the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 04 Feb 2026
Astroclimatic forcing of global climate dynamics and recent extremes: an integrated method and empirical satellite evidence of geo-orbital oscillation modulating ENSO
Abstract. This study demonstrates a robust oscillatory coupling between the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the index of geo-orbital oscillation (IRGON), integrated within the combined astroclimatic forcing index (C-ACFI). The C-ACFI synthesizes high-precision astronomical variables—solar declination, Earth–Sun distance, and net shortwave radiation anomalies—to quantify radiative forcing density across the Pacific. By applying wavelet coherence analysis (WCA) and cross-correlation functions (CCF) to monthly time series (2000–2025), a statistically significant phase synchronization is identified between orbital geometry and the oceanic Niño index (ONI), linking planetary mechanics to global climate oscillations. A pivotal finding is that interannual precessional drift generates physical displacements in Earth’s orbital position that rival or exceed the planet’s equatorial diameter (12 756 km) within a single annual cycle. Specifically, during 2021–2022, the Earth–Sun distance contracted by −12 387 km in March and expanded by +12 864 km in September relative to the previous year. This rapid orbital oscillation fundamentally reconfigures the tropical Pacific’s latitudinal heat engine, providing the mechanical energy to trigger or sustain extreme ENSO phases. This behavior is quantitatively captured by the IRGON index, which transitioned from 0.7866 in 2021 to −0.4353 in 2022. Furthermore, the recent antagonistic climate extremes of January 2026—characterized by devastating wildfires in the Southern Hemisphere and severe snowstorms in the Northern Hemisphere—align with sustained negative IRGON values, indicating a contrasting orbital position that intensifies net radiation flux imbalances. These findings are corroborated by empirical evidence from satellite-derived sunglint migration (Himawari-8/GOES-17) and MERRA-2 radiative flux oscillations, establishing a physical mechanism for energy transfer from orbital mechanics to terrestrial climate variability. By identifying the orbital driver behind current climate realignments, this study challenges the stochastic interpretation of ENSO and establishes astroclimatology as a foundational framework for climate predictability. Central to this framework is the relative geoenergetic equilibrium (RGE) hypothesis, which posits that the climate system does not return to a fixed baseline but continuously adjusts to unique, non-repeating temporal radiative states driven by constant astroclimatic shifts.
- Preprint
(3912 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2700 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Apr 2026)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-627', Juan Jose Buela, 06 Feb 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 07 Feb 2026
reply
[Versión en español]
Estimado Juan José,
Muchas gracias por los valiosos comentarios y por el tiempo dedicado a revisar el preprint. Tus observaciones son sumamente enriquecedoras para fortalecer la claridad del manuscrito.
Sobre la Causalidad y el tono: El modelo planteado puede considerarse, efectivamente, como un "marcapasos orbital" que modula la probabilidad de eventos extremos. Más allá de ser una causa mecánica única, la intención es presentar la señal astroclimática como un factor de sincronización fundamental en la variabilidad interna. Los cambios en la radiación neta hemisférica, los índices propuestos y el análisis wavelet surgen como herramientas valiosas para descifrar la complejidad entre el clima y las variables externas. No obstante, nuevos estudios serán necesarios para profundizar en la Hipótesis de Equilibrio Geo-energético relativo.
Valor Predictivo: Me alienta que encuentre valor en la señal de anticipación. El objetivo es ofrecer una herramienta complementaria a los modelos ENSO clásicos que ayude a reducir la incertidumbre en la previsión climática estacional.
Presentación y Claridad: Seguiré sus consejos sobre el formato de tablas y figuras según el formato que permite la publicación. Añadiré una introducción en "lenguaje llano", acorde al ámbito académico, para explicar la pertinencia de la astroclimatología ante el escepticismo inicial que pueda presentarse, buscando que se considere una ciencia que no debe ser ignorada, capaz de mejorar los modelos actuales, los pronósticos y las medidas de prevención.
Atentamente,
Guillermo Andrés Chinni
---
[English translation]
Dear Juan Jose,
Thank you for your valuable comments and for the time spent reviewing this preprint. Your insights are highly enriching for strengthening the clarity of the manuscript.
On Causality and Tone: The proposed model can indeed be framed as an "orbital pacemaker" that modulates the probability of extreme events. Beyond being a sole mechanical cause, the intent is to present the astroclimatic signal as a fundamental synchronization factor within internal variability. The changes in hemispheric net radiation, the proposed indices, and the wavelet analysis are emerging as valuable tools for deciphering the complexity between climate and external variables. Nevertheless, I agree that further studies will be necessary to deepen the Hypothesis of Relative Geo-energetic Equilibrium.
Predictive Value: I am encouraged that you find value in the early-warning signal. The objective is to provide a complementary tool to classic ENSO models that helps reduce uncertainty in seasonal climate forecasting.
Presentation and Clarity: I will follow your advice regarding the format of tables and figures as allowed by the publication guidelines. I will also add a "plain language" introduction, appropriate for the academic field, to explain the relevance of astroclimatology in the face of initial skepticism. My goal is for it to be considered a science that should not be ignored, capable of improving current models, forecasting, and preventive measures.
Best regards,
Guillermo Andrés Chinni
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-AC1 -
AC7: 'Reply on CC1', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 11 Feb 2026
reply
Technical Follow-up: The 'Orbital Pacemaker' and Synchronization
Expanding on the discussion with Juan José Buela (CC1) regarding the physical mechanism and the predictive nature of the C-ACFI (Combined Astroclimatic Forcing Index), I am providing further technical context to clarify the deterministic drivers and the multi-scale synchronization identified in this research.
The 'Orbital Pacemaker' Concept: While traditional climatology often views ENSO as a primarily stochastic system, this work presents geo-orbital oscillation as a fundamental synchronization agent. Utilizing high-precision ephemerides from the IMCCE (Observatoire de Paris) and the NASA Equinox timetable, we identify significant interannual shifts in the Earth-Sun distance.
For instance, during the 2020–2023 "triple-dip" La Niña, we documented orbital contractions and expansions (reaching magnitudes of ±12,000 km: an orbital contraction of approximately -12,387 km at the March equinox relative to the previous year, followed by an expansion of +12,864 km at the September equinox) within a secular framework where axial precession has shifted the equinoctial points by more than 8 arcminutes during the 21st century. This represents a substantial reconfiguration of the planet’s position within the solar radiative field, acting as a "pacemaker" that establishes the radiative thresholds required to trigger phase transitions. Evidence of this forcing is detailed in Figure 12 and the Appendix (Figure S1).
Multi-Scale Operational Windows (Validation and Results): The directional coupling between the C-ACFI and the tropical Pacific reveals that synchronization across different time bands is what triggers specific extremes. Based on the Cross-Correlation Function (CCF) and Wavelet Coherence Analysis (WCA), we identify three critical operational windows:
Short-term (2–8 months): A significant CCF peak at +6 months identifies the rapid atmospheric response to radiative forcing, evident in the abrupt 2023 transition from cold phase to El Niño.
Medium-term (8–16 months): This represents the "physical integration" of the forcing. During the 2020–2023 triple-dip, the sustained high coherence in this range indicates the C-ACFI remained phase-locked with the ocean for three consecutive cycles, inhibiting seasonal heat discharge.
Long-term (16–32 months and beyond): Regulates ENSO amplitude, with an absolute maximum predictive peak at +84 months (7 years) for both the ONI (r = 0.366) and PDO (r = 0.339). This confirms the C-ACFI as a multi-frequency synchronizer capable of modulating both interannual signals and decadal backgrounds (see Figures 8, 9, and 10).
Predictability and Extremes: The January 2026 "Ice and Fire" dichotomy is a deterministic result of these meridional radiative shifts. By tracking these anomalies through NASA MERRA-2 net shortwave radiation flux, the IRGON model successfully identifies the thermal polarization between hemispheres (see Figures 5 and 6). This approach provides a critical advantage for early warning systems by quantifying hemisphere radiance differences (Figures 13 and 14).
In conclusion, direct observations of Earth’s net radiation over the oceans, combined with high-precision astronomical data, provide a transformative path for predicting extreme climatic events with greater lead times. I thank the community for the constructive feedback.
Guillermo Andrés Chinni
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-AC7
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 07 Feb 2026
reply
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-627', Juan José Grassi, 08 Feb 2026
reply
Guillermo Andrés Chinni, i would like to contribute to the debate by pointing out that, while the Relative Geoenergetic Equilibrium (RGE) Hypothesis is based on the absence of a fixed climatic equilibrium and the transient and non-repetitive nature of the radiative states produced by astroclimatic variations, it is essential to broaden the scope of analysis to include additional forcing factors. The impacts of large volcanic eruptions such as Tambora in 1815, which produced the "Year Without a Summer" due to its massive stratospheric injection of SO₂ and aerosols that reduced global insolation, demonstrate that specific geological processes have the capacity to drastically modify the planetary energy state. However, their episodic nature prevents them from being considered long-term structural forcing factors. [discovermagz.blog], [usgs.gov]
In parallel, external gravitational and electromagnetic influences must be considered: the orbital variations described by the Milankovitch cycles, which alter the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of insolation on scales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years, as well as perturbations induced by solar activity (solar wind, CMEs, magnetic variability). However, the magnitude of these latter factors on the troposphere is relatively low compared to orbital and radiative modulation.
Now, in addition to external forcing factors, I believe it is necessary to emphasize that internal telluric processes also modify geoenergetic stability. Convective movements of the Earth's mantle and magma, along with volcanic and tectonic activity, release heat, CO₂, and aerosols into the atmosphere, affecting the radiative balance and biogeochemical cycles at different timescales. Plate tectonics, for example, has been identified as a profound regulator of climate over hundreds of millions of years, controlling the release, storage, and recycling of carbon between the lithosphere, oceans, and atmosphere. Added to this is the generation of Earth's magnetic field by the geodynamo in the outer core, a process dominated by the convection of molten iron, capable of influencing the interaction between the magnetosphere and the solar wind, indirectly modulating the influx of radiation and high-energy particles. [sydney.edu.au] From this broader perspective, the EGR can be considered a framework that integrates both astroclimatic and internal forcing factors, recognizing that they all contribute to the configuration of the planet's energy state to very different degrees. The challenge lies in prioritizing them according to their scale, persistence, and capacity to couple with the climate system.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-CC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 08 Feb 2026
reply
Dear Juan José Grassi:
It is a pleasure to further engage in this exchange. I believe it is essential to approach the complexity of the Earth system from an integrative geophysical perspective, as demonstrated by the work of Fernando Lopes, Vincent Courtillot, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, and Dominique Gibert. Their research on solar variability, geomagnetism, and the oscillations of geophysical components—such as the length of day and angular momentum—clearly demonstrates that the Earth responds to forcings that transcend conventional atmospheric simulations.
With this study, my objective is to provide empirical evidence on how astroclimatic variables directly modulate the climate system, delimiting the analysis through the following pillars:
1. Net Shortwave Radiation as an Integrative Proxy
I fully acknowledge that telluric processes, such as stratospheric aerosol injection from major volcanic events or long-term tectonic activity, significantly modify the planetary energy state. However, in our 26-year analysis, we have prioritized Net Shortwave Radiation (specifically over open oceans). This variable serves as a comprehensive physical sensor: any fluctuation in atmospheric opacity, cloud cover, or albedo is already inherently captured in the net radiation flux. By measuring the empirical result of the energy effectively absorbed by the system, we bypass the need to isolate every individual geological variable, focusing instead on the net energetic outcome.
2. High-Frequency Variability vs. Geological Scales
While Milankovitch cycles operate on millennial scales, this research focuses on high-frequency orbital variability. By analyzing variations in Earth-Sun distances and axial declination during the equinoxes, we provide quantifiable data on how orbital geometry modulates energy distribution on sub-annual to inter-annual scales—a temporal resolution rarely addressed in traditional climate studies.
The core challenge lies in understanding how the shifts proposed by Milankovitch manifest in the short-to-medium term. While we understand long-term changes through the dynamics of glacial cycles, (as explored in my work, Glaciares de la Patagonia), the current scientific imperative is to decipher how these forcings affect us in the "meanwhile." To ensure maximum precision, we have utilized high-quality datasets, including MERRA-2 reanalysis and astronomical ephemerides from the IMCCE in Paris. As proposed by Lopes et al., short-period cycles are fundamentally coupled with planetary and solar dynamics. These 26 years of data are not a theoretical projection, but a direct record of radiative transience.
3. Theoretical Framework: The RGE Hypothesis
The Relative Geoenergetic Equilibrium (RGE) Hypothesis postulates that the Earth system does not maintain a fixed equilibrium. Instead, it navigates through transient and non-repetitive radiative states. By utilizing Net Radiation as our primary diagnostic variable, we capture the real-time interaction between external astronomical forcings and the planet's internal responses.
Conclusion: This work seeks to refine the debate by moving away from qualitative generalities and focusing on specific external drivers: orbital distances, equinoctial declination, and net radiation. The evidence gathered over the last 26 years provides a robust empirical foundation for understanding the energy transfers that dominate contemporary climate variability, offering analytical tools that are both rigorous and complementary to traditional GCMs.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 08 Feb 2026
reply
-
CC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-627', Juan José Grassi, 08 Feb 2026
reply
Guillermo Andrés Chinni, i proposes deepening the debate by suggesting that the EGR hypothesis should consider not only external modulations of the climate system, but also internal interactions between magmatic dynamics, tectonics, the magnetic field, and climate. We know that the Earth's magnetic field originates from the conductive movement of liquid iron in the outer core (geodynamo), whose behavior is influenced by thermal gradients and heterogeneities of the lower mantle. Recent studies demonstrate that lateral variations in the heat flow from the core to the mantle have affected the behavior of the magnetic field for hundreds of millions of years, revealing its dynamic nature and its connection to deep planetary processes. If the magnetic field acts as a shield against the solar wind, modulating the flow of energetic particles that reach the atmosphere, then its internal variability is also among the elements that condition the Earth's energy state. [nature.com]
At the same time, surface and oceanic tectonic and magmatic processes—such as explosive volcanism or the upwelling of magma at mid-ocean ridges—exert both immediate and cumulative effects on climate. Events like Tambora (1815) or Krakatoa (1883) temporarily altered global temperature through the stratospheric injection of aerosols that reflected solar radiation and generated prolonged temperature drops. On larger scales, plate tectonics controls the deep carbon cycle, the position of continents, ocean patterns, and the redistribution of planetary albedo, thus modulating long-term climate systems. [discovermagz.blog], [britannica.com] [link.springer.com]
If we accept that the EGR describes a climate system that responds to a variable energy flow and not to a steady equilibrium, then both external (orbital, solar, gravitational) and internal (magma dynamics, mantle convection, geodynamo, and volcanism) actions must be understood as components of the same energy framework. Both categories produce magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields capable of interacting with each other and with the atmosphere.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-CC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC3', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 08 Feb 2026
reply
Dear Juan José Grassi,
Thank you for your insightful contribution to the discussion. You raise a compelling point regarding the necessity of an integrated energy framework that accounts for the Earth's internal geodynamics—from the geodynamo and mantle convection to tectonic redistribution.
I agree that the Relative Geoenergetic Equilibrium (RGE) hypothesis describes a system governed by variable energy flows rather than a steady state. To address your suggestions while maintaining the focus of the current study, I would like to offer the following clarifications:
1. The Geodynamo and Magnetic Modulation
The interaction between the magnetosphere and solar wind is indeed a critical factor in modulating high-energy particle influx. However, while the magnetic field’s internal variability operates on geological timescales, its immediate impact on the planetary energy state is reflected in the radiative balance. In our study, by focusing on Net Radiation (using MERRA-2 and IMCCE data), we are essentially monitoring the "final frontier" of this interaction. Any atmospheric or magnetic shielding effect that alters energy absorption is empirically captured in the net flux, allowing us to quantify the state without needing to isolate the deep-core mechanisms.
2. Internal Forcings as Components of the Radiative Signal
You correctly point out that volcanic injections (like Tambora) and tectonic processes exert significant influence. In the RGE framework, these are considered internal feedback or forcing agents that modify the planet’s albedo and opacity. By prioritizing Net Shortwave Radiation over open oceans, our 26-year analysis focuses on the medium-term response. This period allows us to observe how the system processes these internal "shocks" or steady-state tectonic influences in real-time. We argue that the sub-annual to inter-annual scale is where the coupling between these internal states and external orbital drivers (such as equinoctial declination) becomes most visible and measurable.
3. Bridging the "Meanwhile": From Glacial Scales to Decadal Dynamics
Your mention of long-term plate tectonics and the carbon cycle aligns with the classical Milankovitch perspective. However, as I have explored in my previous work on Patagonian Glaciers, while we understand the macro-scale glacial responses, the scientific challenge lies in the "meanwhile"—the high-frequency fluctuations that occur between major geological shifts. Our work aims to provide the empirical elements to bridge this gap, demonstrating that the RGE is not just a theoretical framework for large scales, but a practical tool for understanding the contemporary energy transfer that traditional GCMs may overlook.
Conclusion: I welcome the idea of an energy framework that integrates both external and internal actions. Our research contributes to this by providing a high-resolution, empirical focus on the Net Radiation as the synthesizing variable. It is precisely because the EGR is a dynamic framework that it can host both the internal telluric processes you describe and the astroclimatic drivers we emphasize.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC3', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 08 Feb 2026
reply
-
CC4: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-627', Juan José Grassi, 08 Feb 2026
reply
Guillermo Andrés Chinni, quisiera aportar al debate señalando que, si bien la Hipótesis del Equilibrio Geo energético Relativo (EGR) se fundamenta en la ausencia de un equilibrio climático fijo y en la naturaleza transitoria y no repetitiva de los estados radiactivos producidos por variaciones astro climáticas, resulta imprescindible ampliar el espectro de análisis hacia forzantes adicionales. Los impactos de grandes erupciones volcánicas como Tambora en 1815, que produjo el “Año sin verano” por su inyección estratosférica masiva de SO₂ y aerosoles que redujeron la insolación global evidencian que procesos geológicos puntuales poseen capacidad de modificar drásticamente el estado energético planetario. Sin embargo, su carácter episódico impide considerarlos forzantes estructurales de largo plazo. [discovermagz.blog], [usgs.gov]
En paralelo, deben contemplarse las influencias gravitacionales y electromagnéticas externas: las variaciones orbitales descritas por los ciclos de Milanković, que alteran la distribución latitudinal y estacional de la insolación en escalas de decenas a cientos de miles de años, así como las perturbaciones inducidas por actividad solar (viento solar, CME, variabilidad magnética). No obstante, la magnitud de estas últimas sobre la troposfera es relativamente baja comparada con la modulación orbital y radiactiva.
Ahora bien, además de los forzantes externos, considero necesario destacar que los procesos telúricos internos también modifican la estabilidad geo energética. Los movimientos convectivos del manto y del magma terrestre, junto con la actividad volcánica y tectónica, liberan calor, CO₂ y aerosoles a la atmósfera, afectando el balance radiactivo y los ciclos biogeoquímicos a distintas escalas temporales. La tectónica de placas, por ejemplo, ha sido identificada como un regulador profundo del clima a lo largo de cientos de millones de años, controlando la liberación, almacenamiento y reciclaje de carbono entre la litosfera, océanos y atmósfera. A ello se suma la generación del campo magnético terrestre mediante el geo dínamo en el núcleo externo, proceso dominado por la convección del hierro fundido, capaz de influir en la interacción entre la magnetosfera y el viento solar, modulando indirectamente el ingreso de radiación y partículas de alta energía. [sydney.edu.au]
Desde esta perspectiva ampliada, el EGR puede considerarse un marco que integra tanto los forzantes astro climáticos como los internos, reconociendo que todos contribuyen en magnitudes muy dispares a la configuración del estado energético planetario. El desafío consiste en jerarquizarlos de acuerdo con su escala, persistencia y capacidad de acoplarse al sistema climático.
Juan José Grassi
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-CC4 -
AC4: 'Reply on CC4', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 08 Feb 2026
reply
Estimado Juan José:
Agradezco su detallada contribución. Usted plantea un escenario donde la Tierra es un sistema de engranajes acoplados, desde el núcleo externo hasta la magnetosfera. Coincido en que la Hipótesis del Equilibrio Geoenergético Relativo (EGR) es el marco ideal para integrar estas magnitudes dispares.
Sin embargo, para que esta integración sea operativa y no meramente teórica, mi trabajo propone una jerarquización basada en la evidencia física inmediata:
-
La Radiación Neta como Variable de Síntesis: Aunque los procesos telúricos (magma, tectónica) y magnéticos (geodinamo) influyen en el estado energético, su impacto en el clima actual se manifiesta necesariamente a través del balance radiativo. Al utilizar datos de Net Shortwave Radiation (de NASA MERRA-2), estamos midiendo el "output" real y empírico de esa interacción. Si el campo magnético o el vulcanismo alteran la entrada o retención de energía, dicha fluctuación ya está contenida en la radiación neta. No necesitamos aislar cada variable interna para entender el desequilibrio energético resultante.
-
El "Entretanto" de Milankovitch: Como bien señala, los ciclos de Milankovitch son forzantes estructurales de largo plazo. No obstante, mi investigación —respaldada por efemérides del IMCCE de París— se enfoca en la variabilidad de alta frecuencia (sub-anual a inter-anual). El desafío científico actual no es solo entender las glaciaciones (tema que he abordado en mi obra sobre los Glaciares de la Patagonia, sino descifrar cómo la geometría orbital y la distancia Tierra-Sol modulan la energía en el "entretanto". Es allí donde los trabajos de Lopes, Courtillot y Le Mouël son fundamentales, pues demuestran que existen acoplamientos electromagnéticos y mecánicos que operan en escalas decenales.
-
Conclusión Metodológica: El EGR no ignora los forzantes internos; los jerarquiza. Al centrar el análisis en los 3 drivers externos (distancia, declinación y radiación neta) durante un ciclo de 26 años, aportamos elementos concretos y empíricos que los modelos atmosféricos tradicionales (GCMs) suelen omitir.
En resumen, buscamos pasar de una visión cualitativa de "complejidad total" a una cuantificación precisa del flujo energético que domina la variabilidad contemporánea.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-AC4 -
-
AC9: 'Reply on CC4', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 16 Feb 2026
reply
Dear Juan José,
Thank you for your detailed contribution. You describe a scenario where the Earth is a system of coupled gears, from the outer core to the magnetosphere. I agree that the Relative Geo-energetic Equilibrium (RGE) Hypothesis is the ideal framework to integrate these disparate magnitudes.
However, for this integration to be operational rather than merely theoretical, my work proposes a hierarchy based on immediate physical evidence:
Net Radiation as a Synthesis Variable: Although telluric (magma, tectonics) and magnetic (geo-dynamo) processes influence the energy state, their impact on current climate necessarily manifests through the radiative balance. By using Net Shortwave Radiation data (from NASA MERRA-2), we are measuring the real, empirical "output" of that interaction. If the magnetic field or volcanism alters the entry or retention of energy, such fluctuations are already contained within the net radiation. We do not need to isolate every internal variable to understand the resulting energy imbalance.
The Milankovitch "In-Between"
As you correctly point out, Milankovitch cycles are long-term structural forcings. Nonetheless, my research—supported by high-precision ephemerides from the Paris IMCCE—focuses on high-frequency variability (sub-annual to inter-annual). The current scientific challenge is not only to understand glaciations (a subject I have addressed in my work Glaciares de la Patagonia) but to decipher how orbital geometry and the Earth-Sun distance modulate energy in the "in-between". It is here where the works of Lopes, Courtillot, and Le Mouël are fundamental, as they demonstrate the existence of orbital, electromagnetic, and mechanical couplings operating on short to medium time scales (0–100 years).
Methodological Conclusion:
The Relative Geo-energetic Equilibrium (RGE) hypothesis does not ignore internal forcings; rather, it establishes a functional hierarchy. By centering the analysis on three specific external drivers—orbital distance, axial declination, and net radiation—over a 26-year cycle, we provide concrete, empirical elements directly linked to the energetic shifts that drive climate variability.
In summary, we aim to move from a qualitative vision of "total complexity" toward a precise quantification of the energetic flux that dominates contemporary climate variability.
Best regards,
Guillermo Andrés Chinni
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-AC9
-
AC4: 'Reply on CC4', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 08 Feb 2026
reply
-
CC5: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-627', Juan José Grassi, 08 Feb 2026
reply
Guillermo Andrés Chinni, propongo profundizar el debate planteando que la hipótesis EGR no solo debe contemplar las modulaciones externas del sistema climático, sino también las interacciones internas entre dinámica magmática, tectónica, campo magnético y clima. Sabemos que el campo magnético terrestre se origina en el movimiento conductor del hierro líquido en el núcleo externo (geo dínamo), cuyo comportamiento está influido por gradientes térmicos y heterogeneidades del manto inferior. Estudios recientes demuestran que variaciones laterales en el flujo de calor del núcleo hacia el manto han afectado el comportamiento del campo magnético durante cientos de millones de años, revelando su carácter dinámico y acoplado a procesos profundos del planeta. Si el campo magnético constituye un blindaje frente al viento solar, modulando el flujo de partículas energéticas que alcanzan la atmósfera, entonces su variabilidad interna también forma parte de los elementos que condicionan el estado energético terrestre. [nature.com]
A la vez, procesos tectónicos y magmáticos superficiales y oceánicos —como el vulcanismo explosivo o el ascenso del magma en dorsales oceánicas— ejercen efectos tanto inmediatos como acumulativos en el clima. Eventos como Tambora (1815) o Krakatoa (1883) modificaron temporalmente la temperatura global mediante la inyección estratosférica de aerosoles que reflejaron radiación solar y generaron descensos térmicos prolongados. En escalas mayores, la tectónica de placas controla el ciclo profundo del carbono, la posición de los continentes, los patrones oceánicos y la redistribución del albedo planetario, modulando así los sistemas climáticos a largo plazo. [discovermagz.blog], [britannica.com] [link.springer.com]
Si aceptamos que la EGR describe un sistema climático que responde a un flujo energético variable y no a un equilibrio estacionario, entonces tanto las acciones externas (orbitales, solares, gravitacionales) como las internas (dinámica del magma, convección del manto, geo dinamo y vulcanismo) deben ser entendidas como componentes del mismo entramado energético. Ambas categorías producen campos magnéticos, eléctricos y gravitacionales capaces de interactuar entre sí y con la atmósfera, la hidrosfera y la litosfera. Por tanto, para fortalecer y expandir la hipótesis EGR, sugiero integrar explícitamente esta dualidad de forzantes —externos e internos— dentro de un modelo jerárquico de influencia climática, donde su relevancia dependa de la persistencia, frecuencia, intensidad y capacidad de acoplamiento con el sistema climático global.
Saludos y felicitaciones por su trabajo.
Juan José Grassi
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-CC5 -
AC5: 'Reply on CC5', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 08 Feb 2026
reply
Estimado Juan José Grassi:
Es un placer profundizar en este intercambio. Considero fundamental abordar la complejidad del sistema terrestre desde una perspectiva geofísica integradora, tal como lo han hecho investigadores de la talla de Fernando Lopes, Vincent Courtillot, Jean-Louis Le Mouël y Dominique Gibert. Sus trabajos sobre la variabilidad solar, el geomagnetismo y las oscilaciones de los componentes geofísicos —como la duración del día y el momento angular— demuestran claramente que la Tierra responde a forzamientos que trascienden las simulaciones atmosféricas convencionales.
Con este estudio, mi objetivo es aportar elementos empíricos sobre cómo las variables astroclimáticas influyen directamente en el clima, delimitando el análisis a través de los siguientes pilares:
1. La Energía Neta como síntesis de factores internos y externos
Reconozco plenamente que los procesos telúricos, como la inyección de aerosoles estratosféricos por eventos volcánicos (ej. Tambora) o la actividad tectónica a largo plazo, modifican el estado energético planetario. Sin embargo, en nuestro análisis de los últimos 26 años, hemos priorizado la Radiación Neta de Onda Corta (específicamente sobre aguas abiertas, que son los principales reguladores climáticos).
Esta variable actúa como un sensor físico integrador: cualquier fluctuación en la opacidad atmosférica, la nubosidad o el albedo (ya sea por causas volcánicas o magnéticas) ya está contenida físicamente en el flujo de radiación neta. Al medir el resultado empírico de la energía que el sistema efectivamente absorbe, no es necesario aislar cada proceso geológico individual, centrándonos en el resultado energético neto.
2. Evidencia empírica frente a escalas geológicas: el "entretanto"
Si bien los ciclos de Milankovitch operan en escalas milenarias, nuestra investigación se centra en la variabilidad de alta frecuencia. Al estudiar las variaciones en las distancias Tierra-Sol y la declinación axial durante los equinoccios, aportamos datos cuantificables sobre cómo la geometría orbital modula la energía en escalas sub-anuales a inter-anuales; una resolución temporal que rara vez se aborda en los estudios climáticos tradicionales.
El desafío es entender cómo los cambios planteados por Milankovitch ocurren en el corto y mediano plazo. Conocemos los cambios de largo plazo por la dinámica de los ciclos glaciares (tema que he explorado en mi obra Glaciares de la Patagonia, pero el reto actual es descifrar cómo nos afectan estos forzamientos en el "entretanto". Para asegurar la máxima precisión, hemos utilizado bases de datos de alta calidad, incluyendo el reanálisis MERRA-2 y las efemérides astronómicas del IMCCE de París. Como proponen Lopes et al., estos ciclos de corto periodo están acoplados a la dinámica planetaria y solar, registrando una transitoriedad radiativa constante.
3. Marco Teórico: La Hipótesis EGR
La Hipótesis del Equilibrio Geoenergético Relativo (EGR) postula que el sistema Tierra no busca un equilibrio fijo, sino que navega a través de estados radiativos transitorios y no repetitivos. Al utilizar la Radiación Neta como variable diagnóstica principal, capturamos de forma empírica la interacción en tiempo real entre los forzamientos astronómicos externos y las respuestas internas del planeta.
Conclusión: Este trabajo busca alejar el debate de las generalidades cualitativas y centrarlo en drivers externos específicos: distancias orbitales, declinación equinoccial y radiación neta. La evidencia de estos 26 años proporciona una base sólida para entender la transferencia de energía que domina la variabilidad climática contemporánea, ofreciendo herramientas de análisis que son rigurosas y complementarias a los modelos de circulación general (GCM) tradicionales.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-AC5 -
AC8: 'Reply on CC5', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 16 Feb 2026
reply
Dear Juan José Grassi,
It is a pleasure to further delve into this exchange. I consider it essential to approach the complexity of the Earth system from an integrative geophysical perspective, following the path set by researchers such as Fernando Lopes, Vincent Courtillot, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, and Dominique Gibert. Their work on solar variability, geomagnetism, and the oscillations of geophysical components—such as Length of Day (LOD) and angular momentum—clearly demonstrates that Earth responds to forcings that transcend conventional atmospheric simulations.
With this study, my objective is to provide empirical evidence on how astroclimatic variables directly influence the climate, delimiting the analysis through the following pillars:
1. Net Energy as a Synthesis of Internal and External Factors
I fully recognize that telluric processes, such as the injection of stratospheric aerosols by volcanic events (e.g., Tambora) or long-term tectonic activity, modify the planetary energy state. However, in our analysis of the last 26 years, we have prioritized Net Shortwave Radiation (SWnet), specifically over open waters, which act as the primary climate regulators.
This variable functions as an integrative physical sensor: any fluctuation in atmospheric opacity, cloud cover, or albedo—whether caused by volcanic or magnetic factors—is already physically accounted for within the net radiation flux. By measuring the empirical result of the energy that the system effectively absorbs, it becomes unnecessary to isolate every individual geological process, allowing us to focus on the net energetic outcome.
2. Empirical Evidence vs. Geological Scales: The "In-Between"
While Milankovitch cycles operate on millennial scales, our research focuses on high-frequency variability. By studying variations in Earth-Sun distances and axial declination during equinoxes, we provide quantifiable data on how orbital geometry modulates energy across sub-annual to inter-annual scales; a temporal resolution rarely addressed in traditional climate studies.
The challenge lies in understanding how the changes proposed by Milankovitch manifest in the short and medium term. We are familiar with long-term changes through glacial cycle dynamics—a subject I explored in my work Glaciares de la Patagonia—but the current challenge is deciphering how these forcings affect us in the "in-between". To ensure maximum precision, we utilized high-quality databases, including the NASA MERRA-2 reanalysis and astronomical ephemerides from the Paris IMCCE. As proposed by Lopes et al., these short-period cycles are coupled with planetary and solar dynamics, recording a constant radiative transience.
3. Theoretical Framework: The RGE Hypothesis
The Relative Geo-energetic Equilibrium (RGE) Hypothesis postulates that the Earth system does not seek a fixed equilibrium but instead navigates through non-repetitive, transient radiative states. By using Net Radiation as the primary diagnostic variable, we empirically capture the real-time interaction between external astronomical forcings and the planet's internal responses.
Conclusion: This work aims to shift the debate away from qualitative generalities and center it on specific external drivers: orbital distances, equinoctial declination, and net radiation. The evidence from these 26 years provides a solid foundation for understanding the energy transfer that dominates contemporary climate variability, offering analytical tools that are both rigorous and complementary to traditional General Circulation Models (GCMs).
Best regards,
Guillermo Andrés Chinni
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-AC8
-
AC5: 'Reply on CC5', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 08 Feb 2026
reply
-
CC6: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-627', Natalia Veronica Toscani Taberna, 09 Feb 2026
reply
Estoy de acuerdo con el comentario anterior: el trabajo está bien estructurado y presenta una perspectiva interesante al sugerir que el ENSO podría estar parcialmente influenciado por un forzante astroclimático externo, en lugar de ser completamente estocástico. El enfoque es innovador. Al mismo tiempo, podría ser útil plantear las interpretaciones causales con cierta cautela, especialmente en lo que respecta a influencias orbitales de corto plazo y a eventos extremos específicos. Incluso como una señal complementaria a los modelos ENSO establecidos, el marco propuesto podría aportar información predictiva valiosa si se valida más ampliamente. Asimismo, aclarar algunos parámetros técnicos e incluir una explicación introductoria más clara sobre el valor añadido de la astroclimatología podría mejorar la accesibilidad para una audiencia más amplia.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-CC6 -
AC6: 'Reply on CC6', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 10 Feb 2026
reply
[English Version]
Dear Natalia:
I sincerely appreciate your detailed reading and your valuable comments. Having this perspective is fundamental to balance the presentation of the findings and strengthen the academic debate.
I fully agree on the importance of causal caution. The climate system is inherently complex, and our goal is not to replace the internal stochastic models of ENSO, but rather to identify the "organized background noise" that astroclimatic drivers impose on the system. As you correctly point out, empirical validation is the way forward; this work constitutes a first step based on 26 years of satellite data (NASA MERRA-2) and high-precision celestial mechanics (Paris IMCCE ephemerides).
Regarding technical accessibility, I will take your and Juan José Buela’s suggestions into account. In the revised version of the manuscript, I will include a clarifying section that serves as a bridge between astroclimatology and traditional General Circulation Models (GCMs). There, I will explain how Net Shortwave Radiation (SWnet) acts as the physical link between orbital geometry and the oceanic thermodynamic response. This will demonstrate how the method helps mitigate the Spring Predictability Barrier, a point I will expand upon in detail in a forthcoming article based on the orbital "lock" observed in the 2024–2025 period.
Again, thank you for your support and for the suggestions to improve clarity regarding the current and future potential of this integrated approach.
Best regards,
Guillermo Andrés Chinni
----
[Versión en español]
Estimada Natalia:
Agradezco sinceramente tu lectura detallada y tus valiosos comentarios. Contar con esta perspectiva es fundamental para equilibrar la presentación de los hallazgos y fortalecer el debate académico.
Coincido plenamente en la importancia de la cautela causal. El sistema climático es intrínsecamente complejo y nuestro objetivo no es reemplazar los modelos estocásticos internos del ENSO, sino identificar el "ruido de fondo organizado" que los forzantes astroclimáticos imponen al sistema. Como bien señalas, la validación empírica es el camino a seguir; este trabajo constituye un primer paso basado en 26 años de datos satelitales (NASA MERRA-2) y mecánica celeste de alta precisión (efemérides del IMCCE de París).
Sobre la accesibilidad técnica, tomaré muy en cuenta tu sugerencia y la de Juan José Buela. En la versión revisada del manuscrito, incluiré una sección aclaratoria que funcione como puente entre la astroclimatología y los modelos de circulación general (GCMs) tradicionales. Allí explicaré cómo la radiación neta de onda corta (SWnet) actúa como el nexo físico entre la geometría orbital y la respuesta termodinámica oceánica. Esto permitirá demostrar cómo el método ayuda a mitigar la "barrera de predictibilidad de primavera" (Spring Predictability Barrier), un punto que ampliaré detalladamente en un próximo artículo a presentar basado en el "lock" orbital observado en el periodo 2024-2025.
Nuevamente, gracias por el apoyo y por las sugerencias para mejorar la claridad sobre el potencial actual y futuro de este enfoque integrado.
Atentamente,
Guillermo Andrés Chinni
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-AC6
-
AC6: 'Reply on CC6', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 10 Feb 2026
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-627', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Feb 2026
reply
The manuscript addresses an important and legitimate scientific question: whether short-period astronomical variability may exert an influence on interannual climate variability, in particular ENSO. The possibility of external (astronomical) forcing of climate variability is a long-standing and serious research topic.
However, in its present form, the manuscript does not yet provide sufficient physical quantification or statistical robustness to support the strength of the conclusions drawn.
The manuscript attributes ENSO modulation to interannual variations in Earth-Sun distance of order ~10⁴ km. However i) the relative variation in heliocentric distance is of order 10⁻⁴, ii) radiative forcing scales as 1/r², iii) the resulting flux perturbation is therefore extremely small compared to a) internal tropical ocean–atmosphere variability, b) cloud radiative feedbacks and c) ENSO-associated heat flux anomalies.
The manuscript does not include a quantitative energy budget comparing i) the magnitude of the proposed astronomical forcing (in W/m²), ii) the typical energy scale of ENSO variability. Without such a comparison, the causal plausibility of the mechanism remains unsubstantiated. A quantitative energetic assessment is essential.
The manuscript invokes secular drift and orbital geometry effects as drivers of interannual climate modulation. However, precession and orbital variations operate primarily on multi-millennial timescales. The manuscript should clarify i) how the proposed mechanism differs from classical Milanković forcing, ii) why the interannual component would be dynamically relevant, and iii) whether the effect exceeds known internal variability scales. The current presentation risks conflating geometric displacement with dynamically meaningful forcing.
The statistical analysis relies heavily on i) wavelet coherence, ii) band-pass filtering, iii) cross-correlation and iv) constructed indices with sparse monthly injection.Several concerns arise I) ENSO exhibits strong red-noise characteristics, ii) band-pass filtering may introduce spurious coherence, iii) injecting annual values into monthly series may artificially enhance specific frequencies and iv) Significance thresholds (±2/√N) may be insufficient under serial correlation. Robust surrogate testing (eg., AR(1) red-noise surrogates, permutation tests, phase randomization) is necessary to establish statistical significance beyond structural coherence. At present, the statistical evidence does not convincingly separate causation from shared spectral structure.
The manuscript uses expressions such as i) “smoking gun”, “deterministic trigger”, “foundational climate science”. Such terminology is not supported by the level of quantitative evidence currently presented. A more cautious interpretation would be appropriate.
The manuscript would benefit from a more complete positioning within previous work on solar–climate coupling and short-period astronomical variability. In particular Le Mouël et al. (2019) (A solar signature in many climate indices) and/or Mares et al. (2022) (Solar signature in climate indices). This would strengthen the scholarly framing of the manuscript.
The hypothesis explored is scientifically legitimate and worth investigating. However, substantial revision is required before the conclusions can be supported at the level currently claimed.
I recommend major revision with particular emphasis on i) quantitative energy scaling, ii) robust statistical validation, iii) clear separation between correlation and causation and iv) moderation of interpretative claims.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-RC1 -
AC10: 'Reply on RC1', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 09 Mar 2026
reply
Dear Referee #1,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your insightful and constructive review of my manuscript. Your comments regarding the physical quantification of the proposed forcing and the statistical robustness of the methodology have been invaluable.I have taken these suggestions as a roadmap to further refine and strengthen the physical and statistical foundation of the work.
In response to your recommendations, I have integrated a new analytical framework based on Information Theory and Advanced Wavelet Analysis (following Mares et al., 2022). This allows for a rigorous separation of astronomical signals from radiative variance and stochastic noise. Furthermore, I have included a quantitative physical approximation to address the energy scaling paradox.
Below, I detail my point-by-point responses to your main concerns, which are further expanded in the attached revised PDF.
1. On the "10⁻⁴ Distance Paradox" and Energy Scaling
I acknowledge the concern regarding the small magnitude of the 10⁻⁴ relative variation in Earth-Sun distance. To address this:
-
Geometric Precision: I have redefined the analytical focus from gross energy changes to geometric precision through the ΔLP component (Lateral Projection of the Earth–Sun vector).
-
Physical Formulation: I now include a formulation for TOA incoming shortwave forcing utilizing the Lambert Law. To reconcile the 10⁻⁴ scale with observed anomalies, I introduce a Temporal Amplification Factor (Γ ≈ 12) for mid-latitudes (±45.5°). This factor accounts for the diurnal cycle, monthly persistence of the solar declination (δ) shift, and latitudinal sensitivity (photoperiod duration).
-
Empirical Validation: This is presented as a comparative approximation to justify physical plausibility. Crucially, when these astronomical variables (declination and distance) are processed through the Information Theory framework (Mares et al.), they yield statistically significant results. This confirms that the "pure" orbital signal is indeed present in the climate data despite its small relative magnitude.
2. Statistical Robustness and Causality
Following your suggestion to move beyond simple correlations:
-
MWC and PWC Framework: The original cross-correlation has been replaced by Multiple Wavelet Coherence (MWC) and Partial Wavelet Coherence (PWC). This allows me to isolate the "pure" astronomical signal (ΔLP) while removing radiative variance.
-
Surrogate Testing: Statistical significance is now strictly validated against AR(1) red-noise models and Monte Carlo simulations (p < 0.05). The identified 2–4 year and 10-month bands persist under these rigorous tests, effectively separating deterministic signals from shared spectral structure.
-
Information Theory: I have implemented Non-linear Correlation Coefficients (NLR) and Synergy–Redundancy (S–R) analysis to quantify the information flow, identifying a phase-locked coupling window during the September equinox.
3. Temporal Scales and Terminology
-
Interannual vs. Milanković: I have clarified that while classical orbital variations operate on millennial scales, my focus is on the interannual kinematic variation of the orbital position. This triggers immediate non-linear responses in terrestrial energy redistribution (Relative Geoenergetic Equilibrium - RGE), which differ fundamentally from long-term secular drifts.
-
Moderation of Language: In accordance with your advice, I have revised the terminology throughout the manuscript. Expressions such as "smoking gun" or "foundational science" have been replaced with more cautious, standard scientific descriptions of the evidence.
4. Scholarly Framing
The revised manuscript now explicitly positions this work within the context of previous studies on solar-climate coupling and non-linear signal detection. I have integrated references to Le Mouël et al. (2019) and Mares et al. (2022) to strengthen the scholarly foundation of my hypothesis and acknowledge the existing literature on external climate forcing.
I believe these revisions significantly strengthen the physical and statistical foundation of the manuscript, providing a clear separation between shared spectral structure and deterministic orbital influence. I highly encourage your review of the new results and updates attached to this response as a PDF, as they offer a more robust validation of the astroclimatic coupling discussed.
I look forward to your further assessment and any additional comments you may have regarding these updates.
Sincerely,
The Author
Note: The attached PDF provides the technical evidence and new results requested by the Referee. The formal revised version of the full manuscript will be uploaded separately through the official submission system once the discussion phase allows.
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC10', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Mar 2026
reply
Thank you for the substantial effort invested in revising the manuscript. I can see that you took the first review seriously and that the revised material is more developed than the original submission. In particular, the replacement of the original correlation-based framework by PWC/MWC and information-theory tools, together with the introduction of the ΔLP quantity, gives the revised work a clearer focus.
In my view, the most promising element of the revision is precisely this new ΔLP formulation. I think this quantity could become the real scientific core of the manuscript. However, for this to happen, I would strongly encourage you to clarify its status and narrow the claims accordingly.
At present, ΔLP appears to be introduced as a geometric/kinematic quantity, but it is then interpreted as if it were already a physically demonstrated climatic forcing. This is, in my opinion, still the main weakness of the manuscript. A geometric displacement, even if large when expressed in km, is not by itself a demonstration of a dynamically sufficient forcing. What is still needed is a clearer bridge between geometry and physically measurable radiative consequences.
I therefore suggest the following concrete ways forward:
- Clarify the physical meaning of ΔLP. Please state explicitly whether ΔLP is intended as i) a geometric descriptor, ii) a kinematic index, iii) a proxy for radiative redistribution, iv) or a true forcing term. The manuscript would benefit greatly from not blending these levels.
- Decompose ΔLP\Delta LPΔLP analytically. Since LP_0=D_au x sin(δ)×C, a first-order decomposition would help show whether the signal is mainly controlled by changes in distance, by changes in declination, or by their combination. This would make the variable much more interpretable physically.
- Translate ΔLP into an observable radiative perturbation. This is probably the most important missing step. A productive path would be to estimate how variations in ΔLP map onto i) solar zenith angle, ii) photoperiod, iii) TOA incoming shortwave flux, iv) or latitudinal radiative gradients over the relevant latitude bands. Even an order-of-magnitude estimate would already strengthen the manuscript considerably.
- Compare ΔLP against simpler astronomical descriptors. To establish its added value, I strongly recommend comparing its explanatory power with that of simpler quantities such as D_au, δ,, D_au x sin(δ, or even a simple seasonal descriptor. If ΔLP truly carries unique information, this comparison would demonstrate it clearly.
- Recast the manuscript around ΔLP as a diagnostic quantity, unless the physical chain is fully demonstrated. At this stage, the manuscript would be much stronger if ΔLP were presented as a novel orbital-geometric diagnostic or hypothesis-generating index, rather than as definitive evidence of a deterministic climatic trigger.
- Keep the statistical results at the level they support. The revised statistical framework is improved, and this is a positive development. However, statistical coherence and information-flow metrics do not, by themselves, establish deterministic causality in such a complex climate system. I therefore encourage you to frame these results as evidence of a structured association worth investigating further, rather than as proof of a clear cause-and-effect mechanism.
- Moderate the strongest predictive statements. In particular, statements about a deterministic driver, a 2026 trigger, or the effective disappearance of relevant stochastic variability remain considerably stronger than what the present physical demonstration supports. Toning these down would improve the scientific credibility of the manuscript.
Overall, I believe there is a potentially interesting idea emerging here, especially through the introduction of ΔLP. The manuscript could become much more convincing if it is recentred on this quantity, its physical meaning is clarified, and its claims are brought into line with what is actually demonstrated.
I am therefore encouraging the author to build the next revision around the physical clarification and quantitative interpretation of ΔLP, which in my view is now the most potentially interesting aspect of the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-RC2 -
AC11: 'Reply on RC2', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 20 Mar 2026
reply
Thank you sincerely for your insightful and constructive feedback on the revised manuscript. I deeply appreciate your recognition of the transition to the PWC/MWC and information-theory framework, as well as the potential you see in the ΔLP formulation. Your suggestions provide a clear and productive roadmap for solidifying the physical status of this quantity. In response to your request for a clearer bridge between geometry and radiative consequences, I have provided a comprehensive technical breakdown below, which decomposes ΔLP and maps it directly onto observed NASA CERES radiative flux and IMCCE astronomical data, ensuring the claims remain strictly aligned with empirical evidence and coherent results.
Please see the attached files for detailed charts, data tables, and specific graphical evidence.
1. Physical Status and Analytical Decomposition
ΔLP is proposed as a kinematic diagnostic index that serves as a proxy for radiative redistribution. Expressed in kilometers (km), this metric quantifies lateral geometric variations across interannual to decadal scales. Rather than acting as a standalone forcing term, ΔLP captures the interannual geometric reconfiguration of the Earth-Sun vector, providing a measurable link between orbital dynamics and planetary energy distribution.
The analytical decomposition LP = D_au · sin(δ) reveals that the observed displacement of ≈ 360,000 km (2000–2025) is the combined result of radial distance (D_au) and solar declination (δ). In this relationship, D_au acts as a positional factor within the orbital band that scales and amplifies subtle variations, while δ defines the magnitude of change in the lateral vector. This coherent coupling supports the proposed Relative Geoenergetic Equilibrium (RGE) Hypothesis. (See Figure 1: Orbital Window Proxy Scale).
Figure 1 Proxy Scale orbital window scheme: lateral projection (LP) and annual deltas (2000–2025). Earth spheres (d_E ≈ 12,742 km) are plotted by radial distance variation and cumulative lateral displacement. Shaded areas indicate statistical regimes from PWC/MWC: Astro Coherence (2004–2012) and Astro-Radiative Synergy (S-R) (2021–2025). High ΔLP values (e.g., +19,908 km in 2024) correlate with structured radiative anomalies, supporting ΔLP as a kinematic proxy for global energy redistribution and the RGE Hypothesis.
2. Radiative Mapping and Information Theory
Although the cumulative series reaches 360,000 km, the Information Theory analyses (PWC/MWC) utilize interannual differences (ΔLP). These values were integrated with the BEST climate index and CERES TOA (incoming flux) radiation data. Geometrically, this displacement modulates the latitudinal distribution of the solar zenith angle, directly affecting radiative gradients over the oceans, particularly at critical latitudes such as 45.5° S and 45.5° N.
The high statistical coherence found through PWC/MWC suggests a structured association, where the kinematic state of the orbit preconditions the radiative budget. This reinforces the use of ΔLP as an innovative diagnostic tool for astro-climatic coupling.
3. Coherence Periods and Climate Dynamics
High-coherence intervals in PWC ASTRO and MWC S-R coincide with sustained ΔLP values exceeding 10,000 km (periods of lower entropy). Conversely, non-significant periods show more frequent low or intermittent ΔLP values. Notably, between 2021 and 2024, ΔLP values were high and increasing, exhibiting a lag of 10 to 12 months.
While the moderating role of the atmosphere and oceans is fundamental, ΔLP oscillations appear to configure significant coupling periods. This dynamics predisposes conditions for climate extremes and phase-shifts in phenomena such as ENSO (e.g., the "Triple-Dip" La Niña 2020–2023), altering pressure centers and precipitation distribution, as evidenced by the "ice and fire" events of early 2026. This approach is not deterministic but proposes a significant coherence based on information transfer and orbital kinematics.
4. Geodynamic Observation: The "Solsticialization" of Equinoxes
An additional descriptive consideration, consistent with the kinematic drift of ΔLP, is the gradual trend of the March and September equinoxes toward a geodynamic configuration that resembles "solstice-like behavior" rather than a theoretical perfect equinox. Although these changes appear subtle on solar scales, they represent significant shifts in Earth’s energy distribution framework when scaled to planetary dimensions.
Empirical Evidence from CERES (2024 Record): Data from the CERES TOA incoming flux table confirms this trend, with 2024 marking a relevant tipping point. The months adjacent to the September equinox at -45.5° S reached the highest values in the entire 26-year series:
-
August: 187.90 W/m² (Series maximum).
-
September: 280.17 W/m² (Series maximum).
-
October: 383.41 W/m² (Series maximum).
This "solsticialization" suggests that increased energy coupling in adjacent months during periods of high S-R Synergy pushes the system into new energetic states. This is not necessarily a smooth transition; empirically, many ENSO phases (El Niño/La Niña) initiate or strengthen around the September equinox and undergo phase-shifts near March.
This trend is not restricted to the Southern Hemisphere; CERES data for the Northern Hemisphere (+45.5° N) in 2024 also established a triple record for the March equinox window: March (294.83 W/m²), April (386.77 W/m²), and May (453.78 W/m²); all reached their absolute historical maximums within the CERES series. This parallel behavior with the September records in the Southern Hemisphere confirms the peak in ΔLP synergy (2021–2024).
This solsticialization is presented constantly by declination, but appears significantly in radiation and climate indices during periods of coupling and/or synergies, demonstrating the complexity of the dynamics through significant periods of low entropy in the data (higher coherence, for example).
Coherence and Persistence
The high statistical coherence found in our PWC/MWC analysis aligns with these empirical records. This suggests that orbital kinematic states (ΔLP) precondition the synchronization and intensity of these oscillatory climate events through significant periods of synergy between the astronomical variable and net radiation.
A clear example of this is the recent synergy period initiated between 2020 and 2022, which shows no clear signs of interruption and leaves open the question of whether it could be prolonged, similar to the "purely astronomical" period of 2004–2012 (PWC lag 4 to 10), which maintained high coherence with sustained high ΔLP values and only one low ΔLP value in the entire sub-series.
These results are not presented as a deterministic proof, but as a significant and coherent association that deserves further investigation.
-
-
AC12: 'Reply on RC2', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 21 Mar 2026
reply
Technical Amendment to Table 1 (September Equinox Kinematic Series)
Dear Referee,
I am resubmitting the astronomical datasets for the September Equinox (Table 1) to correct a minor printing formatting error in the "Deg" column.
In the previous version, a software rendering inconsistency caused the degree values to display incorrectly. We have now standardized this column to "0" to accurately reflect the 0° declination threshold of the equinoctial point, ensuring full visual and mathematical symmetry with the March Equinox dataset.
Please note that:
All other physical parameters (Decl_Dec, Distance_ua, and LP_KM) remain unchanged and are correct.
The kinematic deltas (ΔLP) and the resulting correlation with CERES TOA Flux records are unaffected by this formatting adjustment.
We apologize for this typographical oversight in the annex and appreciate your technical diligence.
Sincerely,
The Authors
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC12', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Mar 2026
reply
Thank you for the detailed replies. The author has responded seriously and constructively to several of my main requests, especially regarding the clarification of ΔLP as a diagnostic quantity. I appreciate the effort made to engage with the review in a thoughtful and constructive way.
At this stage, I may simply have missed the revised manuscript, in which case I apologize. If a revised version is already available, please disregard this comment. If not, I would strongly encourage the author to provide a new version of the paper incorporating all the proposed corrections and clarifications, as this would make it much easier to evaluate the revision as a whole.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-627-RC3
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC12', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Mar 2026
reply
-
AC11: 'Reply on RC2', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 20 Mar 2026
reply
-
-
AC10: 'Reply on RC1', Guillermo Andrés Chinni, 09 Mar 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 409 | 94 | 59 | 562 | 46 | 44 | 67 |
- HTML: 409
- PDF: 94
- XML: 59
- Total: 562
- Supplement: 46
- BibTeX: 44
- EndNote: 67
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Lo más interesante del trabajo es la idea de que ENSO no es solo caótico, sino que podría estar sincronizado por un forzante externo. La parte orbital me parece provocadora, pero bien pensada. Puede que ahí haya algo que vale la pena seguir explorando ya que la presunción de los climatólogos es que el efecto orbital no es tan significativo como la variabilidad interna del sistema océanos y atmósfera.
Sobre la redacción y presentación de información: creo que está muy prolijo. Me aseguraría de centrar todas las tablas y gráficos, y tratar de que los pies de figura tengan el mismo formato y fuente.