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 ...

> "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 ...