#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

# Inertia

We have been working collaboratively on the project of understanding ENSO, and I am having fun in seeing how far we can go in modeling the behavior. Yet, there is one word that keeps nagging at me and I think that word is the key to a breakthrough -- Inertia

I am convinced that inertia in the sloshing of the ocean's waters is what will enable us to eventually make accurate predictions of the oscillations. The inertia in the Pacific ocean's volume and the inability of that volume to stop on a dime is what allows the behavior to span years. It is actually not as chaotic as what people believe, as the inertial characteristics will tend to reinforce the behavior in more predictable ways than is conventionally believed.

But I think inertia is also important in how these new ideas will get accepted by the climate science consensus. It will take lots of work to convince the scientists to slow down and reconsider their own approaches to understanding of ENSO. Much like the ocean's volume, they will not be able to stop on a dime and suddenly start to apply some of the foundational mechanisms that we are building within the Azimuth Project. It may take years to sway the tide ( so to speak ).

Instead of depressing, I find that kind of inspirational :) It all boils down to Newton :) That which is in motion, stays in motion. It will be business-as-usual until the BAU gradually changes.

And now of course this pops into my head, a song by the Talking Heads

"Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was

Water dissolving and water removed
There is water at the bottom of the ocean
Under the water, carry the water"


That's a cyclic and elliptical tune if I ever heard one.

Paul

• Options
1.

Can't you put some numbers to this idea? I mean that if you have a tank of water which is 1km deep and 20000km wide, there must be some fundamental sloshing frequency, no? Is it of the right order?

Comment Source:Can't you put some numbers to this idea? I mean that if you have a tank of water which is 1km deep and 20000km wide, there must be some fundamental sloshing frequency, no? Is it of the right order? 
• Options
2.

Graham, First thing to understand is that this is a really a differential effect so that the order of magnitude is easy to get right but that it is extremely sensitive to density differences in sea-water. What we are talking about is the sloshing of water with respect to the thermocline layer. The sloshing frequency would be much higher if it was a homogeneous volume, but since it is stratified by a density difference, the resonant frequency correlates to a much lower energy and therefore a slower frequency.

In terms of an intuitive concept, think of how lava lamps or lava wave machines work. There you have an oil and water mixture, which is very sensitive to external disturbances. So that a slight momentum shift applied to the stratified volume will cause exaggerated internal volume motion.

Quantifying the characteristic frequency of the effect, this has been measured for the layer and it is estimated at 4.25 years. Clarke et al [1] derived this through a pair of first-order differential equations and used observations of the Pacific ocean dynamics. I use the 4.25 year number because I don't want to make things up -- and according to the model results this number also seems to provide the best fit since as I change the value slightly about this value, the fit degrades.

[1]A. J. Clarke, S. Van Gorder, and G. Colantuono, “Wind stress curl and ENSO discharge/recharge in the equatorial Pacific,” Journal of physical oceanography, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1077–1091, 2007.

All the information is there to do this sloshing analysis but it is peculiar that no one is following through on it. We are essentially the first to work through the solution. Like I said, inertia in people's thinking means that it will take time for others to catch up to where we are at right now. And once this new way of thinking is locked in, it will take even more work to dislodge it because the model works formidably well in describing the ENSO behavior.

Comment Source:Graham, First thing to understand is that this is a really a differential effect so that the order of magnitude is easy to get right but that it is extremely sensitive to density differences in sea-water. What we are talking about is the sloshing of water with respect to the thermocline layer. The sloshing frequency would be much higher if it was a homogeneous volume, but since it is stratified by a density difference, the resonant frequency correlates to a much lower energy and therefore a slower frequency. In terms of an intuitive concept, think of how lava lamps or lava wave machines work. There you have an oil and water mixture, which is very sensitive to external disturbances. So that a slight momentum shift applied to the stratified volume will cause exaggerated internal volume motion. ![lava-wave](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3frcALrskw/maxresdefault.jpg) Quantifying the characteristic frequency of the effect, this has been measured for the layer and it is estimated at 4.25 years. Clarke et al [1] derived this through a pair of first-order differential equations and used observations of the Pacific ocean dynamics. I use the 4.25 year number because I don't want to make things up -- and according to the model results this number also seems to provide the best fit since as I change the value slightly about this value, the fit degrades. [1]A. J. Clarke, S. Van Gorder, and G. Colantuono, “Wind stress curl and ENSO discharge/recharge in the equatorial Pacific,” Journal of physical oceanography, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1077–1091, 2007. --- All the information is there to do this sloshing analysis but it is peculiar that no one is following through on it. We are essentially the first to work through the solution. Like I said, inertia in people's thinking means that it will take time for others to catch up to where we are at right now. And once this new way of thinking is locked in, it will take even more work to dislodge it because the model works formidably well in describing the ENSO behavior. 
• Options
3.

Thanks, WebHubTel. I am not a physicist, and am not likely to understand your ideas in detail. But 'the first thing to understand' is helpful. I was thinking, when sufficiently (over)simplified, the Pacific would be like a huge see-saw. If so, it would have to be a huge see-saw in very low gravity.

If you are right about your analogy with people's thinking, you just have to keep pushing gently.

Comment Source:Thanks, WebHubTel. I am not a physicist, and am not likely to understand your ideas in detail. But 'the first thing to understand' is helpful. I was thinking, when sufficiently (over)simplified, the Pacific would be like a huge see-saw. If so, it would have to be a huge see-saw in very low gravity. If you are right about your analogy with people's thinking, you just have to keep pushing gently. 
• Options
4.

Graham said:

"If so, it would have to be a huge see-saw in very low gravity."

I think that is a great analogy. The slight difference in density acts kind of like a low gravity system. Think of a bobber that is nearly the same density of the water it displaces. The nearly neutral buoyancy will cause it to bob up and down at the slightest touch.

The other interesting finding is that changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) appear to modify the sloshing see-saw characteristics, at least according to the model fit. How this can come about is that solar energy entering the ocean will differentially heat layers and thus change the differential density slightly.

Trying to find connections to the 11-year solar cycle is one of those long-term challenges, for example see this recent paper "The 11-year solar cycle in current reanalyses: a (non)linear attribution study of the middle atmosphere". The difficulty there is that the daily and seasonal changes in solar radiation are so much stronger that it is hard to pick these signals out of the noise. Yet since 11 years is closer to a resonant frequency of 4-5 years than the shorter variational periods, it may have a stronger influence on the behavior.

"If you are right about your analogy with people's thinking, you just have to keep pushing gently."

It will help if lots of other people push gently as well. That's how you get a car unstuck from the mud :)

Comment Source:Graham said: > "If so, it would have to be a huge see-saw in very low gravity." I think that is a great analogy. The slight difference in density acts kind of like a low gravity system. Think of a bobber that is nearly the same density of the water it displaces. The nearly neutral buoyancy will cause it to bob up and down at the slightest touch. The other interesting finding is that changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) appear to modify the sloshing see-saw characteristics, at least according to the model fit. How this can come about is that solar energy entering the ocean will differentially heat layers and thus change the differential density slightly. Trying to find connections to the 11-year solar cycle is one of those long-term challenges, for example see this recent paper ["The 11-year solar cycle in current reanalyses: a (non)linear attribution study of the middle atmosphere"](http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/6879/2015/acp-15-6879-2015.html). The difficulty there is that the daily and seasonal changes in solar radiation are so much stronger that it is hard to pick these signals out of the noise. Yet since 11 years is closer to a resonant frequency of 4-5 years than the shorter variational periods, it may have a stronger influence on the behavior. > "If you are right about your analogy with people's thinking, you just have to keep pushing gently." It will help if lots of other people push gently as well. That's how you get a car unstuck from the mud :) 
• Options
5.

Looking back on how I have been modeling ENSO over the past year, I realize now that I had initially assumed that the mathematics would have to be highly sophisticated to capture the dynamics of something that earth scientists have been grappling with for years. It couldn't have been this simple, right? I wonder how could they have missed something like that? Even for myself, I feel that I have been going down too many complicated paths at the expense of the straightforward approach /discussion/comment/14739/#Comment_14739

This discussion is in the chat because someone has to warn me if I am getting too close to qualifying for the crackpot index :( Don't worry about being overly critical -- I think can deal with it :)

Comment Source:Looking back on how I have been modeling ENSO over the past year, I realize now that I had initially assumed that the mathematics would have to be highly sophisticated to capture the dynamics of something that earth scientists have been grappling with for years. It couldn't have been this simple, right? I wonder how could they have missed something like that? Even for myself, I feel that I have been going down too many complicated paths at the expense of the straightforward approach [/discussion/comment/14739/#Comment_14739](/discussion/comment/14739/#Comment_14739) This discussion is in the chat because someone has to warn me if I am getting too close to qualifying for the crackpot index :( Don't worry about being overly critical -- I think can deal with it :) 
• Options
6.

AGW skeptics and deniers have a low inertial threshold. It doesn't take much to get them going on new ideas. In the last few days, the ENSO model has picked up interest from two denialist blogs

http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/12/week-in-review-science-edition-21/

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/cheeky-pukitee-nicking-knowledge-without-acknowledgement/

These bloggers and commenters are often nasty. The reason that they are interested in new ideas is they anticipate a possibility that it may reinforce their own preconceived notions. The backlash comes about when they realize the ideas counter their belief system.

That's when they start to smear.

Right now a few of them are claiming that I am stealing their work without citation. One is defending me but that is only because he wants me to reference his own published work.

Kind of tricky to proceed here, because one doesn't know who has an underlying agenda, or who may be posing. Two of the bloggers involved are claiming Intellectual Property rights on their models. If that is the case, a court of law may have to clear up whether I have stolen their work ... hmmm ... this is getting completely bizarre !

Comment Source:AGW skeptics and deniers have a low inertial threshold. It doesn't take much to get them going on new ideas. In the last few days, the ENSO model has picked up interest from two denialist blogs http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/12/week-in-review-science-edition-21/ https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/cheeky-pukitee-nicking-knowledge-without-acknowledgement/ These bloggers and commenters are often nasty. The reason that they are interested in new ideas is they anticipate a possibility that it may reinforce their own preconceived notions. The backlash comes about when they realize the ideas counter their belief system. That's when they start to smear. Right now a few of them are claiming that I am stealing their work without citation. One is defending me but that is only because he wants me to reference his own published work. Kind of tricky to proceed here, because one doesn't know who has an underlying agenda, or who may be posing. Two of the bloggers involved are claiming Intellectual Property rights on their models. If that is the case, a court of law may have to clear up whether I have stolen their work ... hmmm ... this is getting completely bizarre ! 
• Options
7.

It couldn't have been this simple, right? I wonder how could they have missed something like that? Even for myself, I feel that I have been going down too many complicated paths at the expense of the straightforward approach /discussion/comment/14739/#Comment_14739

By the way when I told you that I would start with the simple oscillator with a forcing function I didn't want to talk you into not using more complicated models per se, finally for modelling resonances the Hill equation is often used. I didn't look into the details of your calculation (and I won't) but I am astonished that this simple model should already do the job.

Two of the bloggers involved are claiming Intellectual Property rights on their models.

I said this already beforehand - there are big commercial interests in good ENSO predictions but on the other hand the research is quite costly with a very high risk of failure. Previously this kind of research was mostly done by international universities and thus the risk sort of shared, but since funding is crippling and universities are more and more prone (and partially forced) to follow more and more individual entrepreneurial pathlines there are more and more stakeholders who would try to buffer their costs with all sorts of methods.

Comment Source:> It couldn't have been this simple, right? I wonder how could they have missed something like that? Even for myself, I feel that I have been going down too many complicated paths at the expense of the straightforward approach /discussion/comment/14739/#Comment_14739 By the way when I told you that I would start with the simple oscillator with a forcing function I didn't want to talk you into not using more complicated models per se, finally for modelling resonances the Hill equation is often used. I didn't look into the details of your calculation (and I won't) but I am astonished that this simple model should already do the job. >Two of the bloggers involved are claiming Intellectual Property rights on their models. I said this already beforehand - there are big commercial interests in good ENSO predictions but on the other hand the research is quite costly with a very high risk of failure. Previously this kind of research was mostly done by international universities and thus the risk sort of shared, but since funding is crippling and universities are more and more prone (and partially forced) to follow more and more individual entrepreneurial pathlines there are more and more stakeholders who would try to buffer their costs with all sorts of methods.
• Options
8.

"By the way when I told you that I would start with the simple oscillator with a forcing function I didn't want to talk you into not using more complicated models per se, finally for modelling resonances the Hill equation is often used. I didn't look into the details of your calculation (and I won't) but I am astonished that this simple model should already do the job."

Thanks, if you recommended that, thank you. I was going full blast down the Mathieu equation path (or Hill in the more general case) and probably wasn't listening to advice at the time.

But one thing I did learn from the Mathieu formulation proposed in the sloshing literature was the importance of the forcing function. This forcing can be either imparted horizontally to the liquid or vertically. The latter especially has implications for tides, as the gravitational pull differential of tidal forces is vertical, with angular momentum shifts as the height of the sea level changes.

Yet, I wasn't quite prepared for how strong the forced response is to the solution. If this turns out to be the correct approach, the forced response may completely overshadow the natural response. In this case, the Mathieu or Hill formulation may still hold but it is then likely not as strongly resonant and any complex natural response is secondary and will damp out.

It is then all driven by periodic forcing functions and the wave equation transfer function determines the weighting of the various periodicities. We also get for free the solution to QBO, as this is also driven by the same forcing but with higher frequency weightings, thus exposing the much stronger periodic response !

That's the key IMO -- i.e. assuming that a forced stationary response is what we are observing with ENSO and with QBO.

Having a good physical model and explaining it is something that the other bloggers working ENSO do not have. The last thing I want to see is a skeptical anti-AGW blogger figure this thing out. Hopefully working the research publicly like we are doing on Azimuth will cripple their Intellectual Property efforts. This will help exposing "prior art" for anything that they are claiming. Trust me, they are not doing this for the future of mankind. Sorry for inserting my opinions here, but this is a motivational factor for me, and I don't want to see them get any credit and credibility for propagating their IMO misguided views.

Comment Source:nad said: > "By the way when I told you that I would start with the simple oscillator with a forcing function I didn't want to talk you into not using more complicated models per se, finally for modelling resonances the Hill equation is often used. I didn't look into the details of your calculation (and I won't) but I am astonished that this simple model should already do the job." Thanks, if you recommended that, thank you. I was going full blast down the Mathieu equation path (or Hill in the more general case) and probably wasn't listening to advice at the time. But one thing I did learn from the Mathieu formulation proposed in the sloshing literature was the importance of the forcing function. This forcing can be either imparted horizontally to the liquid or vertically. The latter especially has implications for tides, as the gravitational pull differential of tidal forces is vertical, with angular momentum shifts as the height of the sea level changes. Yet, I wasn't quite prepared for how strong the forced response is to the solution. If this turns out to be the correct approach, the forced response may completely overshadow the natural response. In this case, the Mathieu or Hill formulation may still hold but it is then likely not as strongly resonant and any complex natural response is secondary and will damp out. It is then all driven by periodic forcing functions and the wave equation transfer function determines the weighting of the various periodicities. We also get for free the solution to QBO, as this is also driven by the same forcing but with higher frequency weightings, thus exposing the much stronger periodic response ! That's the key IMO -- i.e. assuming that a forced stationary response is what we are observing with ENSO and with QBO. Having a good physical model and explaining it is something that the other bloggers working ENSO do not have. The last thing I want to see is a skeptical anti-AGW blogger figure this thing out. Hopefully working the research publicly like we are doing on Azimuth will cripple their Intellectual Property efforts. This will help exposing "prior art" for anything that they are claiming. Trust me, they are not doing this for the future of mankind. Sorry for inserting my opinions here, but this is a motivational factor for me, and I don't want to see them get any credit and credibility for propagating their IMO misguided views. 
• Options
9.
edited September 2015

Thanks, if you recommended that, thank you.

Well I just said what I would do, but I am not an expert. There is quite a bit of math literature about these kind of differential systems, most notably also with respect to stability of solutions under pertubations etc.

The mentioning of the resonances was also a remark to this post of Tim Channon.

John had recently done a google+post on orbital resonances and their history. It's certainly interesting stuff, although if I might see some things a bit differently.

Trust me, they are not doing this for the future of mankind.

Yes, some of them would like on the first place see their company strive. But I wouldn't say that this is the case for all AGW deniers. I guess it is rather that people have often just diverse ideas of how things work and should work. In particular it should be mentioned at this point that there are even people who are not overly convinced about furthering life on earth and mankind, but who think that a suposingly fast way to paradise is the road to take.

The main problem I see with skeptical anti-AGW or also pro-AGW bloggers is rather that this is high risk research and that for most cases it will be thus a lost effort. Especially given that like for the ENSO case they eventually have to compete with giant assurance companies etc. If you do it just for fun and you have the ressources for that, like as a hobby that might do well, but if you expect more then this can get problematic. Thats also why I reduce my work here.

Comment Source:>Thanks, if you recommended that, thank you. Well I just said what I would do, but I am not an expert. There is quite a bit of math literature about these kind of differential systems, most notably also with respect to stability of solutions under pertubations etc. The mentioning of the resonances was also a <a href="https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/ian-wilson-linking-the-orbital-configuration-of-jupiter-saturn-venus-earth-to-lunar-tides-earths-climate/">remark to this post of Tim Channon.</a> John had recently done a google+post on orbital resonances and their history. It's certainly interesting stuff, although if I might see some things a bit differently. >Trust me, they are not doing this for the future of mankind. Yes, some of them would like on the first place see their company strive. But I wouldn't say that this is the case for all AGW deniers. I guess it is rather that people have often just diverse ideas of how things work and should work. In particular it should be mentioned at this point that there are even people who are not overly convinced about furthering life on earth and mankind, but who think that a suposingly fast way to paradise is the road to take. The main problem I see with skeptical anti-AGW or also pro-AGW bloggers is rather that this is high risk research and that for most cases it will be thus a lost effort. Especially given that like for the ENSO case they eventually have to compete with giant assurance companies etc. If you do it just for fun and you have the ressources for that, like as a hobby that might do well, but if you expect more then this can get problematic. Thats also why I reduce my work here. 
• Options
10.

In terms of insurance companies, they tend to hire climate scientists as consultants. For example, one of the names in consulting is the team of Peter Webster and Judith Curry (profs at Georgia Tech) http://www.cfanclimate.com/team.php. If you Google Scholar "ENSO", you will find Webster has one of the most highly cited papers on ENSO.

But IMO, these two are not very impressive as scientists. When I was first devising the ENSO model Peter Webster wrote this:

"Peter Webster | May 26, 2014 at 8:50 pm Well, WHT, not so easy. The system is highly nonlinear (hence error growth) which limits forecasts of ENSO across the spring time. Called the “spring predictability barrier” and exists when the noise in the system is greater than the signal. This occur in the boreal spring which is the reason for uncertainty in forecasts at that time of the year. Persistence of ENSO indices between April and July is close to zero. Persistence from June to December is much higher. This once the nonlinear trajectory has occurred, the system is very predictable. Now extend this argument to what the next ENSO cycle will be: zero predictability. I think you fall in the trap of noting that ENSO variability has time scales of 2-4 years and that this seemingly oscillatory nature of the phenomena means predictability. Papers on this if you would like. Bottom line, ENSO is a nonlinear property of climate, naturally varying but the onset of a phase is unpredictable. Papers on this topic if you like. PW "

Peter Webster says it is all unpredictable, which contrasts to what we are finding.

Curry is no better as she claims that AGW is buried in uncertainty and consults at congressional hearings on these matters !

I think what we do as a hobby is actually more impressive than what they do as a career.

As a caveat, I think there are many scientists who actually do good work, but the number of scientists that have been involved in ENSO and QBO who are also noted AGW deniers is fascinating. For example, William Gray, who Jan mentioned in another thread as doing seminal work in ENSO and QBO is a noted AGW skeptic. Also consider the AGW skeptics Murry Salby, Robert Carter, and Richard Lindzen that have done ENSO and QBO research. In particular, Lindzen is one of the most highly regarded scientists that thinks that AGW is completely overblown. And Lindzen is the one that came up with the initial theories for the behavior of QBO !

I am totally unimpressed with that particular group. If they don't have the chops to understand that AGW is real, I don't know how they can have the scientific chops to do research on QBO and ENSO.

Comment Source:In terms of insurance companies, they tend to hire climate scientists as consultants. For example, one of the names in consulting is the team of Peter Webster and Judith Curry (profs at Georgia Tech) http://www.cfanclimate.com/team.php. If you Google Scholar "ENSO", you will find Webster has one of the most highly cited papers on ENSO. But IMO, these two are not very impressive as scientists. When I was first devising the ENSO model Peter Webster wrote this: > "Peter Webster | May 26, 2014 at 8:50 pm Well, WHT, not so easy. The system is highly nonlinear (hence error growth) which limits forecasts of ENSO across the spring time. Called the “spring predictability barrier” and exists when the noise in the system is greater than the signal. This occur in the boreal spring which is the reason for uncertainty in forecasts at that time of the year. Persistence of ENSO indices between April and July is close to zero. Persistence from June to December is much higher. This once the nonlinear trajectory has occurred, the system is very predictable. Now extend this argument to what the next ENSO cycle will be: zero predictability. I think you fall in the trap of noting that ENSO variability has time scales of 2-4 years and that this seemingly oscillatory nature of the phenomena means predictability. Papers on this if you would like. Bottom line, ENSO is a nonlinear property of climate, naturally varying but the onset of a phase is unpredictable. Papers on this topic if you like. PW " Peter Webster says it is all unpredictable, which contrasts to what we are finding. Curry is no better as she claims that AGW is buried in uncertainty and consults at congressional hearings on these matters ! I think what we do as a hobby is actually more impressive than what they do as a career. As a caveat, I think there are many scientists who actually do good work, but the number of scientists that have been involved in ENSO and QBO who are also noted AGW deniers is fascinating. For example, William Gray, who Jan mentioned in another thread as doing seminal work in ENSO and QBO is a noted AGW skeptic. Also consider the AGW skeptics Murry Salby, Robert Carter, and Richard Lindzen that have done ENSO and QBO research. In particular, Lindzen is one of the most highly regarded scientists that thinks that AGW is completely overblown. And Lindzen is the one that came up with the initial theories for the behavior of QBO ! I am totally unimpressed with that particular group. If they don't have the chops to understand that AGW is real, I don't know how they can have the scientific chops to do research on QBO and ENSO. 
• Options
11.

Peter Webster says it is all unpredictable, which contrasts to what we are finding.

Frankly I don't understand what he is saying above, he also says :

"This once the nonlinear trajectory has occurred, the system is very predictable."

and

Persistence of ENSO indices between April and July is close to zero.

What is meant by a persistence of ENSO indices? That they stay constant?

ENSO is predictable -the question is just on what time-scale.

AGW is completely overblown

Even if I critisized the temperature data I somewhat trust the measurements and I do think that it is pretty clear that temperatures are rising. How much of this is anthropic is a another question. It is clear that humans are having a huge impact on the earths environment and the onset of warming seems correlated with the onset of industry growth, so already on a first guess AGW seems very suggestive and appears to me as a good working hypothesis for a start. But well of course there could be other sources too, this clearly needs further investigation and well funded arguments. I find the greenhouse gas hypothesis also quite convincing for a start, but the concrete calculations which give indications about the possible size of greenhouse gases seem very complicated and I would wonder if there are no errors or omittances. The question is how big are the errors or omittances. I don't know what's meant by "being buried in uncertainty" but even if there are big uncertainties some uncertain kind of knowledge could be better then none.

I don't know how they can have the scientific chops to do research on QBO and ENSO. Well it seems Georgia Tech thinks they are doing valuable work.

In terms of insurance companies, they tend to hire climate scientists as consultants. For example, one of the names in consulting is the team of Peter Webster and Judith Curry (profs at Georgia Tech)

Georgia Tech is a public institution. Thus this consulting work could also lead to a conflict of interest between the interest of a public institution and private companies. Like the disemination of results could be impaired because of private interests or if they are also paid by Georgia Tech then this could be -depending on how good their consulting is in relation to prices- seen as intrinsically subsidizing insurance companies, I don't know to what extend insurance subsidization is on Georgia's political agenda. I do think it is important - especially in the applied sciences area's- that there is some exchange between public and private but that one has to be very careful about conflicts of interest. So I could imagine that there are discussions about this particular case at Georgia Tech and installments to prevent a possible damage to academic and public interests.

Comment Source:>Peter Webster says it is all unpredictable, which contrasts to what we are finding. Frankly I don't understand what he is saying above, he also says : >"This once the nonlinear trajectory has occurred, the system is very predictable." and >Persistence of ENSO indices between April and July is close to zero. What is meant by a persistence of ENSO indices? That they stay constant? ENSO is predictable -the question is just on what time-scale. >AGW is completely overblown Even if I critisized the temperature data I somewhat trust the measurements and I do think that it is pretty clear that temperatures are rising. How much of this is anthropic is a another question. It is clear that humans are having a huge impact on the earths environment and the onset of warming seems correlated with the onset of industry growth, so already on a first guess AGW seems very suggestive and appears to me as a good working hypothesis for a start. But well of course there could be other sources too, this clearly needs further investigation and well funded arguments. I find the greenhouse gas hypothesis also quite convincing for a start, but the concrete calculations which give indications about the possible size of greenhouse gases seem very complicated and I would wonder if there are no errors or omittances. The question is how big are the errors or omittances. I don't know what's meant by "being buried in uncertainty" but even if there are big uncertainties some uncertain kind of knowledge could be better then none. >I don't know how they can have the scientific chops to do research on QBO and ENSO. Well it seems Georgia Tech thinks they are doing valuable work. >In terms of insurance companies, they tend to hire climate scientists as consultants. For example, one of the names in consulting is the team of Peter Webster and Judith Curry (profs at Georgia Tech) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Institute_of_Technology">Georgia Tech</a> is a public institution. Thus this consulting work could also lead to a conflict of interest between the interest of a public institution and private companies. Like the disemination of results could be impaired because of private interests or if they are also paid by Georgia Tech then this could be -depending on how good their consulting is in relation to prices- seen as intrinsically subsidizing insurance companies, I don't know to what extend insurance subsidization is on Georgia's political agenda. I do think it is important - especially in the applied sciences area's- that there is some exchange between public and private but that one has to be very careful about conflicts of interest. So I could imagine that there are discussions about this particular case at Georgia Tech and installments to prevent a possible damage to academic and public interests. 
• Options
12.

I think that since these scientists (such as Curry, etc) have worked on natural variability behaviors such as ENSO, it is in their commercial and self-interests to claim that AGW and climate change is to some degree a part of the Earth's natural variability in temperatures. But then again, these are the people that should realize oscillating temperature behaviors are zero-sum, and won't add anything to the long-term trend!

I mentioned Murry Salby as another scientist that has worked ENSO and like Peter Webster has hundreds of citations to ENSO-related articles. As it turns out, Salby has really gone off the deep-end and has for a couple of years now claimed that rising CO2 levels are not caused by man but are the result of changes in the temperature of the ocean ! I have watched one of his talks on this subject and he appears to be dead serious.

I don't know what it is about studying ENSO, but it appears to have caused many a scientist to go loopy.

Comment Source:I think that since these scientists (such as Curry, etc) have worked on natural variability behaviors such as ENSO, it is in their commercial and self-interests to claim that AGW and climate change is to some degree a part of the Earth's natural variability in temperatures. But then again, these are the people that should realize oscillating temperature behaviors are zero-sum, and won't add anything to the long-term trend! I mentioned Murry Salby as another scientist that has worked ENSO and like Peter Webster has hundreds of citations to ENSO-related articles. As it turns out, Salby has really gone off the deep-end and has for a couple of years now claimed that rising CO2 levels are not caused by man but are the result of changes in the temperature of the ocean ! I have watched one of his talks on this subject and he appears to be dead serious. I don't know what it is about studying ENSO, but it appears to have caused many a scientist to go loopy. 
• Options
13.

"John had recently done a google+post on orbital resonances and their history. It's certainly interesting stuff, although if I might see some things a bit differently."

Thinking out loud here as this may just be a coincidence.

There are some odd things about the Chandler wobble having to do with phase reversals. As I am finding with ENSO, phase reversals are often associated with metastable conditions. One metastable condition that I can imagine is an exact biennial period of 2 years. There is a known spin-orbit coupling of the moon and the earth of 2.9 years, where astronomers see the moon's rotation rate varying slightly with a 2.9 year period.

Now if we take the multiplication of these two terms

$sin(2\pi/2.9t) \cdot sin(pi/t)$

we get two expanded terms, one that has the ~1.18 year Chandler wobble period and one that has the ~6.45 Chandler wobble beat period.

The Chandler wobble underwent a complete phase reversal around 1930. My thought is that an exact biennial period can be keyed to even and odd years, and that switching from an even to odd biennial period would cause a significant reversal.

What determines which year to key to? That is metastable because one is not favored over another, yet with any given year it could flip at a seasonal boundary condition.

Comment Source:nad said: > "John had recently done a google+post on orbital resonances and their history. It's certainly interesting stuff, although if I might see some things a bit differently." Thinking out loud here as this may just be a coincidence. There are some odd things about the Chandler wobble having to do with phase reversals. As I am finding with ENSO, phase reversals are often associated with metastable conditions. One metastable condition that I can imagine is an exact biennial period of 2 years. There is a known spin-orbit coupling of the moon and the earth of 2.9 years, where astronomers see the moon's rotation rate varying slightly with a 2.9 year period. Now if we take the multiplication of these two terms $sin(2\pi/2.9t) \cdot sin(pi/t)$ we get two expanded terms, one that has the ~1.18 year Chandler wobble period and one that has the ~6.45 Chandler wobble beat period. The Chandler wobble underwent a complete phase reversal around 1930. My thought is that an exact biennial period can be keyed to even and odd years, and that switching from an even to odd biennial period would cause a significant reversal. What determines which year to key to? That is metastable because one is not favored over another, yet with any given year it could flip at a seasonal boundary condition. 
• Options
14.

I posted some evidence for a strong strictly biennial oscillation with respect to tidal gauge monitoring here:

http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/12570/#Comment_12570

This is the average monthly tidal gauge measurement at Sydney Harbor after filtering out the lower frequency fluctuations. It is a very simple formulation with a 2-year periodic forcing a wave equation with a ~10 year Mathieu modulation

That may be a second mode of ENSO variability, and this 2 year mode may be related to initiating phase reversals

http://contextearth.com/2014/09/23/two-modes-to-enso-variability/

# Other news

Head's up too, as this scientific finding is making the rounds. http://www.cnet.com/news/the-moon-is-shrinking-and-the-earth-is-shaping-it/

Except for the effect of tides, it is strange that scientists do not ascribe much of the earth's behavior to lunar effects. Yet this research claims that the earth has a huge impact on the moon.

The fault lines match up with tidal gravitational forces due to the earth.

Also recall the obscure paper I mentioned in a comment a few months ago: https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/14559/#Comment_14559

New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 60, September, 2011 SUN, MOON AND EARTHQUAKES Vinayak G. KOLVANKAR Former scientist, BARC, Mumbai 400051, India http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php?action=download&id=130 "It was found that nearly 98% of the earthquakes for different regions, examined for the period 1973-2008, show a direct relationship between the Sun’s position and the earthquake-moon distance together with the Sun-Earth-Moon angle. As the time changes from 00-24 hours, the sum of the earthquake-moon distance and the Sun-Earth-Moon angle changes through 360 deg, and plotting these two variables for different earthquakes reveals a simple 45 deg straight-line relationship between them."

Is not this the same thing as what the scientists are finding with respect to the moon? Why is the moon discovery getting acceptance, while this other finding by (I assume) a retired scientist from India not? At the time, I thought Kolvankar may have goofed because the fit was too good, but now I am not so sure.

Comment Source:I posted some evidence for a strong strictly biennial oscillation with respect to tidal gauge monitoring here: http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/12570/#Comment_12570 This is the average monthly tidal gauge measurement at Sydney Harbor after filtering out the lower frequency fluctuations. It is a very simple formulation with a 2-year periodic forcing a wave equation with a ~10 year Mathieu modulation ![tide](http://imageshack.com/a/img904/6197/f7qRxC.gif) That may be a second mode of ENSO variability, and this 2 year mode may be related to initiating phase reversals http://contextearth.com/2014/09/23/two-modes-to-enso-variability/ --- # Other news Head's up too, as this scientific finding is making the rounds. http://www.cnet.com/news/the-moon-is-shrinking-and-the-earth-is-shaping-it/ Except for the effect of tides, it is strange that scientists do not ascribe much of the earth's behavior to lunar effects. Yet this research claims that the earth has a huge impact on the moon. ![mon](http://cnet3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2015/09/16/8db5b569-8e03-438f-9c43-1175fd3b79db/996211eb6a6999fbc9c7a1145a32c109/scarps.jpg) The fault lines match up with tidal gravitational forces due to the earth. Also recall the obscure paper I mentioned in a comment a few months ago: https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/14559/#Comment_14559 >New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 60, September, 2011 SUN, MOON AND EARTHQUAKES Vinayak G. KOLVANKAR Former scientist, BARC, Mumbai 400051, India http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php?action=download&id=130 "It was found that nearly 98% of the earthquakes for different regions, examined for the period 1973-2008, show a direct relationship between the Sun’s position and the earthquake-moon distance together with the Sun-Earth-Moon angle. As the time changes from 00-24 hours, the sum of the earthquake-moon distance and the Sun-Earth-Moon angle changes through 360 deg, and plotting these two variables for different earthquakes reveals a simple 45 deg straight-line relationship between them." Is not this the same thing as what the scientists are finding with respect to the moon? Why is the moon discovery getting acceptance, while this other finding by (I assume) a retired scientist from India not? At the time, I thought Kolvankar may have goofed because the fit was too good, but now I am not so sure. 
• Options
15.

File under Bizarre -- several AGW denialist bloggers are complaining that I am "nicking" (i.e. stealing) their ideas with respect to the ENSO model described in the Azimuth Forum.

It really is the wild west out there. I have to admit to stirring the pot a little ... but as far as stealing goes, they may want to blame the machine learning, because it knows not what it is doing and has no conscience.

Comment Source:File under Bizarre -- several AGW denialist bloggers are complaining that I am "nicking" (i.e. stealing) their ideas with respect to the ENSO model described in the Azimuth Forum. It really is the wild west out there. I have to admit to stirring the pot a little ... but as far as stealing goes, they may want to blame the machine learning, because it knows not what it is doing and has no conscience.