In a recent paper, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry posited about “Stadium Waves” and climate, suggesting that the ‘stadium-wave’ signal propagates like the cheer known as “the wave” at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a circular or oval stadium stand and sit as a ‘wave’ propagates through the audience. In a similar way, Wyatt and Curry’s ‘stadium wave’ climate signal propagates around the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation elements that self-organize into a collective tempo. Some might call it a “beat frequency“.
You can read more about it here on WUWT’s coverage of the paper. You can watch a stadium wave in action below.
I came across the Wyatt and Curry article again recently, and it made me think about how stadium waves might be much like traffic waves on congested multi-lane city highways. Plus, I found an excellent interactive visualization that helps tell the story
You know what these events are; the situation where all of the sudden you find yourself braking, coming to a stop or near stop along with the other traffic, and you sit there or crawl along for a minute, resume, only to repeat again n times and then suddenly the pattern evaporates and you keep looking for whatever it was that cause the slowdown, only to find nothing.
Being curious late last night, I found that there was an excellent visualization for traffic waves that may also serve as a suitable visualization for Wyatt and Curry’s “stadium wave” in the atmosphere. This comes from a KQED blog called “The Lowdown”. Below is a screenshot of their interactive traffic wave model with my annotation. It reminds me of the top down look at the northern hemisphere we often see when looking at the circumpolar vortex.
You can interact with this visualization yourself here: http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2013/11/12/traffic-waves
Matthew Green writes:
The simplest explanation for why traffic waves happen is that drivers have relatively slow reaction times: if the car in front of you suddenly slows down, it’ll likely take you a second or so to hit the brakes. The slower your reaction time, the harder you have to brake to compensate and keep a safe distance. The same goes for the car behind you, which has to brake even harder than you did in order to slow down faster. And so on down the road, in a domino-like effect.
The equation used in the car circle above is relatively complex. Known as the Intelligent Driver Model, it was first proposed in 2000 by researchers at Germany’s Dresden University of Technology. The creators made this Java applet demonstration. Formal equations to explain these traffic patterns in terms of individual behavior are called car following models. They were first developed by researchers at General Motors in the 1950s. The simplest such formula is:
where a is the car’s acceleration, Δv is the difference in velocity compared with the car behind it, T is reaction time and ƛ is some constant that researchers estimate from data. The equation says, “At time t, you accelerate at a rate proportional to the difference in speed between your car and the speed of the car you’re following, but with a gap of T seconds.”
So, put really simply, if you’re going faster than the car in front of you, then you slow down. And if you’re going slower, you speed up. This equation produces the graph below. At the 10-second mark, the grey car slows down, and the cars that brake later have to slow down to lower and lower minimum speeds. Each line shows the history of the speed of a different car. Drag the slider to graphically see a traffic wave unfold. Note how the cars at the bottom of the chart get closer together with time, as speed evens out.
In our atmosphere, “braking” could be equivalent to such events like rex block highs and cutoff lows, both of which are detached from the jet stream and impede atmospheric flow. That’s just one example for a short time scale we can observe in weather.
From our WUWT story on the paper, where they use the term “braking” to describe what starts the stadium wave:
Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal’s tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of ‘braking,’ in which positive and negative feedbacks interact to support reversals of the circulation regimes. As a result, climate regimes — multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling — evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular — the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatt’s thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.
…
The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures.
“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.
Thank goodness we don’t get stuck in traffic that long.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The theory is too vague, imho. The climate has dozens of correlations, most of them are meaningless. Also, statements like “sea ice bridges communication between atmosphere and ocean” are meaningless.
When I see something testable and predictive come from this theory, I’ll give it a bit more of my attention.
“I came across the Wyatt and Curry article again recently, and it made me think about how stadium waves might be much like traffic waves on congested multi-lane city highways.”
Well, they are analogous in that all waves are waves however I believe the stadium wave phenomena is a continuous interaction while the traffic wave is more like a shock wave through a ratified gas or particle wave in a multiphase flow, i.e it is the “hard” bumping into one another that propagates the wave.
phlogiston says:
November 30, 2013 at 4:12 pm
tallbloke says:
November 30, 2013 at 9:45 am
I’ve just had two papers accepted by a physics journal which explore these periodicities (along with many others), in the context of celestial orbital motions and solar variation, as well as changes in the rotation rate of Earth and Venus. I believe we are getting closer to finding the predominant underlying causes of climate change.
REPLY: Big leap there Rog. I’ve yet to see any credible evidence of gravitational/barycentric induced climate change. The effects in the Wyatt and Curry paper can all be explained by earthly phenomena. – Anthony
tallbloke – are you willing to accept the existence of systems that generate oscillations internally? Such as dissipative nonlinear systems? Or would you consider nonlinear oscillators such as the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, the Rayleigh oscillator, the Van der Pol oscillator and the human heart beat – all these to be illusory phenomena, with the supposedly internal oscillation actually being generated by some outside influence?
Thanks for the well considered response.
Given that science can’t yet explain the scientist, we’d probably better leave the circadian rhythms of heartbeat etc found in living biological systems out of this discussion. Except perhaps to note that tiny electro-mechanical signals originating in the autonomic nervous system are vital to the regular pumping of the heart which is using energies orders of magnitude larger in order to maintain circulation. An apt analogy for the planetary-solar-terrestrial theory, though we must be ever aware that it is only an analogy, or risk accusations of anthropomorphising nature.
To answer your question, I absolutely do not think non-linear oscillators are illusory, they are a vital component of my hypothesis. That’s why I emphasised the resonant ratios in my comment. Resonance is a non-linear phenomenon, which can amplify the effect of small periodic input signals ‘in tune’ with a system’s internal dynamics and physical attributes. The observations laid out in my papers detail not only resonant ratios of timings but also of linked bulk parameters such as density and diameter (volume).
The fractal log-log nature of climatic oscillations makes a nonlinear/nonequilibrium internal oscillatory dynamic impossible to deny. However nonlinear oscillatory systems CAN be externally periodically forced. The relationship between forcing and emergent oscillation frequency can be either simple (strong forcing) or complex (weak forcing).
Both strong and weak forcings pertain in the solar system.
Why is it so hard to accept the idea of BOTH internal nonlinear oscillation AND external forcing?
My hypothesis relies on accepting this. I think you should direct your question to the person who made this as yet unsupported assertion:
The effects in the Wyatt and Curry paper can all be explained by earthly phenomena.
Sensible climate narratives need to at least be consistent with observation.
Proponents of the notion that the stadium wave is an internal feature of terrestrial climate are unconsciously asserting that one or both of the following laws are violated:
a) conservation of angular momentum
b) large numbers
In order to make it possible to sensibly discuss this at some point in the future, I recommend laying some foundations beginning with section 8.7. This is a simple implication of figure 3a&b.
Something to consider: Did Theodor Landscheidt couple knowledge of astrology and comprehension of figure 3a&b to deliberately mislead? (It would be easy to do.)
Too many cars, too little road. Nah, thats too easy
The problem of “waves” in traffic have been with us – and the solution known – for much longer than current drivers have been on the roads. It was encountered as soon as large numbers of vehicles started to travel together. The classic example is the convoy of army trucks (pre-war) where they learned that, once the number of trucks reached a certain figure, the “n+1” truck would hit the one in front sooner or later. So they issued instructions which limited the number of trucks in a group and stipulated a minimum distance between groups.
I think warmists are pushing the envelope of stupidity to places no one has gone before.
When I was in the USAF forecasting school in the early 1980s, the instructors spoke about Long Wave Patterns. One instructor, a young civilian who held a Masters Degree, spoke about very slowing moving oscillations that controlled seasonal variations in weather patterns across the globe on time scales measured in decades. He couldn’t give any more explicit definitions of these “Long Wave” patterns other than they belonged in the realm of pure research. This occurred during the period when ENSO was first being scientifically defined. But, even 30 years ago, weather professionals knew that some long term patterns existed that had profound influences on both local temperature and precipitation patterns.
Greg Goodman says:
“It may already be turning:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/16/inter-decadal-variation-in-northern-hemisphere-sea-ice/ ”
It may have slowed since 2007 but the minimum extent has been greatly reduced since then, so it’s not strictly a recovery. One season of greater extent in summer 2013 doesn’t imply a recovery either, it can easily drop to 2007/2012 levels again given negative enough NAO/AO conditions through summer months in coming years. The only sensible indicator of where it is going is the solar one, weaker solar cycles means more episodes of deeply negative NAO/AO states, you can bank on it.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Ulric Lyons says:
December 1, 2013 at 5:14 pm
Ok. Fine. Arctic ice extent is declining.
Show us, by calculation, what will the effect on the earth’s heat budget into space if
(1) All arctic sea ice is gone for two weeks in Mid-September ([just before the equinox]).
(2) Antarctic sea ice is 1,000,000 sq km larger for a period of 12 months.
(3) Arctic sea ice is 1,000,000 sq km’s smaller than the 1970-1990 average for a period of 4 months (every day) – from June to Oct for example.
(4) Antarctic sea ice is 1,000,000 sq km’s larger than average during two weeks in Mid-Sept at the solstice?
Simple net terms: Does the earth gain more radiation over this time frame, or does it lose heat energy?
@tallbloke & Anthony: 3 x Saros cycles has the same spot on Earth under the same tide regime. About 60 years (a bit shorter). This matters. On longer scales, lunar tidal forces change in 179 and 1800 year patterns. Planets force resonant orbit timing and through orbital mechanics and tides, our cyclical weather. They also stir the sun modulating solar changes. It is mechanics and I have posted links to the paper here often. No magic needed. A kind of lunar metronome to the ocean stadium wave.
Hi E.M.
I assume you are referring to the Keeling and Whorf paper?
Astrophysicist Ian Wilson has also recently published on a shorter timescale lunar effect on blocking patterns in the southern hemisphere. Jo Nova published a good summary of that paper a while ago.
I have also made some discoveries regarding links between lunar declination timings and big boy Jupiter. All the bodies in the inner solar system are linked to Jupiter in terms of their orbit and spin rates. How that spin-orbit ‘stadium wave’ is propagated is under investigation but I’d say the IMF is the best candidate at the moment. Some progress is being made in calculating the magnitude of the transmitted forces. The main sticking point is estimating the decay times on the resonant interactions. Earth uses up energy in weather friction and molten core convection pattern changes etc. Deep complexity to be resolved there.
Cheers
TB
tallbloke says:
December 1, 2013 at 2:48 am
phlogiston says:
November 30, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Thanks for the helpful reply. I look forward to seeing your papers in press.
The Stadium Wave attempts to model the hysteresis of the AMO, the climate = weather approach. Yet it is the real time dynamics at the noise level that are driving the inter-decadal trends. It’s the wrong end of the stick, the inter-decadal outputs cannot be explained without explaining the weekly/monthly inputs.
Multi-decadal LOD trends are not explained by weekly weather.
@ur momisugly RACookPE1978
December 1, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Mid-September is not around the solstice, and as the ice loss would come from warmer water being transported northwards into the Arctic, that would be an energy loss to the whole system.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/figure-42.png
“[…] the multiyear variations in the Earth’s rotation rate are due to the mechanical action of the atmosphere on the Earth.” — Nikolay Sidorenkov (2009)
I could just about go with multi-year. Not multi-decadal though. LOD variation exhibits multidecadal trends of a magnitude far greater than zonal ACI can account for.
You’re unwisely saying Sidorenkov’s wrong in his book.
Here’s what I can suggest you’re overlooking: Angular momentum is additive and conserved, but other quantities coupled into the (deep global, not superficial) flow aren’t. That’s why there’s strong coherence with the integral.
Sidorenkov hasn’t finished the story (he’s missing 2 key ingredients), but in addition to patiently laying foundations he makes a fine contribution that moves well forward the starting point for bright newcomers. His ideas on continental drift pretty much match conclusions I’ve started drawing independently during the past year.
If we disagree, that doesn’t matter. What matters is that protracted arguments (the work of the devil IMHO) don’t happen.
Regards
Paul, When you add a negative quantity to a total, the total gets smaller instead of bigger. So although angular momentum is additive as you say, the standard stockbrokers advice applies. Veunus has a much heavier atmosphere (93 times), but it’s still only 5/10000th’s of the planetary mass. And Earthly atmospheric angular momentum anomalies don’t persist for 30 years. The net annual anomaly might, but I think this is more likely effect than cause, because it’s too low in energy terms to affect the rotation of a planet of Earth’s mass that spins once a day.
I’ve done the calcs.
My papers will hopefully shed some light on the mystery once they’re published. I didn’t include hefty angular momentum calcs in these first papers, that’ll come later. The initial aim is to show the relationships which imply the existence of spin-orbit couplings between the planets (and Sun).
You misunderstand &/or misinterpret what I illustrate. This has been ongoing with zero improvement. I conclude that there’s no chance whatsoever that we’ll ever be able to bridge our longstanding differences on this particular file. We can celebrate the things on which we agree and have the good sense to peacefully agree that this will never be one of them.
As for publication: As you & others (e.g. Marcia Wyatt) know, that doesn’t matter to me. I don’t judge information based on its publication status. 1+1=2 no matter how it’s framed. 2+2≠5 no matter how it’s framed. Framing is cosmetic. We can celebrate the things on which we agree and have the good sense to peacefully agree that this isn’t one of them.
Cheers