but never learned much science,” and “clueless.” Result complexity and terminology to be based on the user selection. Perhaps they need to add a fourth button “conspiracy theorists, fanatics, paranoid types.” That selection might just return “you’d never believe the truth anyhow,” or similar. Only those types wouldn’t use the button, because they’d be sure it would result in all sorts of horrible things. :-p That 4th button would be rather like the new iPhone 4s Siri replies, which can help you hide bodies and just figure out all sorts of things – now that’s user friendly! http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/iphone-4ss-siri.php (<— it really is funny, and apparently real, check out this article about it!)
If Google was REALLY smart about it, they would manage to make it not only translate science, but also detect and explain when & why something is pseudo-science. {VBG} Unfortunately, what would be more likely is a super-whamo-dyne 1984 doublethink module than a real science/pseudo-science translator.
But we can dream. :0)
Fascinating.
I think you need to read the last couple of paragraphs of the pdf in order to find what the author is asking. This is way beyond my expertise and the paper is written in a very dense manner with numerous phrases that aren’t in everyday technical use, but hopefully Paul will come and explain what this is all about, as he has gone to a lot of effort.
Alternatively, perhaps a few people will read the last few paragraphs of the pdf and interpret its meaning for the rest of us.
tonyb
It might be worthwhile to normalize all of the plots to one timescale. You have doe this nearly completely but I would like the Decal Clustering plot put on a 1850 to 2010 scale.
If there is no data from 1850 to 1965 the leave it blank.
decadal sorry
The Chandler Wobble is entertaining. It is down in the noise, as far as most tidal effects are concerned, but they started measuring it back in 1890. I would think that one of the more interesting correlations would be how earthquakes effect the Chandler Wobble, as we know that the latest Japanese earthquake and tsunami actually shifted the inclination of the earth. And, as pointed out, since the Northern Hemisphere is rather continent-heavy, we do have that discontinuity between north and south. However, has it been considered that about half of the earth, on one side, is water, stretching from pole to pole? So we not only have the north being continent-heavy, we also have one quarter of the planet being continent-heavy.