By Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc.
The amplitude of Earth’s zonal winds is modulated by the solar cycle. Here’s a concise visual update based on the latest data:
LOD’ = rate of change of length of day
Data
ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/COSMIC_RAYS/STATION_DATA/Monthly_data/moscow.tab
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Ulric Lyons (December 26, 2011 at 5:00 pm)
Spatiotemporal pattern.
I’m not sure about all the bickering, but if someone makes an implied claim in 2 charts and a couple tables of data, it should be explained sufficiently that everyone can clearly understand. Please do not pass the obligation onto the reader to “do the calculations” and then make accusations of ignorance if they don’t or present or suggest alternate methods or findings. The author should prove the short term correlation is causation, or at least give a rational explanation that is sufficiently entertaining, if nothing else, so the time is not wasted.
One hundred ten comments to a “blob-gram” is a pretty good day’s work. I have some ink-blots that may excite you folks to orgasm.
It’s time to move on.
Paul Vaughan says:
December 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Leif, it’s temperature GRADIENTS that drive the thermal wind.
The last 0.1% of solar variation acts no different from the other 99.9%.
And again, Gross was looking at different statistics.
He isolated the semiannual component [without the lunisolar tides] and since you claim to be able to do the same, you need to show your curve [and also that from http://ebooks.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:8469:2/component/escidoc:8468/9810.pdf ]and compare it with his to gain some credibility, unless you, as you suggest, feel it is time for you to ‘move on’.
Whether or not one can tease any marginal correlation out of the data is really irrelevant, as what is important are ‘effective’ relationships, that is: the influence is large enough to have consequences that matter.
Paul Vaughan says:
December 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm
And again, Gross was looking at different statistics.
He isolated the semiannual component [without the lunisolar tides] and since you claim to be able to do the same, you need to show your curve [and also that from http://ebooks.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:8469:2/component/escidoc:8468/9810.pdf ]and compare it with his to gain some credibility, unless you, as you suggest, feel it is time for you to ‘move on’.”
To make it easier for you, here is the Potsdam curve:
http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Semiannual-Var.png
There is no ‘efficient’ solar cycle variation [and of course not in the derivative either]
Quoting Paul Vaughan,
I’ve been at nightclubs where I cheerfully offered money to the band to stop playing. Would a strategy, such as that, work here?
I suspect if we had EUV data going back to cover the same period we could see a third option added to the first graph which would show the same trend. EUV and atmospheric zonal wind patterns are surely related.
Well, I read the whole thread. I am not going to comment on who is right and who is wrong — I did not “do the math” and probably don’t have time…. But, I can verify one thing (and it’s worth $0.02 I realize). FFT does not seem to work well at all with long period phenomena, noisy phenomena and random aperiodic phenomena of low frequency. I have recently done a lot of work with low frequency noise — I used other techniques and am looking at wavelets to tease out ode of the patterns and frequencies.
I suggest that some of the doubters who are familiar with various forms of FFT analysis and Wavelets to consider the idea — if they have time to do a bit of number crunching.
Leif Svalgaard says:
As the atmosphere heats up it expands and like a spinning ice skater extending her arms the rotation slows down…
That must be wrong.
The graph shows the rotation slowing down before the atmosphere heats up.
“Comparison of dT and ACI (Figure 2.3A) shows their close similarity in shape, but ACI runs several years ahead of dT. Shifting the ACI curve by 4 years to the right (Fig 2.3B) results in almost complete coincidence of the curve maximums of the early 1870s, late 1930s, and middle 1990s.”
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e03b.htm#FiguraB
Fascinating.
“what is important are ‘effective’ relationships, that is: the influence is large enough to have consequences that matter”
orbital resonance:
F(t) = disturbing force
F(t) = A[cos((ω-ν)t)/(ω-ν) + cos((ω+ν)t)/(ω+ν)]
Where v = frequency of oscillating body, ω = frequency of disturbing body
As ω approaches v, F(t) – the disturbing force – increases without bound (infinite force).
Similar result occurs at the harmonics of ω and ν
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 26, 2011 at 4:38 pm
“tallbloke says:
December 26, 2011 at 4:07 pm
And we’ve also found correlations between those planetary motions and the solar cycles. I suggest this is why Paul has found a correlation between LOD’ and the solar cycle.
The decadal-type variations Gross is talking about are not [t]ied to the solar cycle. See Figure 1 of
http://ebooks.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:8469:2/component/escidoc:8468/9810.pdf
The rest of that paper is illuminating too. Paul, too, would benefit from careful study of it. Especially Figure 7.”
Ah, there are so many interesting things to study! I wish I could have retired at 50 (or was it 52?) like the greeks do, and do it full time.
However, if LOD changes, say, 0.3 milliseconds, I think I would study something else?
@Leif Svalgaard:
Thanks! I thought LOD could be used to predict temperature change, but alas.
Could you maybe explain why shifting LOD 6 years, gives a better curve-fit? Is it because it take’s 6 years to see the effect? Meanwhile, I keep wondering about the predictive powers of it.
Leif
I can’t see any solar cycle in the 91-day window.
Make a plot of the 91-day window only and I’ll show you.
As the atmosphere heats up it expands and like a spinning ice skater extending her arms the rotation slows down…
The problem is dT lags LOD.
So, here’s the question that noone has answered yet. What exactly is this graph showing? There’s alot of intellectual Jibber Jabber going on that is over the heads of the majority of us, but please do tell, what does this show?
Mark says:
December 27, 2011 at 2:21 am
So, here’s the question that noone has answered yet. What exactly is this graph showing? There’s alot of intellectual Jibber Jabber going on that is over the heads of the majority of us, but please do tell, what does this show?
The graph shows a relationship between the rotational speed of the Earth and the amount of cosmic energy received at Earth. There is a large solar component involved in the cosmic ray modulation that we experience over time, which maybe coincides with the rotation speed of of Earth. Our rotational speed maybe governed by physical forces that must be balanced when there are changes in the size/height of our atmosphere. Perhaps the reason for the atmospheric changes come from the same source as the cosmic ray flux modulation, which firmly places pressure on those who subscribe to a null climate effect from Sol.
Khwarizmii
The graph shows the rotation slowing down before the atmosphere heats up.
Or speeding up? LOD decreased after 1975. They are showing -LOD in the graphs.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 27, 2011 at 4:08 am
The graph shows a relationship between the rotational speed of the Earth and the amount of cosmic energy received at Earth.
A couple of problems:
1) the graph purports that the amplitude of the semiannual variation of the LOD has a solar cycle variation. It does not: http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Semiannual-Var.png In addition the semiannual variation of LOD is something that comes and goes twice per year.
2) ‘cosmic energy’ ??? The total energy in the cosmic rays is comparable to that of star light and the cosmic microwave background, so forget about the ‘cosmic energy’ received. The cosmic ray flux is a proxy for solar activity, e.g. variations of TSI.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 27, 2011 at 4:08 am
~
Geoff, was wondering if you are continuing to see a drop in the solar wind speed averages?
I copied this from http://www.spaceweather.com this morning.
Solar wind
speed: 240.1 km/sec
density: 0.6 protons/cm3
explanation | more data
Updated: Today at 1254 UT
When ever I see it below 260 km/sec it makes me a little freaked.
Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 9:31 pm)
“you need to show your curve […] and compare it with his to gain some credibility,”
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 26, 2011 at 10:01 pm
“compare it with his to gain some credibility,.” […] here is the Potsdam curve: http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Semiannual-Var.png There is no ‘efficient’ solar cycle variation [and of course not in the derivative either]”
See the articles to which I linked. This article is just an update. As indicated, one can isolate the semiannual variation any number of ways. The results are ROBUST ACROSS METHODS.
Important: The summary in the image to which you linked has the focal length set SUPER-NARROW. As I have now told you countless times over the past year, if you change the window extent to something somewhat NEAR the solar cycle length (it doesn’t even have to be exact since the resonance is so strong), you’ll get this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image10.png . (In interpreting the plot it’s important to remember that each dot on the curve is a property OF THE WINDOW.)
The Lesson: Use the focal length adjustment on your microscope to bring things into focus. This will enable you to develop awareness of CROSS-SCALE morphology.
You’re commenting about statistics you do NOT understand. You’re repeatedly commenting from a position of ignorance. I again advise you to do the calculations. You need to first develop awareness of fundamentals before you can constructively think critically about those fundamentals.
Regards.
Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 10:01 pm)
“Whether or not one can tease any marginal correlation out of the data is really irrelevant, as what is important are ‘effective’ relationships, that is: the influence is large enough to have consequences that matter.”
There are many thousand people involved in the study of climate. Each of us has a different role.
Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 9:31 pm)
“The last 0.1% of solar variation acts no different from the other 99.9%.”
You keep shifting the focus away from orbital modulations (& Earth’s spatiotemporal filter more generally). You understand orbital modulations relatively well for the geomagnetic field, but you repeatedly deflect attention away from the solar input vector response of other fields. This is a rather curious double-standard.
Solar wind
speed: 237.7 km/sec
density: 0.6 protons/cm3
explanation | more data
Updated: Today at 1433 UT
http://www.spaceweather.com
And now the solar wind speed is below my floor..
Geoff Sharp (December 27, 2011 at 4:08 am)
“[…] which firmly places pressure on those who subscribe to a null climate effect from Sol.”
It does more than that. It empirically crushes their narrative.