"What can be done to use technology to create negative entropy?"
Create a waveguide. The waveguide allows only certain wavelengths to constructively interfere. A Mach-Zehnder-like modulation will disguise the amplitude so it will appear chaotic, even though it isn't. That's why the ENSO model shown above works so well. The input is already highly structured as it is generated from a highly ordered tidal time-series
The amplitude as shown in the spectrum matches very well the accepted ordering of strength of tidal forcing, with the top 3 being the Mf, Mf', and Mm signals (corresponding to 13.66, 13.63 and 27.55 days). This is how the equatorial Pacific waveguide creates negative entropy.
We can likely harness this energy on a large scale if someone wants to fund a Panama-canal like structure along the equator, and let the moon and sun cycle up some forces with El-Nino intensity levels.
Paul, I agree with you regarding low entropy and ENSO, but I don't agree that low entropy and negative entropy are the same. I'm currently reading about negative entropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life#Negative_entropy.
Daniel, Any behavior or pattern that looks complex but that you can describe with a short algorithm is an example of negative entropy (or low entropy). So if a model of ENSO can be described with a short algorithm then conceivably the mechanism underlying ENSO is a low entropy, ordered behavior.
How short is the algorithm for describing tides? The example below is based on a very short low entropy algorithm, based on the astronomical factors, and explains essentially everything except for obvious storm surge signal spike in the middle.
So we can conclude that ENSO is not a very complex system since it can be described succinctly.
But if anyone wants to debunk it or reject the model with their own better low entropy model then they can go ahead and try.
In the realm of complex systems there can be a large number of arbitrary properties that two systems share. Elegance is important in the understanding of negative entropy, as well as many other things. I do suspect that there is a direct connection between negative entropy and elegance. Given that a number of models of ENSO are not commonly accepted, and that negative entropy itself is not set on solid ground, I have a difficult time making a useful connection. Is ENSO an example of negative entropy?
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.
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:
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.
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-
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 :
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: "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-
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: "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:"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.
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 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
"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: "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.
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-
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 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."
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.
Build on the physics that's there instead of trying to create something out of thin air. This paper by John :
"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?
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: "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.
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: "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].
"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 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.