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

- All Categories 2.4K
- Chat 505
- Study Groups 21
- Petri Nets 9
- Epidemiology 4
- Leaf Modeling 2
- Review Sections 9
- MIT 2020: Programming with Categories 51
- MIT 2020: Lectures 20
- MIT 2020: Exercises 25
- Baez ACT 2019: Online Course 339
- Baez ACT 2019: Lectures 79
- Baez ACT 2019: Exercises 149
- Baez ACT 2019: Chat 50
- UCR ACT Seminar 4
- General 75
- Azimuth Code Project 111
- Statistical methods 4
- Drafts 10
- Math Syntax Demos 15
- Wiki - Latest Changes 3
- Strategy 113
- Azimuth Project 1.1K
- - Spam 1
- News and Information 148
- Azimuth Blog 149
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 719

Options

This discussion has been closed.

## Comments

"Sun passing nodally over the equator" is in fact a seasonal Orbital Resonance that is not the three-body Lunarsolar Tide per se. Remember, I accept Orbital Resonances AND lunisolar noise in the ENSO-QBO sensor data. You do not seem to accept the latter at all, much less hope to quantify how much it undercuts your forcing interpretation.

QBO is properly "Quasi-Biennial", rather than strictly Biennial. SAO is not QBO, and its presumed solar radiation driver does not exactly match to lunar cycle, with chaos certain in the rounding errors of LaPlacian oversimplification. LaPlace knew this limit and invented his God-like Demon to transcend his equations.

Hydrodynamic chaos is essentially turbulence, and ENSO-QBO are quite turbulent. There are inherent spring-mass dynamics in the vorticial chaos of geophysical mass flows like ENSO-QBO, both gas pressure elasticity, and elastic response of gravity.

Denying these facts may indeed be "delusional in terms of not seeing the obvious" (obvious at least to a typical NOAA geophysicist).

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/a-strange-thing-happened-in-the-stratosphere

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/mysterious-anomaly-interrupts-stratospheric-wind-pattern

`"Sun passing nodally over the equator" is in fact a seasonal Orbital Resonance that is not the three-body Lunarsolar Tide per se. Remember, I accept Orbital Resonances AND lunisolar noise in the ENSO-QBO sensor data. You do not seem to accept the latter at all, much less hope to quantify how much it undercuts your forcing interpretation. QBO is properly "Quasi-Biennial", rather than strictly Biennial. SAO is not QBO, and its presumed solar radiation driver does not exactly match to lunar cycle, with chaos certain in the rounding errors of LaPlacian oversimplification. LaPlace knew this limit and invented his God-like Demon to transcend his equations. Hydrodynamic chaos is essentially turbulence, and ENSO-QBO are quite turbulent. There are inherent spring-mass dynamics in the vorticial chaos of geophysical mass flows like ENSO-QBO, both gas pressure elasticity, and elastic response of gravity. Denying these facts may indeed be "delusional in terms of not seeing the obvious" (obvious at least to a typical NOAA geophysicist). https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/a-strange-thing-happened-in-the-stratosphere https://eos.org/research-spotlights/mysterious-anomaly-interrupts-stratospheric-wind-pattern`

Someone put "quasi" in the name because they couldn't determine what caused it and that the 2.37 year period is somewhat close to 2. Do you have anything to add but semantic sugar?

$$2.37 = 1/(365.242/27.2122-13)$$

`> "QBO is properly "Quasi-Biennial", rather than strictly Biennial. " Someone put "quasi" in the name because they couldn't determine what caused it and that the 2.37 year period is somewhat close to 2. Do you have anything to add but semantic sugar? $$2.37 = 1/(365.242/27.2122-13)$$`

"QBO" is no "sematic sugar", but the accepted name even you rightfully use: Quasi-Biennial. There is far more than imaginary sugar to identifying probable Tidal Noise in ENSO-QBO sensor data. This adds a lot to the analysis, unless you already carefully accounted for it somewhere in the years of posts here.

OBO has varied widely from a metronomic 2.37 rhythm, by the anomaly references provided. The scientists who named QBO, on just a few years of data, did not have the 2.37 number in mind. QBO sequence data is still rather limited and too ambiguous to rigorously validate your hypothesis. What causes chaotic QBO anomalies? Nobody is fully certain, but investigation continues.

We can reasonably suggest somewhat more Lunisolar Forcing in QBO than ENSO (a higher Pukite Number or Q replication fidelity), but still a lot of noise to scientifically account for.

I just measured by ruler peak-to-peak distances across 4 QBO cycles against each other, using the graph NASA provides on the QBO page linked below. Measured distances did not lock on a precise 2.37yr period. You seem to argue that in the long run, with enough data, the measured average must converge on 2.37 with increasing precision and no phase-shift. Meanwhile, supposed forcing year-to-year is obviously far from perfect.

https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/qbo.html

Your number, 2.37 years = 28.44 months, but [Newman et al 2016] differs-

"average QBO duration of 27.6 months as measured between the easterly‐to‐westerly transitions"

And the Quasi Periodicity [Newman] cites is undeniable-

"period is variable by more than a year between the shortest and longest QBO periods"

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL070373

A further prediction is that a significant geophysical forcing effect by a relatively weak input depends on a high inherent harmonic resonance potential, without much damping. Otherwise an input is mostly just some excitation.

The QBO Balance Wheel analogy does not necessarily preclude Lunisolar Resonance. QBO is less damped than ENSO. Its a vast ring-like air mass that rotates back and forth in a rough limit-cycle. It would be quite odd if there was no dynamic similarity to a Balance Wheel or Jupiter QQO, but there is.

`"QBO" is no "sematic sugar", but the accepted name even you rightfully use: Quasi-Biennial. There is far more than imaginary sugar to identifying probable Tidal Noise in ENSO-QBO sensor data. This adds a lot to the analysis, unless you already carefully accounted for it somewhere in the years of posts here. OBO has varied widely from a metronomic 2.37 rhythm, by the anomaly references provided. The scientists who named QBO, on just a few years of data, did not have the 2.37 number in mind. QBO sequence data is still rather limited and too ambiguous to rigorously validate your hypothesis. What causes chaotic QBO anomalies? Nobody is fully certain, but investigation continues. We can reasonably suggest somewhat more Lunisolar Forcing in QBO than ENSO (a higher Pukite Number or Q replication fidelity), but still a lot of noise to scientifically account for. I just measured by ruler peak-to-peak distances across 4 QBO cycles against each other, using the graph NASA provides on the QBO page linked below. Measured distances did not lock on a precise 2.37yr period. You seem to argue that in the long run, with enough data, the measured average must converge on 2.37 with increasing precision and no phase-shift. Meanwhile, supposed forcing year-to-year is obviously far from perfect. https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/qbo.html Your number, 2.37 years = 28.44 months, but [Newman et al 2016] differs- "average QBO duration of 27.6 months as measured between the easterly‐to‐westerly transitions" And the Quasi Periodicity [Newman] cites is undeniable- "period is variable by more than a year between the shortest and longest QBO periods" https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL070373 A further prediction is that a significant geophysical forcing effect by a relatively weak input depends on a high inherent harmonic resonance potential, without much damping. Otherwise an input is mostly just some excitation. The QBO Balance Wheel analogy does not necessarily preclude Lunisolar Resonance. QBO is less damped than ENSO. Its a vast ring-like air mass that rotates back and forth in a rough limit-cycle. It would be quite odd if there was no dynamic similarity to a Balance Wheel or Jupiter QQO, but there is.`

The problem is that you seem to lack any intuition with respect to data analysis or signal processing. Of course there's not a fixed period when it is caused by a periodic impulse magnifying an underlying tidal signal. The impulse is on semi-annual cycles so that what we see is essentially the strength of the tidal modulation on these impulses, which when viewed

at a distanceshows the 2.37 year period.The solar and lunar periods are incommensurate (top 2 panels) so that the periods are not strict and may dance around a bit depending on the triggering factors. But when the two are commensurate, such as the nodal and solar pulses coinciding as harmonics (bottom panel), the cycle of course lands on the pulse.

This is well-known in tidal analysis circles where the patterns aren't fixed on strictly periodic dates either, so that tidal predictions (such as dates of king tide occurrences) are still supplied as look-up tables and not some formula that you seem to be expecting. Sailors and ocean dwellers may not know all the math on this but certainly they have gained some intuition how this works, which you seem indifferent to, or worse, belligerent against understanding.

And you know what? I also don't care to be playing any more of these got-you-games, where you claim orbital resonance when I am clearly talking about resonance in a fluid wave equation. So just chill a bit.

`The problem is that you seem to lack any intuition with respect to data analysis or signal processing. Of course there's not a fixed period when it is caused by a periodic impulse magnifying an underlying tidal signal. The impulse is on semi-annual cycles so that what we see is essentially the strength of the tidal modulation on these impulses, which when viewed **at a distance** shows the 2.37 year period. ![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsRgCMgW8AA7TAS.png) The solar and lunar periods are incommensurate (top 2 panels) so that the periods are not strict and may dance around a bit depending on the triggering factors. But when the two are commensurate, such as the nodal and solar pulses coinciding as harmonics (bottom panel), the cycle of course lands on the pulse. This is well-known in tidal analysis circles where the patterns aren't fixed on strictly periodic dates either, so that tidal predictions (such as dates of king tide occurrences) are still supplied as look-up tables and not some formula that you seem to be expecting. Sailors and ocean dwellers may not know all the math on this but certainly they have gained some intuition how this works, which you seem indifferent to, or worse, belligerent against understanding. And you know what? I also don't care to be playing any more of these got-you-games, where you claim orbital resonance when I am clearly talking about resonance in a fluid wave equation. So just chill a bit.`

Paul. I am a life-long sailor dealing with tides, so I have "some intuition how this works", just as you wish.

We agree that tidal "patterns aren't fixed on strictly periodic dates", for reasons I have partially listed. No I do not expect "some formula" here, nor even a "look-up table", or I would clearly ask for such.

I am trying to meet your exacting criteria not to "punt" nor "hand wave" here. Any very-experienced sailor can imagine an ENSO data buoy anchored in 9km of Sea picks up tidal noise, and knows that the Sea is quintessentially chaotic. That's actually where my line of thought comes from. Chaos Science is simply the formalization of what a good sailor knows.

All waves are orbital in phase-space.

`Paul. I am a life-long sailor dealing with tides, so I have "some intuition how this works", just as you wish. We agree that tidal "patterns aren't fixed on strictly periodic dates", for reasons I have partially listed. No I do not expect "some formula" here, nor even a "look-up table", or I would clearly ask for such. I am trying to meet your exacting criteria not to "punt" nor "hand wave" here. Any very-experienced sailor can imagine an ENSO data buoy anchored in 9km of Sea picks up tidal noise, and knows that the Sea is quintessentially chaotic. That's actually where my line of thought comes from. Chaos Science is simply the formalization of what a good sailor knows. All waves are orbital in phase-space.`

shorter: Ahab

`shorter: Ahab`

These links speak to the question of ENSO sensor data subject to many sources of noise-

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/gtmba/data-quality-control

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/enso-signal-and-noise

In the context here, we can identify Lunisolar Tide and ENSO State "cross-talk" as a possibility, of spurious signal overlaid on desired signal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosstalk

Wanqui Wang seems to be the NOAA guy for the sort of ENSO Model Ensemble we have been looking for. His Ensemble Member Set compares about 30 ENSO Member Models to average out into his ENSO Ensemble Mean Prediction.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/information/who_we_are/cpc_staff/Wanqiu_Wang.shtml

`These links speak to the question of ENSO sensor data subject to many sources of noise- https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/gtmba/data-quality-control https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/enso-signal-and-noise In the context here, we can identify Lunisolar Tide and ENSO State "cross-talk" as a possibility, of spurious signal overlaid on desired signal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosstalk Wanqui Wang seems to be the NOAA guy for the sort of ENSO Model Ensemble we have been looking for. His Ensemble Member Set compares about 30 ENSO Member Models to average out into his ENSO Ensemble Mean Prediction. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/information/who_we_are/cpc_staff/Wanqiu_Wang.shtml`

CC = 0.9995

The elegance of the physics of gravitational forcing. All cycles shorter than monthly are due to this construction :

`CC = 0.9995 ![](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/5450/DV3klD.png) The elegance of the physics of gravitational forcing. All cycles shorter than monthly are due to this construction : ![](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/2346/2B80I9.png)`

PaulP: "The elegance of the physics of gravitational forcing."

Agreed, as a classically ideal principle. The real world of noisy data sets and ENSO-QBO Model Ensembles is not so "elegant".

Regarding the danger of a parsimony fallacy, Menger wrote, "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more."

Re: CC = 0.9995

That could be compelling evidence of crosstalk, as well as forcing. Its no proof of 100% forcing and 0% crosstalk. It could even be mostly crosstalk, as far as we currently can tell.

Your golden opportunity is not so much to insist ENSO-QBO are ideally elegant cases of Tidal Forcing (they are not), but to refine the estimation of chaos by quantifying the actual degree of obviously-imperfect Tidal Forcing.

The option of filtering the identified Lunisolar Cross-Talk component from buoy and sonde data will improve everyone's Models' performance, and even save lives.

These are worthy contributions to the science.

`PaulP: "The elegance of the physics of gravitational forcing." Agreed, as a classically ideal principle. The real world of noisy data sets and ENSO-QBO Model Ensembles is not so "elegant". Regarding the danger of a parsimony fallacy, Menger wrote, "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more." Re: CC = 0.9995 That could be compelling evidence of crosstalk, as well as forcing. Its no proof of 100% forcing and 0% crosstalk. It could even be mostly crosstalk, as far as we currently can tell. Your golden opportunity is not so much to insist ENSO-QBO are ideally elegant cases of Tidal Forcing (they are not), but to refine the estimation of chaos by quantifying the actual degree of obviously-imperfect Tidal Forcing. The option of filtering the identified Lunisolar Cross-Talk component from buoy and sonde data will improve everyone's Models' performance, and even save lives. These are worthy contributions to the science.`

CC = 0.9995

LOL/LOD

My model of LOD is to the

derivativeof LOD assuming the horizontal tidal force is approximated as a quadrature from this schematic $$ \frac{dLOD}{dt} \approx \frac{1}{(1+A(t))^2} - \frac{1}{(1+A(t))^2+T(t)} + G_{solar}(t) $$If anyone knows about taking the derivative of a measure, it will amplify any noise in the signal.

The perigean

A(t)term is approximated byMoreover, all the tidal factors faster than fortnightly are modeled as due to the Taylor's series expansion due to the terms in the denominator. It's just an elegantly beautiful application of Newtonian physics and I'm not going to let your vague ramblings cast aspersions on this take.

BTW, anyone can take the LOD data from IERS (https://www.google.com/search?q=LOD+IERS) and do the model themselves. I am sure you can put me in my place if I am making up a correlation coefficient of 0.9995 on this one. You can also cross-check the strengths of all the terms against this chart. Most of the lower amplitude terms are due to Taylor's series expansion.

... and my last job was doing GPS satellite calibration for on-board electronics so if you want to actually do something technically challenging, try that on for size ...

`CC = 0.9995 > "That could be compelling evidence of crosstalk, as well as forcing. Its no proof of 100% forcing and 0% crosstalk. It could even be mostly crosstalk, as far as we currently can tell." LOL/LOD My model of LOD is to the *derivative* of LOD assuming the horizontal tidal force is approximated as a quadrature from [this schematic](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/2346/2B80I9.png) $$ \frac{dLOD}{dt} \approx \frac{1}{(1+A(t))^2} - \frac{1}{(1+A(t))^2+T(t)} + G_{solar}(t) $$ If anyone knows about taking the derivative of a measure, it will amplify any noise in the signal. The perigean *A(t)* term is approximated by ![](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/1702/FSKPsX.png) ![](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8670/C6GwdH.png) Moreover, all the tidal factors faster than fortnightly are modeled as due to the Taylor's series expansion due to the terms in the denominator. It's just an elegantly beautiful application of Newtonian physics and I'm not going to let your vague ramblings cast aspersions on this take. BTW, anyone can take the LOD data from IERS (https://www.google.com/search?q=LOD+IERS) and do the model themselves. I am sure you can put me in my place if I am making up a correlation coefficient of 0.9995 on this one. You can also cross-check the strengths of all the terms against this chart. Most of the lower amplitude terms are due to Taylor's series expansion. ![](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/4118/LDtvyM.png) ... and my last job was doing GPS satellite calibration for on-board electronics so if you want to actually do something technically challenging, try that on for size ...`

You can't wave-away Lunisolar noise in ENSO-QBO data as "vague ramblings", given the supporting references.

Lets keep the references coming. An ocean data-buoy on a tensioned tether anchored 9km deep is a very sensitive inverted (floating) pendulum instrument in itself, but then bristling with multi-sensing sensitive to noise. Does such a long pendulum pick up Tidal crosstalk? Indeed it must, as do even small pendulums-

https://hgss.copernicus.org/articles/11/215/2020/#:~:text=The effect of tides on pendulum clocks appears,better measurements of both time and Earth orientation.

Thus ENSO-QBO multi-sensing evidently encodes the Lunisolar Tidal Statistics along with ENSO-QBO state data. You have not shown such crosstalk is not substantially responsible for the supposed forcing you claim. The real test is whether your model predicts ENSO-QBO more accurately than the Ensemble Forecasts. You shy from that test.

The least parsimonious claim here is that all NOAA geophysicists are "laughably ignorant" of certain truth of your Lunisolar Tidal Forcing of ENSO-QBO conviction. You admit not having a sound explanation for such rampant peer ignorance. Misinterpreting Lunisolar Noise in the data is the more parsimonious hypothesis here. Likely the NOAA scientists would agree.

Again, simply track your model's short-range predictions against ENSO's grand Model Ensemble, and see how that horse race goes.

Best of Luck, Paul.

`You can't wave-away Lunisolar noise in ENSO-QBO data as "vague ramblings", given the supporting references. Lets keep the references coming. An ocean data-buoy on a tensioned tether anchored 9km deep is a very sensitive inverted (floating) pendulum instrument in itself, but then bristling with multi-sensing sensitive to noise. Does such a long pendulum pick up Tidal crosstalk? Indeed it must, as do even small pendulums- https://hgss.copernicus.org/articles/11/215/2020/#:~:text=The%20effect%20of%20tides%20on%20pendulum%20clocks%20appears,better%20measurements%20of%20both%20time%20and%20Earth%20orientation. Thus ENSO-QBO multi-sensing evidently encodes the Lunisolar Tidal Statistics along with ENSO-QBO state data. You have not shown such crosstalk is not substantially responsible for the supposed forcing you claim. The real test is whether your model predicts ENSO-QBO more accurately than the Ensemble Forecasts. You shy from that test. The least parsimonious claim here is that all NOAA geophysicists are "laughably ignorant" of certain truth of your Lunisolar Tidal Forcing of ENSO-QBO conviction. You admit not having a sound explanation for such rampant peer ignorance. Misinterpreting Lunisolar Noise in the data is the more parsimonious hypothesis here. Likely the NOAA scientists would agree. Again, simply track your model's short-range predictions against ENSO's grand Model Ensemble, and see how that horse race goes. Best of Luck, Paul.`

Why don't you do it? No one is stopping you.

One thing I know is that the key to modeling is to reduce the number of degrees-of-freedom in the physical space. With the high correlation coefficient I obtained in #610, I have eliminated well over 90% of the free physical parameters in the fit, and so will continue along this path of applied physics modeling.

Of course, you are allowed to do whatever you well please, including giving me bad advice.

`> "The real test is whether your model predicts ENSO-QBO more accurately than the Ensemble Forecasts. You shy from that test." Why don't you do it? No one is stopping you. One thing I know is that the key to modeling is to reduce the number of degrees-of-freedom in the physical space. With the high correlation coefficient I obtained in [#610](#Comment_22756), I have eliminated well over 90% of the free physical parameters in the fit, and so will continue along this path of applied physics modeling. Of course, you are allowed to do whatever you well please, including giving me bad advice.`

PaulK: "Why don't you do it?"

Its quite enough that you wish not to run your model in the Ensemble for validation, declaring that path "bad advice". Good advice is not to futz with poorly documented GitHub code. In any case, your calculated predictions for the 2280 window will eventually serve the purpose.

My interest is to continue developing the alternative Signal Crosstalk hypothesis to strong Lunisolar Forcing by literature research and heuristics. If its possible to well-enough specify and quantify such noise, running your code may be redundant. If you can falsify the alternative hypothesis, that's good too.

To recap: Your ENSO-QBO Lunisolar Forcing hypothesis is at odds with Chaos Science peer orthodoxy. I concede upfront there must some forcing hidden in the statistical chaos, for as Dirac put it, "pick a flower, move the farthest star", but its unclear how much of the effect in the data is Lunisolar Crosstalk and how much is your Forcing, given the nature of the multi-sensing.

This alternative view strikes a nice balance between the two geophysical camps. What is left is to determine the ratio of crosstalk to forcing, and filter the crosstalk from the Ensemble Model to improve it.

`PaulK: "Why don't you do it?" Its quite enough that you wish not to run your model in the Ensemble for validation, declaring that path "bad advice". Good advice is not to futz with poorly documented GitHub code. In any case, your calculated predictions for the 2280 window will eventually serve the purpose. My interest is to continue developing the alternative Signal Crosstalk hypothesis to strong Lunisolar Forcing by literature research and heuristics. If its possible to well-enough specify and quantify such noise, running your code may be redundant. If you can falsify the alternative hypothesis, that's good too. To recap: Your ENSO-QBO Lunisolar Forcing hypothesis is at odds with Chaos Science peer orthodoxy. I concede upfront there must some forcing hidden in the statistical chaos, for as Dirac put it, "pick a flower, move the farthest star", but its unclear how much of the effect in the data is Lunisolar Crosstalk and how much is your Forcing, given the nature of the multi-sensing. This alternative view strikes a nice balance between the two geophysical camps. What is left is to determine the ratio of crosstalk to forcing, and filter the crosstalk from the Ensemble Model to improve it.`

You seem to miss the point that this research is essentially a combination of exploratory metrology approaches and of applied geophysics. Consider that if the data was raw diffraction output (x-ray, electron, etc) and we were simply trying to reverse engineer the structure, the model-based metrology step would be more-or-less straightforward. The hard part would be to determine why the novel structure existed. So there are two models -- the metrology model (which is worked out, via the inverse diffraction physics) and the behavioral model (in that the structure or behavior exists is unknown).

For the geophysics of ENSO and QBO, neither the metrology model nor the behavioral model are close to mature. Straightforward Fourier series doesn't work because of the aliasing and multiple harmonics created, so new metrology approaches have to be devised to go along with the Navier-Stokes/Laplace Tidal Equations behavioral modeling that I previously published. Doing predictions is way down on the list of necessary tasks to complete, but I can see how readers raised with a horse-race mentality would consider it important.

`You seem to miss the point that this research is essentially a combination of exploratory metrology approaches and of applied geophysics. Consider that if the data was raw diffraction output (x-ray, electron, etc) and we were simply trying to reverse engineer the structure, the model-based metrology step would be more-or-less straightforward. The hard part would be to determine why the novel structure existed. So there are two models -- the metrology model (which is worked out, via the inverse diffraction physics) and the behavioral model (in that the structure or behavior exists is unknown). For the geophysics of ENSO and QBO, neither the metrology model nor the behavioral model are close to mature. Straightforward Fourier series doesn't work because of the aliasing and multiple harmonics created, so new metrology approaches have to be devised to go along with the Navier-Stokes/Laplace Tidal Equations behavioral modeling that I previously published. Doing predictions is way down on the list of necessary tasks to complete, but I can see how readers raised with a horse-race mentality would consider it important.`

PaulP: "Doing predictions is way down on the list of necessary tasks to complete, but I can see how readers raised with a horse-race mentality would consider it important."

Agreed. That is why I stated your "calculated predictions for the 2280 window will eventually serve the purpose", and that I am a "turtle" for you to be patient with (PM). Lets let the NOAA Ensemble Model be the "horse-race".

My understanding of the topic here is to best account for the evident Lunisolar Signal in the ENSO-QBO data. The Lunisolar Crosstalk Hypothesis is in fact rather ENSO-QBO non-predictive in only identifying Crosstalk Noise. At best it can improve the predictions of the Ensemble if the Crosstalk is filtered out (but not residual Forcing). If true, Crosstalk Noise does render your model less predictive than expected, insofar as Forcing may have been overestimated.

`PaulP: "Doing predictions is way down on the list of necessary tasks to complete, but I can see how readers raised with a horse-race mentality would consider it important." Agreed. That is why I stated your "calculated predictions for the 2280 window will eventually serve the purpose", and that I am a "turtle" for you to be patient with (PM). Lets let the NOAA Ensemble Model be the "horse-race". My understanding of the topic here is to best account for the evident Lunisolar Signal in the ENSO-QBO data. The Lunisolar Crosstalk Hypothesis is in fact rather ENSO-QBO non-predictive in only identifying Crosstalk Noise. At best it can improve the predictions of the Ensemble if the Crosstalk is filtered out (but not residual Forcing). If true, Crosstalk Noise does render your model less predictive than expected, insofar as Forcing may have been overestimated.`

ENSO is not best modeled as an "Ensemble". It's a standing-wave mode with a fixed spatial configuration, which means it's a single collective fluid behavior, not a statistical ensemble of outcomes. At least that's the premise I use. If you want to do it your way and treat it as "Crosstalk Noise", go ahead, but it won't help me any. I took classes at the graduate level on noise from this guy, so I do know the topic well

`ENSO is not best modeled as an "Ensemble". It's a standing-wave mode with a fixed spatial configuration, which means it's a single collective fluid behavior, not a statistical ensemble of outcomes. At least that's the premise I use. If you want to do it your way and treat it as "Crosstalk Noise", go ahead, but it won't help me any. I took classes at the graduate level on noise from this guy, so I do know the topic well ![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41LLQu4zrNL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) ![](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThVlHdi2icT_79KS3ZEabOj35pDTx-n3P0Ww&usqp=CAU) ![](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS03TswCahovuTSqGgMqG71uMnJLEM5Bf9EKw&usqp=CAU) ![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41E0hY80i5L._SR600%2C315_PIWhiteStrip%2CBottomLeft%2C0%2C35_SCLZZZZZZZ_FMpng_BG255%2C255%2C255.jpg)`

PaulP: "(ENSO is) a standing-wave mode with a fixed spatial configuration"

This claim presumes spacetime is not the more correct notion of space, that standing waves do not oscillate in spacetime, and even presumes Earth is "fixed". Nothing is fixed, in absolute relativistic terms.

Its unfixed "spatial configuration" predicted affecting ENSO sensor buoy data, like the Sun, Moon, and Earth relative positions, plus Earth Rotation and Declination Phases, plus the buoys motions according to sea-state.

Dr. van der Ziel would be an excellent third-party judge of whether Lunisolar Crosstalk Noise expressed in the ENSO data, if he were still alive. You seem unwilling to accept that possibility, despite his classes.

If there is Crosstalk, its a more parsimonious explanation than Forcing. Neither has been shown rigorously, much less measured in proportion, but Forcing involves more complex dynamics than Crosstalk.

NOAA does use an Ensemble Model to study ENSO. Maybe not "best modeled" so, but the same doubt fairly applies to your single Model and all those within the Ensemble. Only LaPlace's Demon, in principle, can compute the best single Model.

If none of this helps, its not for want of trying.

`PaulP: "(ENSO is) a standing-wave mode with a fixed spatial configuration" This claim presumes spacetime is not the more correct notion of space, that standing waves do not oscillate in spacetime, and even presumes Earth is "fixed". Nothing is fixed, in absolute relativistic terms. Its unfixed "spatial configuration" predicted affecting ENSO sensor buoy data, like the Sun, Moon, and Earth relative positions, plus Earth Rotation and Declination Phases, plus the buoys motions according to sea-state. Dr. van der Ziel would be an excellent third-party judge of whether Lunisolar Crosstalk Noise expressed in the ENSO data, if he were still alive. You seem unwilling to accept that possibility, despite his classes. If there is Crosstalk, its a more parsimonious explanation than Forcing. Neither has been shown rigorously, much less measured in proportion, but Forcing involves more complex dynamics than Crosstalk. NOAA does use an Ensemble Model to study ENSO. Maybe not "best modeled" so, but the same doubt fairly applies to your single Model and all those within the Ensemble. Only LaPlace's Demon, in principle, can compute the best single Model. If none of this helps, its not for want of trying.`

You continue to drive off in a direction that is completely meaningless to me.

A fortnightly atmospheric ‘tide’ at Bali caused by oceanic tidal mixing in Lombok Strait (2019) R.D.Ray, who created the table referenced in #610

In the following spectra, the peak labelled Msf will be raised, thus competing more with Mf. The two will create a semi-annual beat frequency, thus creating an enhanced tidal effect

`> "This claim presumes spacetime is not the more correct notion of space, that standing waves do not oscillate in spacetime, and even presumes Earth is "fixed". Nothing is fixed, in absolute relativistic terms." You continue to drive off in a direction that is completely meaningless to me. [A fortnightly atmospheric ‘tide’ at Bali caused by oceanic tidal mixing in Lombok Strait ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40562-019-0135-1) (2019) R.D.Ray, who created the table referenced in [#610](#610) > ![](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/9206/yf27RC.png) > ... > ![](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/3964/k1wOeN.png) > ... > ![](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/5499/c0g5Ya.png) In the following spectra, the peak labelled Msf will be raised, thus competing more with Mf. The two will create a semi-annual beat frequency, thus creating an enhanced tidal effect ![](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/5450/DV3klD.png)`

PaulP: "...a direction that is completely meaningless to me"

Physical theories are distinguished as Non-Relativistic or Relativistic. Your assertions about ENSO were clearly non-relativistic. We are not just talking about Einstein's Relativity, but Galilean Relativity, which is more basic. It really is meaningful, but more complex.

I like your identification of geophysically situated oscillations as Standing Waves, but there is far more going on than the ideal case, when there is messy complex multi-excitations. Standing waves are resistant to forcing that is not harmonically resonant, but often do express their inherent Helmholtz harmonics by anharmonic excitations.

There is nothing in [Ray 2019] inconsistent with some actual Lunisolar forcing, plus Lunisolar "noise" overlaid on the data, better interpreted as Crosstalk. Ray is simply reporting actual measured data, not parsing it ontologically in a manner beyond the scope of simple description.

At some point, hopefully, the Lunisolar Crosstalk Hypothesis, and applicable advanced ideas in Relativity, QM, and Thermodynamics, as invoked here in passing, can all acquire meaning to you, even if you still disagree.

I am certainly learning a lot here, so the understood meanings are growing.

`PaulP: "...a direction that is completely meaningless to me" Physical theories are distinguished as Non-Relativistic or Relativistic. Your assertions about ENSO were clearly non-relativistic. We are not just talking about Einstein's Relativity, but Galilean Relativity, which is more basic. It really is meaningful, but more complex. I like your identification of geophysically situated oscillations as Standing Waves, but there is far more going on than the ideal case, when there is messy complex multi-excitations. Standing waves are resistant to forcing that is not harmonically resonant, but often do express their inherent Helmholtz harmonics by anharmonic excitations. There is nothing in [Ray 2019] inconsistent with some actual Lunisolar forcing, plus Lunisolar "noise" overlaid on the data, better interpreted as Crosstalk. Ray is simply reporting actual measured data, not parsing it ontologically in a manner beyond the scope of simple description. At some point, hopefully, the Lunisolar Crosstalk Hypothesis, and applicable advanced ideas in Relativity, QM, and Thermodynamics, as invoked here in passing, can all acquire meaning to you, even if you still disagree. I am certainly learning a lot here, so the understood meanings are growing.`

Of course they are standing waves, as I didn't originate that association. The El Nino Southern Oscillation is widely known as a standing wave.

The 1990-1995 El Nifio-Southern Oscillation event: Longest on record Kevin E. Trenberth and Timothy J. Hoar (cited by 1064)

For ENSO, the spatial mode of the standing wave is obviously defined by the basin it sits in, as the coastal boundaries set the zeros. I didn't realize that you were not up-to-speed on some of this basic info.

`> "I like your identification of geophysically situated oscillations as Standing Waves, " Of course they are standing waves, as I didn't originate that association. The El Nino Southern Oscillation is widely known as a standing wave. [The 1990-1995 El Nifio-Southern Oscillation event: Longest on record](https://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/THoar1996GRL.pdf) Kevin E. Trenberth and Timothy J. Hoar (cited by 1064) >"**The Southern Oscillation** > The SO has a time scale of 2-7 years and consists of a global scale, predominantly **standing wave** with centers of action in surface pressure over Indonesia and the tropical South Pacific" For ENSO, the spatial mode of the standing wave is obviously defined by the basin it sits in, as the coastal boundaries set the zeros. I didn't realize that you were not up-to-speed on some of this basic info.`

PaulP: "I didn't realize that you were not up-to-speed on some of this basic info."

You should have realized I am only getting-up-to-speed. I actually thought maybe you had insightfully seen ENSO-QBO as standing wave cases, rather than just invoking rote learning. Silly me. Compliment withdrawn.

[Trenberth & Hoar] do concord with my view, that this sort of oscillation is "predominantly" a standing wave (not exclusively), and therefore predominantly resonant at its inherent Helmholtz harmonics, more Coriolis Excitation driven, and rather chaotic, rather than easily Lunisolar Forced. Here perhaps you may realize some of my meaning, if you understand [Trenberth & Hoar].

`PaulP: "I didn't realize that you were not up-to-speed on some of this basic info." You should have realized I am only getting-up-to-speed. I actually thought maybe you had insightfully seen ENSO-QBO as standing wave cases, rather than just invoking rote learning. Silly me. Compliment withdrawn. [Trenberth & Hoar] do concord with my view, that this sort of oscillation is "predominantly" a standing wave (not exclusively), and therefore predominantly resonant at its inherent Helmholtz harmonics, more Coriolis Excitation driven, and rather chaotic, rather than easily Lunisolar Forced. Here perhaps you may realize some of my meaning, if you understand [Trenberth & Hoar].`

QBO has a unique standing-wave mode as it has a wavenumber index of 0, so no boundary conditions arise as the behavior wraps around the earth shaped like a toroid, Symmetry considerations require that only the draconic tide will contribute to the triggering of the QBO reversal, which explains why the periodicity is more regular, in contrast to the multi-tidal factor driven ENSO.

`QBO has a unique standing-wave mode as it has a wavenumber index of 0, so no boundary conditions arise as the behavior wraps around the earth shaped like a toroid, Symmetry considerations require that only the draconic tide will contribute to the triggering of the QBO reversal, which explains why the periodicity is more regular, in contrast to the multi-tidal factor driven ENSO.`

PaulP: "QBO has a unique standing-wave mode as it has a wavenumber index of 0"

Again, a non-relativistic (non-Galilean) assertion. I had already given a relativistic (more realistically physical) version-

"QBO wave-number is properly two non-zero angular wavenumbers (for easterly and westerly motions, respectively) relative to Earth Frame. Precession, terrain, Coriolis, sunspot cycles, ENSO, and other variables, cause calculable QBO wavenumber variation. AO and AAO most closely approximate wavenumber zero, as zonal (symmetric) flows."

Also, there are the travelling-wave modes in these major Oscillations. They really are complex sequences of evolving wave-packets. Idealized over-simplification misses a lot of action. Feynman Diagramming these extreme-scale phonon cycles would be really cool.

`PaulP: "QBO has a unique standing-wave mode as it has a wavenumber index of 0" Again, a non-relativistic (non-Galilean) assertion. I had already given a relativistic (more realistically physical) version- "QBO wave-number is properly two non-zero angular wavenumbers (for easterly and westerly motions, respectively) relative to Earth Frame. Precession, terrain, Coriolis, sunspot cycles, ENSO, and other variables, cause calculable QBO wavenumber variation. AO and AAO most closely approximate wavenumber zero, as zonal (symmetric) flows." Also, there are the travelling-wave modes in these major Oscillations. They really are complex sequences of evolving wave-packets. Idealized over-simplification misses a lot of action. Feynman Diagramming these extreme-scale phonon cycles would be really cool.`

Wrong. A zero wavenumber means that the waveform does not have a spatial wavelength (or is effectively infinite). Look at the QBO in action and it does not have a wavelength

https://youtu.be/I_-QlDmicIw

`> "QBO wave-number is properly two non-zero angular wavenumbers (for easterly and westerly motions, respectively)" Wrong. A zero wavenumber means that the waveform does not have a spatial wavelength (or is effectively infinite). Look at the QBO in action and it does not have a wavelength https://youtu.be/I_-QlDmicIw`

PaulP: "Look at the QBO in action and it does not have a wavelength"

I clearly see angular wavelengths, and the spacetime wavelength interpretation as well. Crude QBO idealization disregards both Galilean and Einsteinian Relativities. The linked video omits balance-wheel QBO motions relative to Earth Rotation. Claiming in-turn "zero" and "effectively infinite" is an un-parsimonious logical contradiction.

Nevertheless, you have progressed from seeing "unhelpful" ideas as "meaningless" to "Wrong", which is meaningful. You are working thru Schopenhauer's stages of how new ideas are dismissed at first, to eventually be accepted.

`PaulP: "Look at the QBO in action and it does not have a wavelength" I clearly see angular wavelengths, and the spacetime wavelength interpretation as well. Crude QBO idealization disregards both Galilean and Einsteinian Relativities. The linked video omits balance-wheel QBO motions relative to Earth Rotation. Claiming in-turn "zero" and "effectively infinite" is an un-parsimonious logical contradiction. Nevertheless, you have progressed from seeing "unhelpful" ideas as "meaningless" to "Wrong", which is meaningful. You are working thru Schopenhauer's stages of how new ideas are dismissed at first, to eventually be accepted.`

All you have to do is show a QBO time-series with a spatial wavelength in longitude.

It wraps around the equator with little modulation.

If can't agree on the basics, then there is no hope for anything more complex.

`All you have to do is show a QBO time-series with a spatial wavelength in longitude. ![](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00382-011-1250-7/MediaObjects/382_2011_1250_Fig8_HTML.gif) It wraps around the equator with little modulation. If can't agree on the basics, then there is no hope for anything more complex.`

PaulK: "...no hope for anything more complex"

That's unduly simplistic fatalism. Its rather trivial to track QBO angular motions, the phase-angles of the rotating "balance wheel" components with respect to longitude. Balance-wheels indeed have inherent wavelengths >0.

Simply assume Taylor Frozen Field Approximation for East <=> West QBO motions, then plot them with respect to the surface (longitude).

Consider a tire spinning in place on ice. One could only assert it is motionless (zero wavelength) by disregarding its angular velocity.

I do not give up hope we may agree on such basic truth. To lose hope would be "punting".

`PaulK: "...no hope for anything more complex" That's unduly simplistic fatalism. Its rather trivial to track QBO angular motions, the phase-angles of the rotating "balance wheel" components with respect to longitude. Balance-wheels indeed have inherent wavelengths >0. Simply assume Taylor Frozen Field Approximation for East <=> West QBO motions, then plot them with respect to the surface (longitude). Consider a tire spinning in place on ice. One could only assert it is motionless (zero wavelength) by disregarding its angular velocity. I do not give up hope we may agree on such basic truth. To lose hope would be "punting".`

data-less, lacking-math, no-charts

Why would you think you are offering any help to the project?

`data-less, lacking-math, no-charts Why would you think you are offering any help to the project?`

`![](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00382-011-1250-7/MediaObjects/382_2011_1250_Fig8_HTML.gif)`

PaulP: "data-less, lacking-math, no-charts. Why would you think you are offering any help to the project?"

We are using the same third-party data. Heuristic Logic is the highest branch of math. I am helping you interpret your own charts better. To the extent that those charts capture Lunisolar Crosstalk on ENSO-QBO state estimation, they are ideal. Such helping is what folks do in science.

The proposed Pukite Number is not "lacking math" either. Its a semi-dimensionless number, in that the Lunisolar part is dimensional, and the geophysical oscillation is not; where a mud puddle is as good as an ocean. You seem to overlook a lot of the math being offered.

In fact, Category Theory encodes Heuristic Logic in an especially rigorous form. That is where these preliminaries are headed, if we can agree on facts, like the existence of Lunisolar Crosstalk in the data, as well as Forcing.

Whoops, I got a graphic up finally, by pasting page source code into this plain text window. Is everybody else using some sort of fully featured editor? Do off-site graphic links break when the original host removes them? Slowly getting up to speed...

`PaulP: "data-less, lacking-math, no-charts. Why would you think you are offering any help to the project?" We are using the same third-party data. Heuristic Logic is the highest branch of math. I am helping you interpret your own charts better. To the extent that those charts capture Lunisolar Crosstalk on ENSO-QBO state estimation, they are ideal. Such helping is what folks do in science. The proposed Pukite Number is not "lacking math" either. Its a semi-dimensionless number, in that the Lunisolar part is dimensional, and the geophysical oscillation is not; where a mud puddle is as good as an ocean. You seem to overlook a lot of the math being offered. In fact, Category Theory encodes Heuristic Logic in an especially rigorous form. That is where these preliminaries are headed, if we can agree on facts, like the existence of Lunisolar Crosstalk in the data, as well as Forcing. Whoops, I got a graphic up finally, by pasting page source code into this plain text window. Is everybody else using some sort of fully featured editor? Do off-site graphic links break when the original host removes them? Slowly getting up to speed...`

Build on the physics that's there instead of trying to create something out of thin air. This paper by John :

So you need to tell me one thing that I am doing wrong wrt to my geophysics models of Chandler wobble, QBO, and ENSO. Should be easy to debunk, right?

`![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwAORRTXIAIuhyq?format=png&name=small) Build on the physics that's there instead of trying to create something out of thin air. This paper by John : >[The Joy of Condensed Matter](https://nautil.us/issue/97/wonder/the-joy-of-condensed-matter) > *"It’s called “condensed matter physics,” and it’s the study of solids and liquids. We are living in the golden age of condensed matter physics."* So you need to tell me one thing that I am doing wrong wrt to my geophysics models of Chandler wobble, QBO, and ENSO. Should be easy to debunk, right?`

Heuristic Logic is indeed both foundation and summit of math; the most powerful applied math as the most powerful AI paradigm. Historical review of the Philosophy of Mathematics confirms semantic knowledge as the uppermost level of abstraction, not numerist fetishisms. Statistics is quite mechanical, helplessly prone to GIGO, if the heuristic logic assumptions are flawed.

MathVault's "Definitive Glossary of Higher Mathematical Jargon" puts it this way-

"In general, heuristics and algorithms are similar in that both constitute some form of mathematical procedures, but are different in that the former prioritizes higher-order thinking over the actual steps — and as such might require a bit more mental flexibility and creativity."

https://mathvault.ca/math-glossary/#heuristics

ENSO-QBO interpretation was at an impasse here, Paul, between you and the NOAA-types. They could not see the evident Lunisolar signal in the noisy data that we see. You could could not accept any logical limitations of your forcing insight, nor embrace applicable nuances of Chaos Theory, as most geophysicists (and I) do.

Now a shiny new hypothesis better explains your charts, based on the same ENSO-QBO data. Lunisolar Crosstalk contaminates sensor data to show up in your plots. You cannot prove only forcing is visible in the ENSO-QBO lunisolar data, with zero crosstalk component. NOAA's folks will gracefully concede a crosstalk component, if you choose to publish that finding.

Go ahead and laugh; its a fine outcome.

PS. The Chandler Wobble is put to rest, having been shown as mostly Lunisolar seafloor tidal pressure, as we agree with, rather than than contest.

ENSO and QBO are quite different animals. A statistical lens into their bulk dynamics is that their parts do not exhibit strongly coherent Bose-Einstein Statistics. The various parts react with varied time signatures, with slower processes effectively as delay-lines. This is another clue that your charts indeed mostly reflect Lunisolar crosstalk, in real-time, without the extended smearing of asynchronous responses.

`Heuristic Logic is indeed both foundation and summit of math; the most powerful applied math as the most powerful AI paradigm. Historical review of the Philosophy of Mathematics confirms semantic knowledge as the uppermost level of abstraction, not numerist fetishisms. Statistics is quite mechanical, helplessly prone to GIGO, if the heuristic logic assumptions are flawed. MathVault's "Definitive Glossary of Higher Mathematical Jargon" puts it this way- "In general, heuristics and algorithms are similar in that both constitute some form of mathematical procedures, but are different in that the former prioritizes higher-order thinking over the actual steps — and as such might require a bit more mental flexibility and creativity." https://mathvault.ca/math-glossary/#heuristics ENSO-QBO interpretation was at an impasse here, Paul, between you and the NOAA-types. They could not see the evident Lunisolar signal in the noisy data that we see. You could could not accept any logical limitations of your forcing insight, nor embrace applicable nuances of Chaos Theory, as most geophysicists (and I) do. Now a shiny new hypothesis better explains your charts, based on the same ENSO-QBO data. Lunisolar Crosstalk contaminates sensor data to show up in your plots. You cannot prove only forcing is visible in the ENSO-QBO lunisolar data, with zero crosstalk component. NOAA's folks will gracefully concede a crosstalk component, if you choose to publish that finding. Go ahead and laugh; its a fine outcome. PS. The Chandler Wobble is put to rest, having been shown as mostly Lunisolar seafloor tidal pressure, as we agree with, rather than than contest. ENSO and QBO are quite different animals. A statistical lens into their bulk dynamics is that their parts do not exhibit strongly coherent Bose-Einstein Statistics. The various parts react with varied time signatures, with slower processes effectively as delay-lines. This is another clue that your charts indeed mostly reflect Lunisolar crosstalk, in real-time, without the extended smearing of asynchronous responses.`

You evidently don't seem to understand what a heuristic is. In physics, a heuristic is a crutch used to describe a behavior until the true understanding is worked out (a means to an end). In CompSci and engineering, a heuristic will be continue to be used until it stops working (an end to the means ... if it works, it works).

That's a stab in the dark, easily challenged via a model comparison. My high school and college classmate Dr. Alex Konopliv was the lead of the NASA JPL team that made the first precise measurement of the Chandler wobble on Mars, bitches (published late last year). It appears the Mars wobble is several hundred times weaker in amplitude than the Earth's wobble. https://www.firstpost.com/tech/science/mars-wobbles-as-it-spins-the-exact-cause-may-take-years-of-high-quality-data-to-uncover-9189881.html

Mars has tiny fast-orbiting moons compared to the Earth.

`You evidently don't seem to understand what a heuristic is. In physics, a heuristic is a crutch used to describe a behavior until the true understanding is worked out (a means to an end). In CompSci and engineering, a heuristic will be continue to be used until it stops working (an end to the means ... if it works, it works). > "PS. The Chandler Wobble is put to rest, having been shown as mostly Lunisolar seafloor tidal pressure, as we agree with, rather than than contest." That's a stab in the dark, easily challenged via a model comparison. My high school and college classmate Dr. Alex Konopliv was the lead of the NASA JPL team that made the first precise measurement of the Chandler wobble on Mars, bitches (published late last year). It appears the Mars wobble is several hundred times weaker in amplitude than the Earth's wobble. https://www.firstpost.com/tech/science/mars-wobbles-as-it-spins-the-exact-cause-may-take-years-of-high-quality-data-to-uncover-9189881.html Mars has tiny fast-orbiting moons compared to the Earth.`

PaulK: "You evidently don't seem to understand what a heuristic is. "

Its what MathVault says it is, a "mathematical procedure...that prioritizes higher order thinking...(that can) require...more mental flexibility and creativity", compared to rote algorithms. The "crutch", as you put it, that many a great scientist relied on when nothing else served. What's wrong with moving forward by crutches, because we need them. We are not Laplace's Demon.

Heuristic reasoning is more than MathVault packs into a glossary item. Case-based reasoning is a powerful heuristic-driven method. You invoke comparing Mars as I invoked Jupiter to better understand Earth.

Heuristic reasoning here has enabled discovering an alternative hypothesis to explain your charts better (Lunisolar Crosstalk). Without the heuristics brought to bear, you were stuck without a crutch, claiming the signal as charted was pure forcing.

`PaulK: "You evidently don't seem to understand what a heuristic is. " Its what MathVault says it is, a "mathematical procedure...that prioritizes higher order thinking...(that can) require...more mental flexibility and creativity", compared to rote algorithms. The "crutch", as you put it, that many a great scientist relied on when nothing else served. What's wrong with moving forward by crutches, because we need them. We are not Laplace's Demon. Heuristic reasoning is more than MathVault packs into a glossary item. Case-based reasoning is a powerful heuristic-driven method. You invoke comparing Mars as I invoked Jupiter to better understand Earth. Heuristic reasoning here has enabled discovering an alternative hypothesis to explain your charts better (Lunisolar Crosstalk). Without the heuristics brought to bear, you were stuck without a crutch, claiming the signal as charted was pure forcing.`

Instead of a heuristic, what you seem to be groping for is what is referred to as an

ansatzin physics. The significant difference between the two is that the ansatz is the missing step in a formulation, while a heuristic is something that just appears to work but otherwise does not lead anywhere. So while an ansatz is the simplifying premise or eureka moment in the process of devising a formulation, a heuristic is merely a placeholder.A good example of a heuristic is the sunspot cycle. Here is a passage that I published in Mathematical Geoenergy (Wiley/2018)

The 11-year period is a placeholder heuristic used to describe the cycle but it lacks any significance beyond that. It's possible that someone will come up with a simplifying ansatz in the theory of the electrohydrodynamics dynamo and the rationale for the period will become apparent.

https://google.com/search?q=sunspot+dynamo+ansatz

`Instead of a heuristic, what you seem to be groping for is what is referred to as an *ansatz* in physics. The significant difference between the two is that the ansatz is the missing step in a formulation, while a heuristic is something that just appears to work but otherwise does not lead anywhere. So while an ansatz is the simplifying premise or eureka moment in the process of devising a formulation, a heuristic is merely a placeholder. A good example of a heuristic is the sunspot cycle. Here is a passage that I published in Mathematical Geoenergy (Wiley/2018) > "Sunspots appear to have an 11‐year cycle, making them somewhat deterministic, yet we do not fully understand the mechanism. Thus, a heuristic is applied to the sunspot cycle describing an 11‐year cycle." The 11-year period is a placeholder heuristic used to describe the cycle but it lacks any significance beyond that. It's possible that someone will come up with a simplifying ansatz in the theory of the electrohydrodynamics dynamo and the rationale for the period will become apparent. https://google.com/search?q=sunspot+dynamo+ansatz`

Heuristic Logic is properly a Class of Ansatz, under Category Theory. Its untrue that a successful "heuristic is something that just appears to work but otherwise does not lead anywhere". MathVault defines it better. Like many of my generation, I first learned Heuristic Reasoning from the papers and lectures of Nobel laureate Herbert A. Simon, in the context of AI.

Here is a more correct parsimonious version of your statement: "Sunspots have a roughly 11‐year cycle, making them (quasi-periodic). We do not fully understand the mechanism." No need to abuse "heuristic" in a way that "does not lead anywhere", to then claim its the inherent fault of heuristic logic, rather than poor word choice.

Herbert Simon worked closely on Heuristic Logic with Doug Lenat, whom I studied AI under, at UTexas-Austin. Here Feynman colorfully discusses the power of heuristics by invoking Lenat. Like MathVault's definition, Feynman's is a far more apt description than yours of the heuristic ansatz-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA-Zo2F6Kjc

At first blush, the Mars' Chandler Wobble seems to me like a close subharmonic of the beat (ratio) between Mars' solar year and its apsidal precession period. Mars' moons are too tiny, and and their orbital periods too fast, to strongly suggest forcing.

Do you really believe there is no Lunisolar Crosstalk signal possible overlaid on the ENSO-QBO state-data you chart? Its like you can't admit that possibility, much less understand its likelihood, because you reject a priori the heuristic ansatz needed. So you cast about for distractive arguments, but the question stands.

`Heuristic Logic is properly a Class of Ansatz, under Category Theory. Its untrue that a successful "heuristic is something that just appears to work but otherwise does not lead anywhere". MathVault defines it better. Like many of my generation, I first learned Heuristic Reasoning from the papers and lectures of Nobel laureate Herbert A. Simon, in the context of AI. Here is a more correct parsimonious version of your statement: "Sunspots have a roughly 11‐year cycle, making them (quasi-periodic). We do not fully understand the mechanism." No need to abuse "heuristic" in a way that "does not lead anywhere", to then claim its the inherent fault of heuristic logic, rather than poor word choice. Herbert Simon worked closely on Heuristic Logic with Doug Lenat, whom I studied AI under, at UTexas-Austin. Here Feynman colorfully discusses the power of heuristics by invoking Lenat. Like MathVault's definition, Feynman's is a far more apt description than yours of the heuristic ansatz- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA-Zo2F6Kjc At first blush, the Mars' Chandler Wobble seems to me like a close subharmonic of the beat (ratio) between Mars' solar year and its apsidal precession period. Mars' moons are too tiny, and and their orbital periods too fast, to strongly suggest forcing. Do you really believe there is no Lunisolar Crosstalk signal possible overlaid on the ENSO-QBO state-data you chart? Its like you can't admit that possibility, much less understand its likelihood, because you reject a priori the heuristic ansatz needed. So you cast about for distractive arguments, but the question stands.`

As I explained, a heuristic has a different meaning in physics than it does in CompSci and engineering. Feynman was clearly explaining the role of heuristics in the topic of game theory, not for physics.

Please hold off on playing stump the chump with me.

What I wrote is :

Please don't change what I wrote. Leave it as is, and then just call it a crap heuristic, because most heuristics in physics are just that -- crap.

In contrast, the model I have for the Chandler wobble is NOT a heuristic. It's a precise formulation based on the physics of forcing, and not based on what is observed (as the sunspot cycle is) but on what the forced response wobble due to the nodal lunar + nodal annual cycle will be. You are free to debunk this model by demonstrating how it doesn't match the observations, but you can't call it a heuristic any more than you can call the time it takes the earth to orbit the sun a heuristic.

So why don't you send Dr. Konopliv a request to see what he thinks about the mechanism behind the Earth's Chandler wobble?

`As I explained, a heuristic has a different meaning in physics than it does in CompSci and engineering. Feynman was clearly explaining the role of heuristics in the topic of game theory, not for physics. Please hold off on playing stump the chump with me. > "Here is a more correct parsimonious version of your statement: "Sunspots have a roughly 11‐year cycle, making them (quasi-periodic). We do not fully understand the mechanism."" What I wrote is : > "Sunspots appear to have an 11‐year cycle, making them somewhat deterministic, yet we do not fully understand the mechanism. Thus, a heuristic is applied to the sunspot cycle describing an 11‐year cycle." Please don't change what I wrote. Leave it as is, and then just call it a crap heuristic, because most heuristics in physics are just that -- crap. In contrast, the model I have for the Chandler wobble is NOT a heuristic. It's a precise formulation based on the physics of forcing, and not based on what is observed (as the sunspot cycle is) but on what the forced response wobble due to the nodal lunar + nodal annual cycle will be. You are free to debunk this model by demonstrating how it doesn't match the observations, but you can't call it a heuristic any more than you can call the time it takes the earth to orbit the sun a heuristic. So why don't you send Dr. Konopliv a request to see what he thinks about the mechanism behind the Earth's Chandler wobble?`

PaulP: "Feynman was clearly explaining the role of heuristics in the topic of game theory, not for physics."

Feynman was a physicists' physicist, lecturing about Heuristic Logic generally. Von Neumann Game Theory as such is not what he was talking about. Nor was that Lenat's work, which was formally heuristic Constraint Resolution, game or not.

Heuristic Logic in mathematical physics works the same as in every other branch of knowledge, just like any basic math does. If you watch the whole Feynman lecture, he stresses the point about applying heuristics to any problem. Pólya makes the same case for universal heuristic logic in his classic, "How to Solve It".

Its ok to rewrite anything, or suggest a rewrite, including your own texts, if they are improved, as editors and reviewers do. Its true that you started with "crap" (your analogy) by a poor choice of "heuristic" usage.

I already sent Dr. Konopliv a note. I have had long productive relations with JPL, starting as an invited guest in the '90s, and several interesting intersections with Mars planetary science were mentioned.

Your main geophysical heuristic here is to claim dominance of lunisolar forcing dynamics for every planet with moons discussed so far (Earth, Jupiter, Mars), to the comparative exclusion of all other known dynamics (Helmholtz resonances, Coriolis forces, misc. excitations, chaos, data crosstalk, etc.).

Again, do you think there is any Lunisolar Crosstalk signal possible overlaid on the ENSO-QBO state-data you chart?

Thanks for answering my key question.

`PaulP: "Feynman was clearly explaining the role of heuristics in the topic of game theory, not for physics." Feynman was a physicists' physicist, lecturing about Heuristic Logic generally. Von Neumann Game Theory as such is not what he was talking about. Nor was that Lenat's work, which was formally heuristic Constraint Resolution, game or not. Heuristic Logic in mathematical physics works the same as in every other branch of knowledge, just like any basic math does. If you watch the whole Feynman lecture, he stresses the point about applying heuristics to any problem. Pólya makes the same case for universal heuristic logic in his classic, "How to Solve It". Its ok to rewrite anything, or suggest a rewrite, including your own texts, if they are improved, as editors and reviewers do. Its true that you started with "crap" (your analogy) by a poor choice of "heuristic" usage. I already sent Dr. Konopliv a note. I have had long productive relations with JPL, starting as an invited guest in the '90s, and several interesting intersections with Mars planetary science were mentioned. Your main geophysical heuristic here is to claim dominance of lunisolar forcing dynamics for every planet with moons discussed so far (Earth, Jupiter, Mars), to the comparative exclusion of all other known dynamics (Helmholtz resonances, Coriolis forces, misc. excitations, chaos, data crosstalk, etc.). Again, do you think there is any Lunisolar Crosstalk signal possible overlaid on the ENSO-QBO state-data you chart? Thanks for answering my key question.`

There is no cross-talk. There is only a common-mode forcing.

ENSO and AMO have essentially no time-series cross-correlation.

$$ ENSO = g (f(t)) $$ $$ AMO = h (f(t)) $$

f(t)is the tidal forcing and it is virtually the same for the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The only factor that differs is the basin geometry that sets the Laplace's Tidal Equation standing-wave modes, which are correspondingly described by a small set of sinusoidal modulation terms -- a couple forg(x)and a couple forh(x).There is no possible way that a chance selection of these terms can generate a SIMULTANEOUS match to ENSO and AMOIt's hard enough to fit to one model at a time. But once you estimate

x=f(t)and then iterate ong(x)for ENSO, then theh(x)for AMO is straightforward to extract sincef(t)is essentially fixed.The climate scientist Michael Mann published a Science article this month whereby his research team claims that AMO isn't even an oscillation -- Multidecadal climate oscillations during the past millennium driven by volcanic forcing

`There is no cross-talk. There is only a common-mode forcing. ENSO and AMO have essentially no time-series cross-correlation. $$ ENSO = g (f(t)) $$ $$ AMO = h (f(t)) $$ ![](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/6379/2rf9vM.png) *f(t)* is the tidal forcing and it is virtually the same for the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The only factor that differs is the basin geometry that sets the Laplace's Tidal Equation standing-wave modes, which are correspondingly described by a small set of sinusoidal modulation terms -- a couple for *g(x)* and a couple for *h(x)*. **There is no possible way that a chance selection of these terms can generate a SIMULTANEOUS match to ENSO and AMO** It's hard enough to fit to one model at a time. But once you estimate *x=f(t)* and then iterate on *g(x)* for ENSO, then the *h(x)* for AMO is straightforward to extract since *f(t)* is essentially fixed. The climate scientist Michael Mann published a Science article this month whereby his research team claims that AMO isn't even an oscillation -- [Multidecadal climate oscillations during the past millennium driven by volcanic forcing](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6533/1014) > "The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), a 50- to 70-year quasiperiodic variation of climate centered in the North Atlantic region, was long thought to be an internal oscillation of the climate system. Mann et al. now show that this variation is forced externally by episodes of high-amplitude explosive volcanism."`

PaulP:"There is no cross-talk. There is only a common-mode forcing."

Thanks; you assert that there is no direct Lunisolar effect on ENSO-QBO sensor data, so you deny any "crosstalk noise" in the data, which you believe only contains pure Lunisolar Forcing signal.

Lets be clear what the "common-mode" channels are that you refer to in ENSO-QBO measurement. The primary channels are the embodied Geophysical Oscillations. Secondary channels are the multi-sensing data buoys, sonde, satellites, whatever. Lunisolar input is the common-mode forcing on all these channels. We agree, for example, that the lunar tide perturbs sea-buoys by directly affecting the sea-state.

We agree on Lunisolar Forcing in general, just disagree on how strong the forcing is and whether there are other forcing factors, or "only" one. Direct Lunisolar forcing of the multi-sensing data is not what the sensors are trying to measure, instead trying to measure ENSO-QBO state, but they do measure the three-body orbital state as well. There is always >0 crosstalk in closely run channels. I take your meaning to be, "no (significant) cross-talk".

Here is a Gedanken-

If the Earth were blanketed with an opaque atmosphere, sea-buoy and sonde arrays would nevertheless faithfully encode an "data animation" of the positions of Sun, Moon, and Earth rotation phase.

You claim no such data is overlaid on ENSO-QBO data ("no cross-talk"), only forcing signal.

`PaulP:"There is no cross-talk. There is only a common-mode forcing." Thanks; you assert that there is no direct Lunisolar effect on ENSO-QBO sensor data, so you deny any "crosstalk noise" in the data, which you believe only contains pure Lunisolar Forcing signal. Lets be clear what the "common-mode" channels are that you refer to in ENSO-QBO measurement. The primary channels are the embodied Geophysical Oscillations. Secondary channels are the multi-sensing data buoys, sonde, satellites, whatever. Lunisolar input is the common-mode forcing on all these channels. We agree, for example, that the lunar tide perturbs sea-buoys by directly affecting the sea-state. We agree on Lunisolar Forcing in general, just disagree on how strong the forcing is and whether there are other forcing factors, or "only" one. Direct Lunisolar forcing of the multi-sensing data is not what the sensors are trying to measure, instead trying to measure ENSO-QBO state, but they do measure the three-body orbital state as well. There is always >0 crosstalk in closely run channels. I take your meaning to be, "no (significant) cross-talk". Here is a Gedanken- If the Earth were blanketed with an opaque atmosphere, sea-buoy and sonde arrays would nevertheless faithfully encode an "data animation" of the positions of Sun, Moon, and Earth rotation phase. You claim no such data is overlaid on ENSO-QBO data ("no cross-talk"), only forcing signal.`

You sound awfully naive about data analysis, as if you have never actually done much of it. If there were a direct feedthrough of the primary forcing on to the measurements, that would actually be a GOOD THING, because you could use that to calibrate the forcing input. Whereas in engineering, getting e.g. a clock signal feedthrough in an audio component is not a good thing -- you already know what your clock is so that's not helping any

Keep digging yourself into a corner. I will let you know if you come up with something useful.

`> "If the Earth were blanketed with an opaque atmosphere, sea-buoy and sonde arrays would nevertheless faithfully encode an "data animation" of the positions of Sun, Moon, and Earth rotation phase.." You sound awfully naive about data analysis, as if you have never actually done much of it. If there were a direct feedthrough of the primary forcing on to the measurements, that would actually be a GOOD THING, because you could use that to calibrate the forcing input. Whereas in engineering, getting e.g. a clock signal feedthrough in an audio component is not a good thing -- you already know what your clock is so that's not helping any Keep digging yourself into a corner. I will let you know if you come up with something useful.`

PaulP: "sound awfully naive about data analysis, as if you have never actually done much of it"

Again, I am hardly naïve about heuristic data analysis, which for for you, "does not lead anywhere". If you are not yet able to gather that the orbital state is picked up directly by the sensor arrays, that's naivete.

There are uncounted contributions to the discussion that you need not consider helpful, like introducing the ENSO Ensemble and Jupiter QQO Models for comparison, and better defining basic terms like "heuristics" and "chaos".

You have been helpful too; its not a one-sided exchange.

`PaulP: "sound awfully naive about data analysis, as if you have never actually done much of it" Again, I am hardly naïve about heuristic data analysis, which for for you, "does not lead anywhere". If you are not yet able to gather that the orbital state is picked up directly by the sensor arrays, that's naivete. There are uncounted contributions to the discussion that you need not consider helpful, like introducing the ENSO Ensemble and Jupiter QQO Models for comparison, and better defining basic terms like "heuristics" and "chaos". You have been helpful too; its not a one-sided exchange.`

Not one useful comment from you --

????

You are under the mistaken impression that anyone else is actually reading this forum thread. If they were, there would be somebody else that would contribute

in a substantial wayover the several years it has been running. More than anything, I am using it as a lab notebook in which I can record ideas. So, sorry to inform you, but your contributions have not been useful and have been more of an impediment to progress than anything else.`Not one useful comment from you -- > *" orbital state is picked up directly by the sensor arrays"* ???? You are under the mistaken impression that anyone else is actually reading this forum thread. If they were, there would be somebody else that would contribute *in a substantial way* over the several years it has been running. More than anything, I am using it as a lab notebook in which I can record ideas. So, sorry to inform you, but your contributions have not been useful and have been more of an impediment to progress than anything else.`

PaulP: "You are under the mistaken impression that anyone else is actually reading this forum thread...your contributions have not been useful and have been more of an impediment to progress than anything else "

That is not my "mistaken impression", with server statistics to settle doubts. There are also future readers to expect. Your SciHub recommendation was very helpful. If you learn to apply Heuristic Logic powerfully, you can thank me then.

Geophysical sensor array data closely encode Tidal Phase-States from which Orbital Phase-States can be extracted. This is pretty basic physics. Again, Dirac stated, "pick a flower, move the farthest star". Laplace's Demon could in principle trace back from the motion of the "farthest star" to the picking of the flower.

The Holographic Principle applies; that Geophysical data encodes holograms of complex phenomena, beyond any simple dimension of scientific interest. The rich data amounts to a "lower dimensional boundary" of the geophysical volume of space containing ENSO-QBO, and is therefore holographic, as covered here-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Such grand concepts are no "impediment to progress" but facilitate understanding how ENSO-QBO data may necessarily contain direct Lunisolar crosstalk signal content, that you need help understanding, if it exists. You have in effect asserted a falsifiable No-Crosstalk Theorem to your Lunisolar Forcing Hypothesis.

I further hope to facilitate your Models to join in the respective Ensemble Models, for direct comparison of all contenders; unless you wish to be the "impediment" to such progress. And if you need a "lab notebook" without properties of a public forum, you are in the wrong place.

Back to the "sailor's intuition" you rightly hold in high regard: Its wonderful to imagine the complex effects of tide on otherwise wind-driven sea-states, and how this necessarily affects ENSO sea-buoy data. Do not lose hope: "Help is on the way".

`PaulP: "You are under the mistaken impression that anyone else is actually reading this forum thread...your contributions have not been useful and have been more of an impediment to progress than anything else " That is not my "mistaken impression", with server statistics to settle doubts. There are also future readers to expect. Your SciHub recommendation was very helpful. If you learn to apply Heuristic Logic powerfully, you can thank me then. Geophysical sensor array data closely encode Tidal Phase-States from which Orbital Phase-States can be extracted. This is pretty basic physics. Again, Dirac stated, "pick a flower, move the farthest star". Laplace's Demon could in principle trace back from the motion of the "farthest star" to the picking of the flower. The Holographic Principle applies; that Geophysical data encodes holograms of complex phenomena, beyond any simple dimension of scientific interest. The rich data amounts to a "lower dimensional boundary" of the geophysical volume of space containing ENSO-QBO, and is therefore holographic, as covered here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle Such grand concepts are no "impediment to progress" but facilitate understanding how ENSO-QBO data may necessarily contain direct Lunisolar crosstalk signal content, that you need help understanding, if it exists. You have in effect asserted a falsifiable No-Crosstalk Theorem to your Lunisolar Forcing Hypothesis. I further hope to facilitate your Models to join in the respective Ensemble Models, for direct comparison of all contenders; unless you wish to be the "impediment" to such progress. And if you need a "lab notebook" without properties of a public forum, you are in the wrong place. Back to the "sailor's intuition" you rightly hold in high regard: Its wonderful to imagine the complex effects of tide on otherwise wind-driven sea-states, and how this necessarily affects ENSO sea-buoy data. Do not lose hope: "Help is on the way".`

Dave, you're so full of it. ..... in terms of artificial intelligence software development, I could write rings around you so stop blowing smoke with this heuristic logic junk. Just stop, please?

This thread started in 2014 and is up to 13 pages of content. You showed up on page 10 in January and have essentially added no value while filling up most of the last 3 pages of content. That was never the intent of this forum.

I will stop posting here. I have better things to do as I get ready for an EGU presentation for next month :

https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU21/EGU21-10515.html

Everyone will know where to find me on my regular blog. See you down the road somewhere in NomadLand.

`Dave, you're so full of it. ..... in terms of artificial intelligence software development, I could write rings around you so stop blowing smoke with this heuristic logic junk. Just stop, please? This thread started in 2014 and is up to 13 pages of content. You showed up on page 10 in January and have essentially added no value while filling up most of the last 3 pages of content. That was never the intent of this forum. I will stop posting here. I have better things to do as I get ready for an EGU presentation for next month : https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU21/EGU21-10515.html > **Nonlinear long-period tidal forcing with application to ENSO, QBO, and Chandler wobble** > Apart from its known impact to variations in the Earth’s length-of-day (LOD) variations, the role of long-period tidal forcing cycles in geophysical behaviours has remained elusive. To explore this further, tidal forcing is considered as a causative mechanisms to the following cyclic processes: El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO), and the Chandler wobble. Annualized impulse reponse formulations and nonlinear solutions to Navier-Stokes-based Laplace's Tidal Equations are required to make the connection to the observed patterns as the underlying periods are not strictly commensurate in relation to harmonics of the tidal cycles. If equatorial climate phenomena such as QBO and ENSO can be explained as deterministic processes then the behavior may be predictable. This paper suggests that QBO, ENSO, and the Chandler wobble may share a common origin of lunar and solar tidal forcing, but with differences arising due to global symmetry considerations. Through analytical approximations of nonlinear fluid dynamics and detailed time-series analysis, matching quantitative models of these behaviors can be shown. Everyone will know where to find me on my regular blog. See you down the road somewhere in NomadLand.`

PaulP: " I could write rings around...heuristic logic junk"

That would indeed be impressive. Never forget; Scientific Method is the Mother of applied Heuristic Logic.

Good Luck Paul, with your quest to better explain "long-period tidal forcing cycles in geophysical behaviors". I'm sorry if it was unwelcome to heuristically develop the sensor crosstalk supplementary hypothesis to forcing, as an explanation refinement of the lunisolar signal in ENSO-QBO data.

Remember, ENSO-QBO Deterministic Chaos is deterministic and predictable, to the extent a sufficient model and computing resources allow. Partial Tidal Forcing of ENSO-QBO does not predict the Geophysical Chaos component, which still will be, at current best, Ensemble-Modeled, like multi-physics weather prediction generally.

645 posts over seven years was a decent run for a Forum topic. Thanks for the great information.

This MIT video courseware on Harmonic Forcing is helpful to me in getting closer to quantifying the degree of ENSO-QBO forcing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkFZY6esNOU

Here is a nice clue; some quantification of an ENSO-QBO correlation, "The quasi-biennial ENSO rhythm appears to be a harmonic oscillation in equatorial Pacific atmosphere-ocean system, and it was in sync with the QBO in 1879-99 and 1963-83". That's 40 years of correlation out of around 150 years. If this data were part of a highly periodic sequence (not likely), another twenty years of synchrony would begin around 2047.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/qbo_enso.html

We can reason that ENSO-QBO are either weakly coupled to each each other's inherent 1st harmonic, or weakly forced by a common input, or a bit of both. The weakness of the correlation is a rough measure of the weakness of forcing or chance resonance. Supposed resonance occurs when ENSO periods trend shorter. Some amount (>0) of Lunisolar crosstalk on the modern sensor-array data, and even on the geological record, is expected.

A further ENSO-QBO-Lunisolar possibility comes to mind. Jupiter's QQO QBO-analog suggests this oscillation will occur by Coriolis excitation and thermal convection, without need for a comparatively massive lunisolar tidal factor. Most geophysicists see ENSO as strongly Coriolis- and thermal-driven, and chaotic to the degree its only quasi-periodic. Its plausible that Lunisolar Tidal Input, when the set-up is right, actually tips ENSO-QBO chaos into action, as well as contributing occasional weak forcing, and superposing crosstalk signal on the data. It can do all three effects; Earth is sufficiently complex.

[Guilyardi et al, 2009] gives a grand overview of ENSO science predictive complexities-

https://extranet.gfdl.noaa.gov/~atw/yr/2009/guilyardi_bams_2009.pdf

`PaulP: " I could write rings around...heuristic logic junk" That would indeed be impressive. Never forget; Scientific Method is the Mother of applied Heuristic Logic. Good Luck Paul, with your quest to better explain "long-period tidal forcing cycles in geophysical behaviors". I'm sorry if it was unwelcome to heuristically develop the sensor crosstalk supplementary hypothesis to forcing, as an explanation refinement of the lunisolar signal in ENSO-QBO data. Remember, ENSO-QBO Deterministic Chaos is deterministic and predictable, to the extent a sufficient model and computing resources allow. Partial Tidal Forcing of ENSO-QBO does not predict the Geophysical Chaos component, which still will be, at current best, Ensemble-Modeled, like multi-physics weather prediction generally. 645 posts over seven years was a decent run for a Forum topic. Thanks for the great information. This MIT video courseware on Harmonic Forcing is helpful to me in getting closer to quantifying the degree of ENSO-QBO forcing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkFZY6esNOU Here is a nice clue; some quantification of an ENSO-QBO correlation, "The quasi-biennial ENSO rhythm appears to be a harmonic oscillation in equatorial Pacific atmosphere-ocean system, and it was in sync with the QBO in 1879-99 and 1963-83". That's 40 years of correlation out of around 150 years. If this data were part of a highly periodic sequence (not likely), another twenty years of synchrony would begin around 2047. http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/qbo_enso.html We can reason that ENSO-QBO are either weakly coupled to each each other's inherent 1st harmonic, or weakly forced by a common input, or a bit of both. The weakness of the correlation is a rough measure of the weakness of forcing or chance resonance. Supposed resonance occurs when ENSO periods trend shorter. Some amount (>0) of Lunisolar crosstalk on the modern sensor-array data, and even on the geological record, is expected. A further ENSO-QBO-Lunisolar possibility comes to mind. Jupiter's QQO QBO-analog suggests this oscillation will occur by Coriolis excitation and thermal convection, without need for a comparatively massive lunisolar tidal factor. Most geophysicists see ENSO as strongly Coriolis- and thermal-driven, and chaotic to the degree its only quasi-periodic. Its plausible that Lunisolar Tidal Input, when the set-up is right, actually tips ENSO-QBO chaos into action, as well as contributing occasional weak forcing, and superposing crosstalk signal on the data. It can do all three effects; Earth is sufficiently complex. [Guilyardi et al, 2009] gives a grand overview of ENSO science predictive complexities- https://extranet.gfdl.noaa.gov/~atw/yr/2009/guilyardi_bams_2009.pdf`

Some disambiguation and further corollaries in light of the references above.

Free Oscillation is the unforced motion of an oscillator at its natural frequency. I have been equivalently calling this Helmholtz Resonance. Damped and Forced Oscillation are other applicable parameters. Forced Oscillation can be sustained more or less harmonic (resonantly-coupled) forcing, tending to equilibrium with negative-feedback limit-cycle damping, or Forcing can be more like singular Impulses (kicks) that cause free oscillation, that then damps away.

We can heuristically predict, from applicable physics theorems, that all these modes somewhat express, by turns, in complex geophysical oscillations like ENSO-QBO.

We can heuristically predict, from applicable physics theorems, that Lunisolar Tidal Effects do not just excite and occasionally force ENSO-QBO oscillations, but just as surely sometimes damp free oscillation and trigger chaotic state-transitions.

These are definite falsifiable heuristic predictions for ENSO-QBO data analysis to validate, as the science continues to advance.

`Some disambiguation and further corollaries in light of the references above. Free Oscillation is the unforced motion of an oscillator at its natural frequency. I have been equivalently calling this Helmholtz Resonance. Damped and Forced Oscillation are other applicable parameters. Forced Oscillation can be sustained more or less harmonic (resonantly-coupled) forcing, tending to equilibrium with negative-feedback limit-cycle damping, or Forcing can be more like singular Impulses (kicks) that cause free oscillation, that then damps away. We can heuristically predict, from applicable physics theorems, that all these modes somewhat express, by turns, in complex geophysical oscillations like ENSO-QBO. We can heuristically predict, from applicable physics theorems, that Lunisolar Tidal Effects do not just excite and occasionally force ENSO-QBO oscillations, but just as surely sometimes damp free oscillation and trigger chaotic state-transitions. These are definite falsifiable heuristic predictions for ENSO-QBO data analysis to validate, as the science continues to advance.`