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.
Paul Vaughan;
Thanks for the additional detail. Don’t know that I can offer you anything approaching the assistance you seek, but boy did I learn a lot reading through that!
Rbateman says: “Doesn’t look to me, from the patterns, that we have more than 1,000-2000 years left before the climate is in full plunge to the next Ice Age”.
Looks that way to me too, as the interglacials at the 0°C level seem never to last more than ~14k years, and we’ve already been at that level for 12k years. Brrr – don’t fancy having a mile-high ice sheet just north of Watford, again!
However my point was more that until we truly understand what mechanism causes these glaciations it’s a little difficult to comment on this subtle solar-planetary theory – or the latest rather spooky offering from Paul Vaughan, above.
A few years ago, before I found WUWT for my most basic sanity needs, I was reading Solarcycle24.com ,and came across barycentrism as a measurable concept. I had always thought the sun stayed in a pivotal point, heh, that’s when I became an AGW skeptic. Gotta love those oscillations and harmonics, no choir works without them. My playful time is spent watching YouTube videos of chaotic pendulums and harmonics. I’m a believer, in complex chaos, and find it just beautiful. I get it Paul Vaughan, even if I can’t do the math, you help us see that it’s out there.
Dave Springer;
Wow. This was also the year stock market crashed, the year of the 1st Academy Awards for Films, the year the Museum of Modern Art opened in NYC, and the year the Peruvian Air Force was created.
Coincidence? I think not!!!!!!
Keep up the good work.>>>
I could pick any year in history and with a bit of work you could come up with an equally ridiculous list of things that also happened that year and make a sarcastic comment suggesting that it proved nothing.
For the uninformed, there was a period of unusual warming and then cooling in the temperature record from (depending upon which specific record you are looking at) started in the 1920’s, peaked in the 1940’s, and was followed by a cooling period that continue on into the 1970’s:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
This period coincides with an increase and subsequent decrease in CO2 as reconstructed by Ernst Beck from thousands of measurements taken by other scientists over the years before data with high accuracy and confidence was available from sites such as Manua Loa which began measuring CO2 in 1959. You can see Ernst Beck’s reconstruction of CO2 levels at this link, with the “bubble” of increased CO2 (followed by a decrease) in nearly the exact same timeframe:
http://www.biokurs.de/eike/daten/berlin30507/berlin9e.htm
Beck’s theory was that the warmer temperatures caused outgassing of CO2 rather than the other way around. He believed also that when the cooling period set in, colder water temperatures resulted in higher rates of absorption of CO2 into the oceans, and that increased growth of vegetation due to the higher temperatures may also have extracted some amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. Beck was adamantly opposed by mainstream scientists, even skeptics and lukewarmers. I believe if you search for articles on WUWT by Ferdinand Englebeen, you’ll find he makes strong arguments against Beck’s theory on the grounds that the temperature change wasn’t large enough to cause the amount of outgassing that would be required to increase CO2 levels that much, and that Beck’s estimates are not supported by the ice core data. Beck was in the process of writing an in depth analysis of the accuracy of the ice core data to show that it was flawed, but died before he could complete it.
I corresponded with Ernst Beck on a number of topics, and learned a great deal from him. I drew to his attention the fact that the “divergence problem”, the now famous proxy data that suddenly ceased tracking actual temperatures in the period starting around 1950 (depending upon which specific proxy data one is looking at, some of them didn’t suffer “divergence” until a decade or so later).
Given the precipitous drop in CO2 levels that started in 1950 or so, it is logical to suggest that this in turn may have stunted the growth of the various proxies which went from growing in a CO2 rich environment to a CO2 starved environment in a very short time period. It seems likely also that if the driving factor in the CO2 levels was uptake by cooling oceans, it is very possible that the CO2 levels did not fall uniformly across the globe. Also, some species of plants are more sensitive to CO2 levels than others.
While Ferdinand Englebeen and others have firm ground to stand upon in refuting Beck’s data and theories, the coincidence of “temperature bubble” plus “CO2 bubble” plus the fact that the divergence problem begins just as that period ends, suggests to me that Beck’s theory and analysis may have some merit.
When Beck popped off about “lunar phase reversals” I and many other of his supporters thought he had truly lost it. Based on additional discussions, and if you read through the paper I linked to, it turned out that Beck’s poor choice of words had merit nonetheless. The fact that the moon’s orbit variations result in the moon’s distance from earth moving from a minimum to a maximum and back again can have no other effect than to change the height of the tides the moon produces. Keeping in mind the vast amount of water the moon sets in motion from a tidal perspective, it makes sense that, while it happens on a slower time scale, the moon’s orbit changes from being inclined high above the equator when at maximum distance to well below the equator and back again. The same would be true of minimum orbital distances. Shifting that amount of water from northern hemisphere to southern and back again ought to have some effect on climate, one would think.
If you read the paper I linked to, you will see that the authors used Morelet wave analysis on ice core data, temperature data, and several other data sets that all exhibited the approximate 6.5, 18, 55 and 74 year cycles associated with the moon’s orbital variations. That all of these cycles converged and reversed direction (for example, the moon reaching either a minimum or maximum distance and then starting to move the other way) in the late 1920’s suggests that our climatye is indeed tied in some manner to the moon’s orbital variations, and Beck’s poorly worded “lunar phase reversal” has merit from the perpsective of both the physics and the supporting Morelet analysis from multiple data sources.
So Dave Springer, you may put your sarcasm aside, and rest assured that when I suggest a correlation has merit, I do so with just cause.
Seriously! Using the terminology of “rotating multivariate lunisolar spatiotemporal phase relations shared by Earth Orientation Parameters (EOP) and terrestrial climate records” isn’t going to achieve the ‘purpose’ set out in (section I)
The terminology used sounds more intimidating than what it is, Put simply, If I were to research the position of the Earth and the moon with terrestrial tidal records and hope to point out a serious oversight in mainstream Understanding, I wouldn’t begin by introducing it as;
‘Super Galactic’ multivariate terrestrial Spatiotemporal hydrographic tidal displacements under Equatorial mean (apogee/perigee) for the lunitidal interval differentials over dominant semidiurnal component relations.
I’d keep that, for a bit of light humor in some long overly-complex paper very fue people would dare to pick up knowingly to spend weeks with a head-ache reading it thoroughly.
And I’d title the paper;
‘The joy of using Statistical techniques in understanding the lunar tidal forces and what its apparent global impact could be on the degrading spectrum of color being emitted by a dewdrop falling from a blade of grass within the wavelength of 520-565 nanometers during spring.
. Instant Classic!!
Maybe it should be made as simple as possible. But not simpler. if it “is to direct the attention of sensible observers to a serious oversight in the mainstream Understanding” but that would probably take the fun out of the whole superficiality of looking incredibly intelligent over simply explaining a point using hard evidence.
Understanding the Solar System Barycenter would be a good place to start for anyone interested in Multidecadal solar-terrestrial correlations.
Here’s an Interesting site I found for beginners with a down-loadable program.
“Although it is convenient to think of the Sun as the stationary anchor of our solar system, it actually moves as the planets tug on it, causing it to orbit the solar system’s barycenter. The Sun never strays too far from the solar system barycenter. The barycenter is often outside the photosphere of the Sun, but never outside the Sun’s corona.”
Site: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html
I was under the impression that the moon’s orbit influences/modifies/modulates the path of the jet stream. Can you confirm this? If this is the case then there should be a regular periodic wave superimposed on the temperature and precip. data. As with any group of rotating sources, a (sine) wave pattern is created each with an individual harmonic that at times subtracts or adds to main wave, i.e. rotation of earth (24 hr->day/night), rotation of sun (25 day TSI variability), orbit of earth (365.25 days & distance->insolation), orbit of sun (barycenter location w/in solar system and therefore distance from sun-> insolation), orbit of moon (28 day->jet stream) and obliquity of earth (+-23.5 degree-> day/night length), and some more I may not know. The secondary ones such as the PDO, AMO are also superimposed on the wave.
Now has anyone sought to create a model of wave harmonics to see if these influences reasonably approximate the observed monthly/weekly/daily temperature swings? IF so, what was the result?
@dscott (October 16, 2011 at 10:24 pm)
You absolutely cannot ignore the spatial dimensions.
The leading confusion in the climate discussion at present is more a sampling theoretic problem than a physics problem. In layman’s terms: If you flash the strobe in a different way, you see a different pattern.
The notion that mere temporal waves can be superposed to recreate geophysical series is fundamentally misconceived, except in special cases where signals are globally aliased or integrated. For example: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/vaughn_lod2_fig4a.png . [Elaboration: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/10/solar-terrestrial-lunisolar-components-of-rate-of-change-of-length-of-day/ ].
Regards.
@jorge (October 15, 2011 at 2:07 pm)
Wavelets are far simpler than you think.
In fact, they’re dead simple. Unfortunately, there’s no wavelet tutorial written at an accessible level (to my knowledge). If contracted to do so, I could make wavelets simple for a lay audience. More fundamentally, there’s no good reason why all citizens aren’t supplied with a firm handle on wavelet analysis by the mainstream education system. That’s part of what I was getting at on p.10. Given the severely deficient math education systems we have in the West, the myth that wavelets are complicated will no doubt live on much longer than it should in the West. I’m not opposed to volunteering a tutorial on wavelets, but I won’t have the time to do it properly any time soon.
Regards.
@Paul Westhaver (October 15, 2011 at 4:07 pm)
If you pop ERSST into a google search, you’ll have answered your own question in a second. Tip: You may find the KNMI Climate Explorer website useful if you decide to investigate independently. (Google also finds that no problem.)
If you need further assistance, please feel welcome to inquire and I’ll respond when time permits.
Regards.
For anyone interested, NOAA monitors AAM (Atmospheric Angular Momentum): Total, Relative, Tendency, and various torque components:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/aam.90day.total.shtml
Paul Vaughan says:
October 17, 2011 at 6:20 am
The notion that mere temporal waves can be superposed to recreate geophysical series is fundamentally misconceived, except in special cases where signals are globally aliased or integrated.
Yet the data you work with have no spatial dimension [and you to not analyze in the spatial domain – all your X-axes are in time]. LOD, TSI, Global temp, etc are all global.
There was a classic computer science book “The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs” which had an excellent style for building understanding of complex topics. First, an oversimplified explanation would be offered, followed by “well that isn’t quite right” and a more complete explanation, repeated until the complexity was fully explained. I’ve heard it said that one cannot understand what he doesn’t already almost know.
“Bob Tisdale says:
The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO and variations in North Pacific Sea Level Pressure, and the AMO is supposed to result from variations in meridional overturning circulation, though ENSO, Sea Level Presure, and variations in dust from the Sahara also impact North Atlantic SST anomalies.”
Bob, you always post this stuff like this. You state these facts as supposedly causative mechanisms, but they are associations only. They can be used in a theory, but not to predict anything.
Dave Springer says:
October 16, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Springer: Einstein is spinning in his grave over Myrrh not undrstanding that visible light can raise the temperature of ordinary matter.
And just how does it do this? Take it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/09/spencer-finds-the-big-picture-on-cloud-feedback/#comment-768630
More music of the spheres: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7840201/Music-of-the-sun-recorded-by-scientists.html
I am an engineer and it’s utterly opaque to me as well. FWIW, no engineer of my acquaintence talks like this. We’re opaque using much simpler language ;-).
Paul if you’ll do a tutorial on wavelets that’s comprehensible to us here, I’ll forward $50.
I think that analysis of complex cycles to demonstrate constituents is vital to Climate Science, and will help demystify the stuff that current policy here says we cannot discuss – no doubt because discussion devolves too much into incomprehensible rants between believers and nonbelievers, while lacking adequate input of balanced evidence in simple layman’s language.
We see lone flares like the work of Bart over at Climate Audit. The Russians are on to the case. And Ole Humlum and co-workers have just issued a paper that also seems to support the importance of wavelets. From the Abstract
Basically – Paul is merely stating the blindingly obvious and pointing at the fundamental problem with and source of the failure of the IPCC analyses. Paul’s main point is that it is not possible to estimate the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 unless we first understand the sources and range of natural variability.The relative importance at any time of the natural forcings and feedbacks are seen by deconvolving the contribution of all the various relevant data time series without a-priori assumptions of possible importance. This can really only be done by looking at the fourier power spectrum of the various time series for possible correlations ( check eg
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf ) and then doing maximum entropy special analysis and morlet wavelet analysis to see at what times various factors are the principal components of climate change in time and space.There is a good summary of the maths needed in appendix A in William Burroughs book “Weather cycles real or Imaginary” 2nd Ed 2003.By this standard ,the approach and assumptions of the IPCC models are simple to the point of stupidity or outright deception.
Look at the forcings on which most of the Models were built
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-2-20.jpg
All the effects on climate of changes in solar activity caused by the movement of the sun re the barycenter or of the lunar metonic cycle or of the GCR – cloud ;EUV – ozone ;CME frequency, solar wind strength variability. solar magnetic field strength secular changes, LOD ,Changing earth magnetic field strength . QBO etc etc are simply ignored and all subsumed under Solar TSI.
The IPCC modelers need to scrap their whole system and start again from scratch instead of making the odd ad hoc patch or the epicycle variety of fix.
Obviously Paul’s presentation can be made much clearer – a glossary of acronyms under each figure and a brief introduction to wavlet analysis would help a lot.
However ,in general, his approach will inevitably be the wave (let ) of the future.
Janice says:
October 16, 2011 at 8:58 am
“…But what is actually transferring these effects? We think of harmonics as being sound, but that isn’t the medium here. So the transfer medium has to be a fundamental force. It can’t be photons, so that leaves gravity as the fundamental force,,,
Oh but it can be photons which, alongside gravity, force the orbits of the planets we observe. All we need to do is give real mass, size and spin to the ubiquitous photon, which works as a real repulsive bombardment field in the exact opposite direction to the apparent pull of the acceleration of gravity.
Without the energy of the myriad of photons hitting our planet every second we would quickly be living on a deep frozen popsicle!
Norman Page says:
October 17, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Basically – Paul is merely stating the blindingly obvious and pointing at the fundamental problem with and source of the failure of the IPCC analyses. Paul’s main point is that it is not possible to estimate the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 unless we first understand the sources and range of natural variability.
However, you don’t get that understanding just by correlating everything you can think of with everything else. For each element of the natural variability you must specify what physical mechanism causes that particular element [and if there is enough energy and coupling available], only then have you gained understanding and can remove the element from the equation. When you have done that with all the elements, what is left is possibly anthropogenic [although it could be an overlooked natural cause]. Not to defend IPCC to much, but they did look at all the elements they thought were energetically feasible.
Tenuc says:
October 17, 2011 at 12:55 pm
All we need to do is give real mass, size and spin to the ubiquitous photon
You cannot give the photon what it doesn’t have [it does already have spin 1] and the photons do not force the orbits of the planets.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 17, 2011 at 1:35 pm
When you have done that with all the elements, what is left is possibly anthropogenic
And there are already anthropogenic elements, e.g. the UHI and land use.
@ur momisugly Leif 1.35
I think a good empirical correlation comes first – that then stimulates the necessary thought about possible physical mechanisms and links to provide a physical understanding. You dont start from an assumed mechanism and an equation.
The IPCC modelers simply assumed that they knew all the elements that were energetically feasible. They exhibited an enormous capacity for ignoring the obvious – eg its cooler on the shade than in the sun and a convenient lack of curiosity.
After all their stated mission was not to investigate the roots of climate change but to investigate the anthropogenic contribution.
However after you have the empirical correlation I entirely agree with your statement
“For each element of the natural variability you must specify what physical mechanism causes that particular element [and if there is enough energy and coupling available], only then have you gained understanding and can remove the element from the equation. When you have done that with all the elements, what is left is possibly anthropogenic [although it could be an overlooked natural cause]. “
Tenuc says:
October 17, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Janice says:
October 16, 2011 at 8:58 am
“…But what is actually transferring these effects? We think of harmonics as being sound, but that isn’t the medium here. So the transfer medium has to be a fundamental force. It can’t be photons, so that leaves gravity as the fundamental force,,,
Oh but it can be photons which, alongside gravity, force the orbits of the planets we observe. All we need to do is give real mass, size and spin to the ubiquitous photon, which works as a real repulsive bombardment field in the exact opposite direction to the apparent pull of the acceleration of gravity. “””””
Well I didn’t think there could be more than one person at WUWT making up their own avant garde Physics; but evidently there are others. You should form a club.
There are so many sources of reliable presentations of fundamental Physics, that anybody who wants to learn it can access information from the very people who discovered the physics in the first place. If you can learn about electro-magnetism from James Clarke Maxwell himself, or Atomic Physics from Max Born; why waste your time with dubdubdub.flybynitephysics.com
George E. Smith; says: “There are so many sources of reliable presentations of fundamental Physics, that anybody who wants to learn it can access information from the very people who discovered the physics in the first place. If you can learn about electro-magnetism from James Clarke Maxwell himself, or Atomic Physics from Max Born; why waste your time with dubdubdub.flybynitephysics.com”
True, Maxwell and Born are good for studying classical physics, but that does leave out quantum mechanics, eh? And quantum mechanics bottomed out about in the 60’s, which is where string theory rears its somewhat ugly head. With something like ten equations (minimum) that need to be solved simultaneously, using a unique form of mathematics, to describe the ten dimensions that our universe is made up of. Or eleven, according to some theorists. And then we’ll take strings and make branes (possibly ten dimensional) out of them. And there is absolutely no way to do an experiment, because there isn’t enough energy in the whole universe to do the experiment which could possibly prove string theory.
Therefore, there might possibly be an alternate way of proving string theory, which is through indirect observation of physical phenomenon which can only exist if string theory is true. And if strings and gravity can be shown to have combined physical manifestations, then that would prove string theory and possibly lead to a true unification equation for all four of the fundamental forces. Therefore, the harmonics and spacings between bodies in a solar system actually are relevant, since gravity is such a weak force and it takes something like a solar system size to take gravitational forces out of the noise of the other fundamental forces.
But this is all over at dubdubdub.flybynitephysics.com, right?