the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
ESD Ideas: Long-period tidal forcing in geophysics – application to ENSO, QBO, and Chandler wobble
Abstract. 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 relatively unexplored. To extend this idea, 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. Subtle mathematical insights 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.
There are three cyclic perturbations in the Earth's behavior that scientists have had difficulty pinning down. The actual understanding is so poor that there is no clear consensus for any of the behaviors, and the actual mechanism in each is considered an as-yet unresolved mystery. One behavior has to do with an oceanic cycle (ENSO), one with an atmospheric cycle (QBO), and one with the solid Earth (Chandler wobble). A consensus agreement is lacking in each of these three behaviors in spite of the fact that there may be an obvious yet mathematically-challenging common-mode cause tying them together. The challenge lies in simplifying the math of fluid dynamics and applying the appropriate signal processing techniques. With that, an elegant analytical framework can be applied to perhaps solve the mystery once and for all.
- Preprint
(323 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3826 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
-
RC1: 'Comments re ENSO on esd-2020-74', William Kessler, 28 Nov 2020
- AC1: 'Response to validation', Paul Pukite, 29 Nov 2020
- AC8: 'Reply on RC1', Paul PUKITE, 12 Feb 2021
-
RC2: 'review on esd-2020-74', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Dec 2020
- AC7: 'Reply on RC2', Paul PUKITE, 12 Feb 2021
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Paul Pukite, 29 Dec 2020
-
SC1: 'Comment on esd-2020-74', Leonid Zotov, 05 Jan 2021
- AC3: 'Reply on SC1', Paul Pukite, 05 Jan 2021
- AC4: 'Reply on SC1 (addendum)', Paul Pukite, 06 Jan 2021
-
RC3: 'Review notes', Anonymous Referee #3, 12 Jan 2021
- AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Paul Pukite, 12 Jan 2021
-
SC2: 'Reply on RC3', Ilya Serykh, 13 Jan 2021
- AC6: 'Reply on SC2', Paul Pukite, 13 Jan 2021
-
RC1: 'Comments re ENSO on esd-2020-74', William Kessler, 28 Nov 2020
- AC1: 'Response to validation', Paul Pukite, 29 Nov 2020
- AC8: 'Reply on RC1', Paul PUKITE, 12 Feb 2021
-
RC2: 'review on esd-2020-74', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Dec 2020
- AC7: 'Reply on RC2', Paul PUKITE, 12 Feb 2021
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Paul Pukite, 29 Dec 2020
-
SC1: 'Comment on esd-2020-74', Leonid Zotov, 05 Jan 2021
- AC3: 'Reply on SC1', Paul Pukite, 05 Jan 2021
- AC4: 'Reply on SC1 (addendum)', Paul Pukite, 06 Jan 2021
-
RC3: 'Review notes', Anonymous Referee #3, 12 Jan 2021
- AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Paul Pukite, 12 Jan 2021
-
SC2: 'Reply on RC3', Ilya Serykh, 13 Jan 2021
- AC6: 'Reply on SC2', Paul Pukite, 13 Jan 2021
Model code and software
GeoEnergyMath Paul R. Pukite https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4268837
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,916 | 253 | 52 | 2,221 | 101 | 52 | 61 |
- HTML: 1,916
- PDF: 253
- XML: 52
- Total: 2,221
- Supplement: 101
- BibTeX: 52
- EndNote: 61
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1