Aurora Borealis and surface temperature cycles linked

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes about a new paper from Nicola Scafetta.:

New Paper “A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature” By N. Scafetta 2011

File:Northern light 01.jpg

Northern light over Malmesjaur lake in Moskosel, Lappland, Sweden Image: Wikipedia

A new paper has just appeared

Nicola Scafetta 2011: A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics In Press doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013

This paper is certainly going to enlarge the debate on the role of natural climate variability and long term change.

The abstract reads [highlight added]

Herein we show that the historical records of mid-latitude auroras from 1700 to 1966 present oscillations with periods of about 9, 10–11, 20–21, 30 and 60 years. The same frequencies are found in proxy and instrumental global surface temperature records since 1650 and 1850, respectively, and in several planetary and solar records. We argue that the aurora records reveal a physical link between climate change and astronomical oscillations. Likely in addition to a Soli-Lunar tidal effect, there exists a planetary modulation of the heliosphere, of the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth and/or of the electric properties of the ionosphere. The latter, in turn, has the potentiality of modulating the global cloud cover that ultimately drives the climate oscillations through albedo oscillations. In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied, which also include a historical record of meteorite fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. We show that a harmonic constituent model based on the major astronomical frequencies revealed in the aurora records and deduced from the natural gravitational oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a reasonable accuracy the decadal and multidecadal temperature oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data before 1950, and vice versa. The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60–70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced. Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.

The highlights listed in the announcement of the paper read

► The paper highlights that global climate and aurora records present a common set of frequencies. ► These frequencies can be used to reconstruct climate oscillations within the time scale of 9–100 years. ► An empirical model based on these cycles can reconstruct and forecast climate oscillations. ► Cyclical astronomical physical phenomena regulate climate change through the electrification of the upper atmosphere. ► Climate cycles have an astronomical origin and are regulated by cloud cover oscillations.

========================================================

Dr. Scafetta writes in and attaches the full paper in email to me (Anthony) this week saying:

I can forecast climate with a good proximity. See figure 11. In this new paper the physical link between astronomical oscillations and climate is further confirmed.

What the paper does is to show that the mid-latitude aurora records present the same oscillations of the climate system and of well-identified astronomical cycles. Thus, the origin of the climatic oscillations is astronomical what ever the mechanisms might be.

In the paper I argue that the record of this kind of aurora can be considered a proxy for the electric properties of the atmosphere which then influence the cloud cover and the albedo and, consequently, causes similar cycles in the surface temperature.

Note that aurora may form at middle latitude or if the magnetosphere is weak, so it is not able to efficiently deviate the solar wind, or if the solar explosions (solar flare etc) are particularly energetic, so they break in by force.

During the solar cycle maxima the magnetosphere gets stronger so the aurora should be pushed toward the poles. However, during the solar maxima a lot of solar flares and highly energetic solar explosions occurs. As a consequence you see an increased number of mid-latitude auroras despite the fact that the magnetosphere is stronger and should push them toward the poles.

On the contrary, when the magnetosphere gets weaker on a multidecadal scale, the mid-latitude aurora forms more likely, and you may see some mid-latitude auroras even during the solar minima as Figure 2 shows.

In the paper I argue that what changes the climate is not the auroras per se but the strength of the magnetosphere that regulates the cosmic ray incoming flux which regulate the clouds.

The strength of the magnetosphere is regulated by the sun (whose activity changes in synchrony with the planets), but perhaps the strength of the Earth’s magnetosphere is also regulated directly by the gravitational/magnetic forces of Jupiter and Saturn and the other planets whose gravitational/magnetic tides may stretch or compress the Earth’s magnetosphere in some way making it easier or more difficult for the Earth’s magnetosphere to deviate the cosmic ray.

So, when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the Sun, they may do the following things: 1) may make the sun more active; 2) the more active sun makes the magnetosphere stronger; 3) Jupiter and Saturn contribute with their magnetic fiend to make stronger the magnetic field of the inner part of the solar system; 4) the Earth’ magnetosphere is made stronger and larger by both the increased solar activity and the gravitational and magnetic stretching of it caused by the Jupiter and Saturn. Consequently less cosmic ray arrive on the Earth and less cloud form and there is an heating of the climate.

However, explaining in details the above mechanisms is not the topic of the paper which is limited to prove that such kind of mechanisms exist because revealed by the auroras’s behavior.

The good news is that even if we do not know the physical nature of these mechanisms, climate may be in part forecast in the same way as the tides are currently forecast by using geometrical astronomical considerations as I show in Figure 11.

The above point is very important. When trying to predict the tides people were arguing that there was the need to solve the Newtonian Equation of the tides and the other physical equations of fluid-dynamics etc. Of course, nobody was able to do that because of the enormous numerical and theoretical difficulty. Today nobody dreams to use GCMs to predict accurately the tides. To overcome the issue Lord Kelvin argued that it is useless to use the Newtonian mechanics or whatever other physical law to solve the problem. What was important was only to know that a link in some way existed, even if not understood in details. On the basis of this, Lord Kelvin proposed an harmonic constituent model for tidal prediction based on astronomical cycles. And Kelvin method is currently the only method that works for predicting the tides. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide-predicting_machine

Figure 11 is important because it shows for the first time that climate can be forecast based on astronomical harmonics with a good accuracy. I use a methodology similar to Kelvin’s one and calibrate the model from 1850 to 1950 and I show that the model predicts the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2010, and I show also that the vice-versa is possible.

Of course the proposed harmonic model may be greatly improved with additional harmonics. In comparison the ocean tides are predicted with 35-40 harmonics.

But this does not change the results of the paper that is: 1) a clearer evidence that a physical link between the oscillations of the solar system and the climate exists, as revealed by the auroras’ behavior; 2) this finding justifies the harmonic modeling and forecast of the climate based on astronomical cycles associated to the Sun, the Moon and the Planets.

So, it is also important to understand Kelvin’s argument to fully understand my paper.

Fig. 11. Astronomical harmonic constituent model reconstruction and forecast of the global surface temperature.

This work is the natural continuation of my previous work on the topic.

Nicola Scafetta. Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate
oscillations and its implications. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Volume 72, Issue 13, August 2010, Pages 951-970

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610001495

Abstract
We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate
oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature
records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets
present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5
and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large
climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 and 0.25°C,
and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the
orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are
also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to
the Moon’s orbital cycles. A phenomenological model based on these
astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature
oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century.
It is found that at least 60% of the global warming observed since 1970 has
been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate
oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or
cool until 2030–2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively
discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization
of coupled oscillators.

=======================================================

The claims here are pretty bold, and I’ll be frank and say I can’t tell the difference between this and some of the cycl0-mania calculation papers that have been sent to me over the last few years. OTOH, Basil Copeland and I looked at some of the effects of luni-solar on global temperature previously here at WUWT.

While the hindcast seems impressive, a real test would be a series of repeated and proven short-term future forecasts. Time will tell.

796 thoughts on “Aurora Borealis and surface temperature cycles linked

  1. Two things I noticed in those graphs.

    1) There was a diversion at the start of both graphs. What is the explanation for this? I’m guessing data quality is probably the cause, but it would be nice to know what the author thinks.

    2) I don’t see any diversion due to volcanic eruptions. Does that mean that there’s a link between Aurora Borealis and major volcanic eruptions, too?

  2. Aren’t there statistical methods that can determine correlation? It would be good to see those.

    @jimmi_the_dalek: The mechanism the paper examines is Cosmic rays cause cloud formation. The interaction between cosmic rays and the magnetosphere is what is being proposed. Isn’t that a physical mechanism?

  3. Is it even remotely possible that both the 60 year auroral cycle and the 60 yr climate cycle are actually more like six of the normal solar sunspot cycles, or three times the normal solar full magnetic cycle.

    In which case the auroras may have nothing whatever to do with the climate. Could it be that when the fall cold Temperatures set in, and the ancients spent more time in the sack to keep warm; that naturally lead to a spate of new births the following June.

  4. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Are you arguing that we should never investigate correlations until after a causation is proven?

  5. I have to disagree with jimmi_the_dalek.

    Wegener inferred the essence of continental drift from the coastline matches across the Atlantic, fossil evidence, and such. He was ridiculed by the geology establishment because neither Wegener nor anyone else could conceive of a mechanism. Once the evidence for sea-floor spreading grew in the late 20th century, the mechanism of mantle flow became more believeable and now Wegener’s idea is confirmed and generally accepted.

    Luis and Walter Alvarez proposed extraterrestrial impact to explain the K-T extinction event based on anomalous iridium. They were dismissed by the geology establishment too – until the evidence became too great to ignore.

    The beginning of a good hypothesis is the recognition of patterns and anomalies – which leads to thoughts of mechanisms – which leads to testing against real-world data.

    BTW, Scafetta is proposing a mechanism – solar variance leads to variable cosmic ray flux, which leads to changes in cloud cover (as with Svensmark), which leads to climate variation.

  6. By coincidence it was just two days ago that I asked Leif why there were so many reports of the aurora borealis being visible from the south of England that I noted in the historic accounts of 1550 to 1650 that I had been reading that day in the met office archives.

    tonyb

  7. Fascinating post, thanks again.
    3) Jupiter and Saturn contribute with their magnetic fiend (fields?) to make stronger the magnetic field of the inner part of the solar system;

  8. jimmi_the_dalek says: November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.

    Surely not true.

    Surely it only needs thorough observation and discovery of correlation, to qualify as science. Of course we all ardently desire to “explain” the mechanism but to me that’s the magic and grace of Science, not its minimum requirement, when a “eureka” hypothesis does appear, that encapsulates the observed patterns in a formula, verifiable explanation, or law.

  9. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 10, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Since there is no obvious 60 year cycle periodicity in 300 years of sunspot records, I think Scafetta’s efforts are missing the target.

    You are missing the point Vuk, Nicola is proposing a link between the Earth’s magnetosphere and tidal/magnetic links from Jupiter and Saturn. Right up your alley I would have thought.

  10. GeologyJim says:
    November 10, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    BTW, Scafetta is proposing a mechanism – solar variance leads to variable cosmic ray flux, which leads to changes in cloud cover (as with Svensmark), which leads to climate variation.

    That is what I thought when I first read the paper, but after discussions with Nicola it is apparent his paper is not about solar variation but more about planetary influence on our magnetosphere.

  11. “The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030–2040.”
    I believe this same time frame was mentioned in a recent Russian paper I believe I read about here at WUWT. The author then didn’t identify any correlation with other phenomena, but was very certain about cooling until 2030 or so.

  12. why there were so many reports of the aurora borealis being visible from the south of England that I noted in the historic accounts of 1550 to 1650

    My guess is that the skies of the South of England were much darker at night in 1550-1650 than they are today. Aurorae that might have been visible then may be completely invisible now. Also, London is at about the same latitude (51degN) as Winnipeg, Canada (49 degN). Winnipeg sees aurorae rather often.

  13. “Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.”

    Never mind that this comment has been shredded for what it is, mindguard trolling by the warmies. The statement is not true in any event. Lots of unexplained things were measured before they were understood. To assert that science cannot advance unless it knows where it is going is ridiculous.

  14. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
    “Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.”

    Do you agree that mainstream climate science is astrology?

  15. The paper is not about cosmic rays influences on cloud formation. It is postulating that the gravitational and/or magnetic field of Jupiter and Saturn can influence the activity of the sun. However, to quote from the paper (yes I have read it),

    A full theory that would physically explain how the solar wobbling or the planetary tides may influence solar activity has not been developed yet. However, preliminary studies suggest that planetary gravity may increase nuclear rate ( [Grandpierre, 1996] and [Wolff and Patrone, 2010] ) by favoring the movement of fresh fuel into the solar core. The proposed mechanisms would likely produce the major frequencies herein discussed because it is based on the study of the wobbling of Sun around the solar system barycenter as done in Scafetta (2010b).

    As I said at the beginning – astrology – the magnitude of gravitational forces from Jupiter on the sun is way, way too small to have such as effect.

  16. Posted on November 10, 2011 by Anthony Watts

    Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes about a new paper from Nicola Scafetta.:

    New Paper “A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature” By N. Scafetta 2011

    “The claims here are pretty bold, and I’ll be frank and say I can’t tell the difference between this and some of the cycl0-mania calculation papers that have been sent to me over the last few years. “

    The global temperatures can easy be simulated in high resolution in the time range of 3000 BC until 3000 CE from the NASA ephemeris of 11 objects in the solar system.

    The profiles of the long term anomalies can be simulated with only three or four objects:

    High resolution (month) profiles need eleven objects.

    Some tide strenght could be better adjusted to the data with math tools.

    Basis of this method is to sum up the solar tide functions of the eleven objects. The Moon is not involved.

    Read more

    V.

  17. Mark ro, Geoff Sharp-
    It implausible that the magnetic fields of Jupiter or Saturn could affect the magnetic fields in the inner solar system, since the solar wind is supersonic- no disturbance created at 5 or 10 AU can propagate back toward the sun any further than the bow shock at each planet.

  18. Having matched the available data to the cycles and hindcast it to show compelling harmonics, and then used it to predict the future, you have to admire the symmetry, logic and hopefully the truth of a reasonable hypothesis. Time will tell.

    At least this adds to the conversation on climate variation mechanisms based on observing data rather than clinging to the CO2 mantra. Unfortunately, it is a “model”.

  19. crosspatch says:
    November 10, 2011 at 3:09 pm

    My guess is that the skies of the South of England were much darker at night in 1550-1650 than they are today. Aurorae that might have been visible then may be completely invisible now. Also, London is at about the same latitude (51degN) as Winnipeg, Canada (49 degN). Winnipeg sees aurorae rather often.

    The position of the magnetic north pole explains that latter point. The aurora manifest in a circle around the magnetic pole, which is somewhat closer to Winnipeg than London, leaving us Europeans relatively bereft when it comes to viewing them. If aurora were visible in London in late 14th century they they must have been incredibly powerful.

  20. To those who claim I have not read the paper – I have read more of it than the people who think it is about cosmic rays. Also, the relation to astrology is simple – science has to be quantitative not just handwaving. Do you realise for example that the magnitude of the gravitational field of Saturn on the Sun is less than the effect of the gravitational field of Earth on the Sun? Jupiter is larger but its mass is 1/1000 of the sun’s and it is 800 million kilometers away from the Sun – you work out what the gravitational forces are. Jupiter has a strong magnetic field it is true, being roughly 10 time stronger than Earth’s , but since Jupiter is 5 times as far from the Sun, roughly, the effect of Jupiter’s magnetic field on the Sun, is less than that of Earth’s on the Sun. And I am not claiming that correlations should not be investigated, and am stating that a proposed mechanism for a correlation has to be physically possible.

    And for those who reckon I am a troll, or a “warmist” – I am neither – but I realise than skepticism has to work in both directions – and this paper is BS.

  21. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    “Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.”

    Just like when the IPCC concluded that since they couldnt explain the rise of temperature in recent times, it had to be CO2. Luckily Scafetta wont tax the Borealis…..

  22. Kwik, (and others)
    I have not claimed that the IPCC science is sound, and I do not have to demonstrate that it is (which I could not do anyway) in order to state that someone who says the motions of Jupiter affect the climate here must be waffling. By all means look for 60 year cycles, but when you find them postulate a physically possible cause.

  23. Magnetic influence from (say) Jupiter may not have to propagate back to Earth to influence climate. If cosmic rays are not isotropic, there will be times when Jupiter’s magnetosphere blocks more cosmic rays than usual before they can get to Earth. But that’s something I’ve never studied — take it as you will.

  24. I remember a while back an explanation for the Dalton and Maunder minimums, that predicted a quiet sun period for the next several decades. Basically, the mechanism was, I believe, planets orbits, like here, and that certain orbits coincided with periods of reduced solar activity, that it showed the most reduced activity during the Maunder, a bit less for the Dalton (both verified by history), and the prediction of another minimum right about now till about 2030 or so slightly less extreme than the Dalton (which was less extreme than the Maunder). Basically, a sort of mini little ice age, significantly colder than the 70’s ice age scare, but probably a little warmer than the Dalton. Since solar cycles go in two’s, this would mean this solar cycle is reduced (it is), and the next one would be much quieter than this one.

    One thing I notice here, people tend to come up with their pet theory, which is the theory that explains the whole climate. Idea, what if more than one thing effects climate? What if, for instance, planetary orbits can both effect our magnetosphere and the suns activity? Thus changes in our magnetosphere could let in more cosmic rays, and if that coincides with a period of quiet sun where the reduced solar wind also lets in more cosmic rays, the effect could be greater. Throw in a major volcanic eruption (such as happened during both the Dark Ages and Little Ice Age cooling periods) for a “year without summer”, and perhaps coincide with cool periods of the PDO and AMO, and we are talking little ice age type cooling. Alternately, if some of these do not coincide, the cooling could be less because the various factors work against each other, say a quiet sun during a time of no major volcanic eruptions and warm PDO and AMO. Currently, we have warm phase AMO, cool phase PDO, a good chance of a quiet sun for several decades, and being at the start of a downslope of temperature from this article. Prediction, if no major volcanic eruptions, a little ice age of shorter duration and milder than the Dalton, but still noticeably colder. If when the sun is quietest say 10-20 years from now, there is a major eruption and the AMO is cool, we could have “a year without summer”. The former would be hard for warmists to explain away, the latter would be almost impossible. However, there are enough stupid and mentally lazy people to fool some of the people some of the time with extreme enough propaganda and silencing of critics to call it “extreme weather” and still blame it on CO2, even though this isn’t really possible scientifically.

    Finally, about this being like astrology, remember back to the discovery of gravity? Well, it was discovered that big dense objects, like the earth, tend to pull things toward them, and small objects, like an apple, don’t (enough to notice). For many many years after that, and some might say even to today, the actual mechanism for gravity was not understood. Does that mean that gravity=astrology?

    About the influences of Jupiter and Saturn being too small, do we really understand what causes active or quiet sun, or exactly what influences the earths magnetism? The answer is, we only guess, just look at the “predictions” of this very solar cycle we are in, for one. Thus, if we see correlations between the one thing and the other thing, when we don’t understand what causes the second thing, we cannot say the first thing does not cause or influence the second thing. If they always vary in synch with each other, we can defiantly say there is a good chance they are somehow related, at the very least, we can then know to look into why (just like we cannot find out the why of gravity until we know that it exists and how much). Thus, if there is a correlation between aurora’s and climate, even if we do not understand it, it is now like gravity, it has gone form an unknown unknown to at least a known unknown. At least now we know the question, before we did not even know to ask it.

  25. The fit on that temperature graph looks impressive, but I also would like to see a correlation.

    The 60 year natural climate cycle is well accepted, at least around here. So, the new data is the aurora 60 year cycle.

    Otherwise, more evidence for clouds modulating the Earth’s climate, whatever the physical mechanism.

    Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.

    What? Surely the cooling phase will cause cooling. Let’s see temperatures projected out 60 years using this method.

    Or is this the new normal science, where no one ever predicts anything.

  26. Volker Doormann (November 10, 2011 at 3:30 pm) wrote:
    “The Moon is not involved.”

    Do you acknowledge that lunisolar cycles are confounded with solar system cycles?

  27. Title: Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
    Authors: Ruzmaikin, Alexander, Feynman, Joan, Yung, Yuk L.
    Publisher: American Geophysical Union
    Citation: Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, D21114, doi:10.1029/2006JD007462, 2006

    Abstract: We investigate the possibility that solar variability influences North African climate by using annual records of the water level of the Nile collected in 622–1470 A.D. The time series of these records are nonstationary, in that the amplitudes and frequencies of the quasi-periodic variations are time-dependent. We apply the Empirical Mode Decomposition technique especially designed to deal with such time series. We identify two characteristic timescales in the records that may be linked to solar variability: a period of about 88 years and one exceeding 200 years. We show that these timescales are present in the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere at the same time. The 11-year cycle is seen in the Nile’s high-water level variations, but it is damped in the low-water anomalies. We suggest a possible physical link between solar variability and the low-frequency variations of the Nile water level. This link involves the influence of solar variability on the atmospheric Northern Annual Mode and on its North Atlantic Ocean and Indian Ocean patterns that affect the rainfall over the sources of the Nile in eastern equatorial Africa.
    URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2014/40231

    Nothing new under the sun ;-)

    BTW, Joan is Dick Feynman’s sister.

  28. Dr. Scafetta:
    1. Beware confounding:
    a) lunisolar / solar system.
    b) The terrestrial asymmetries quasi-discretely aliasing solar & lunisolar changes are not the same for magnetic & climate variables (for one example the magnetic field has a different pattern from that of ocean-continent heat-capacity contrast), but there are some commonalities since parallel pathways share some features.
    2. Think about gradients, mass distribution, circulation, & spatial paradoxes.
    3. See p.4 here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases.pdf

    It’s simple aliasing.
    Regards.

  29. jimmi_the_dalek;
    And I am not claiming that correlations should not be investigated, and am stating that a proposed mechanism for a correlation has to be physically possible.>>>

    Well the specific criticisms you levelled are one thing, the range of possibilities is another. Sure, Jupiter’s gravity has little effect on the Sun. But it does have a very small effect. Astronomers first started discovering planets orbiting other stars by watching for “wobbles” in the position of the star caused by giant planets pulling them in different directions from one part of their orbit to another. So yes, it is small, but it isn’t zero. When you move something as big as the sun just a wee bit, there’s an awfull lot of energy involved, not to mention that the sun is pretty much liquid, so there’s other potential effects different from how a great big rock would behave under the same circumstances.

    But that’s not all. While Jupiter’s gravity may not effect the sun a whole lot, it effects the orbits of all the other planets in the solar system, including ours. As for your argument that Jupiter’s magnetosphere is minniscule compared to the sun, sure, but compared to earth’s it isn’t, and it does affect ours.

    Further, consider Doug Jone’s comment:

    “It implausible that the magnetic fields of Jupiter or Saturn could affect the magnetic fields in the inner solar system, since the solar wind is supersonic- no disturbance created at 5 or 10 AU can propagate back toward the sun any further than the bow shock at each planet.>>>

    Well that may be, but who says it has to? Consider Jupiter in an orbital position where it is 90 degrees ahead (or behind for that matter) earth’s position. Now the magnetic field of Jupiter is at a right angle to the solar wind headed directly toward earth, and the magnetic fields and gravitational fields of both planets plus the sun are all interacting ion ways that would absolutely alter the magnetic fields and gravity wells of the inner solar system.

    Lastly, while Scafetta focused on the above issues, he did speak also of lunar orbits and tidal effects. Consider that the moon’s orbit is elliptical, and also that it varies in terms of its angle compared to the equator. Never mind the the magnetic fields and gravity wells, just consider the amount of water that the moon, over the course of its various cycles, pulls massive amounts of water from north to south and back again. Do you suppose that affects climate?

    I’m betting it does. The number of variances in the orbits of the moon, the earth, and other planets is HUGE. We can’t possibly calculate them all, as the example of the difficulty of calculating from the laws of physics alone how high the tides will be and when. Despite that, we can match the complexity of the known variances in the moon’s orbit to the tides, and wind up predicting them rather accurately without calculating all the physical processes involved. that the variances in the orbits of the various bodies taken into account by Scafetta match so closely to the variances in the arora and can both hindcast and forecast them is remarkable.

    While one can argue that the physical processes aren’t known, so it isn’t proof, I’ll suggest another way of looking at it. Given the accuracy of the forecast and the hindcast, and the thousands upon thousands of variables it would take to describe the physical processes, what are the chances the analysis hit a correlation that close based on the orbital positions of the planets and moon alone was a coincidence? Trillions to one?

    Not a chance. trillions is way to small.

    Home run Scafetta, home run!

  30. smile:

    9 Nov: Daily Mail: Hugo Gye: Blink and you’ll miss it! Friday sees once-in-a-lifetime moment as time and date read 11.11.11 11.11.11
    Only occurs on one day every 100 years
    And the last time it happened, on November 11 1911, an almost supernatural event saw temperatures drop by more than 60F in a single day.
    This was the Great Blue Norther, a cold snap which hit the U.S. causing blizzards and tornadoes as well as record falls in temperature.
    In Kansas City, it was as warm as 76F (24C) in the morning – but this had dropped to 11F (-12C) by the end of the day…
    However, to say that the date is no more than a coincidence would have provided little comfort to those who endured the bizarre weather on the last 11.11.11.
    It remains to be seen whether 11.11.11 will produce such surprises this time around, but people should be sure to keep a careful eye on the weather – and on any local Hellmouths – at 11 seconds past 11 minutes past 11 o’clock…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059313/11-11-11-11-11-11-Fridays-lifetime-moment.html

  31. Doug Jones says:
    November 10, 2011 at 3:43 pm
    So your suggesting Jupiter has no effect on the sun’s magnetic field as Jupiter orbits the sun, that could affect sunspot activity which has some effects on Earth’s magnetic field?

  32. Well, it’s wiggle matching, not my favorite way to deduce a relationship between anything and any other thing. Better than most I’ve seen, but I don’t think motion of the barycenter has that much influence on anything, unless there’s some sort of unknown relativistic jiggery-pokery going on. There are several terrestrial-driven cycles of varying periodicity that need to be accommodated in any comprehensive model. Ellen may have the right idea; seems to make more sense than the planetary hula-hoop / boodycentric model, anyway. Fascinating paper; let the scoffing begin! [Just kidding. Overall, I like it.]

  33. @jimmi_the_dalek:

    Does one have to know that the earth is rotating to strongly suppose the sun rises every 24 hours at the equator? I don’t think so. Did Newton specify a mechanism for Gravity? I don’t think so. He observed the forces of nature, and described them. Last I heard Gravity was voted in as another dimension in string theory. Another theory I heard is perhaps it is entangled with some other universe, and that’s why it is so weak. Yet, I’m going to do something I almost never do. I’m willing to bet my life that Gravity is going to effect me tomorrow (not to upset any physicists), but I simply don’t think there is a clear understanding of gravity at present.

    That’s where statistics comes in. It would be nice to see if there is a correlation. Then it would make sense to investigate it further, like we still investigate gravity today. Who knows, maybe the warmth of the earth effects the Aurora Borealis.

  34. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 3:59 pm
    Do you realise for example that the magnitude of the gravitational field of Saturn on the Sun is less than the effect of the gravitational field of Earth on the Sun? Jupiter is larger but its mass is 1/1000 of the sun’s and it is 800 million kilometers away from the Sun – you work out what the gravitational forces are. Jupiter has a strong magnetic field it is true, being roughly 10 time stronger than Earth’s , but since Jupiter is 5 times as far from the Sun, roughly, the effect of Jupiter’s magnetic field on the Sun, is less than that of Earth’s on the Sun…

    ——————————————————

    Good points. But, how would we detect the earth’s influence ? This is totally synchronized with our year’s cycle. No long term periodic effect can arise. Same with Venus, with a period of much less than 1 year.

  35. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
    Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.

    Bunk, What is the physical mechanism behind the law of Gravity? What is the physical mechanism behind action at infinite distance? What is the physical mechanism behind Relativity and Time Dilation? What is the Physical Mechanism behind speed and mass? What limits the speed of light?

    The only thing that matters in science is predictive ability. If you can predict the orbit of the planets accurately, it makes absolutely no difference in the value of your theory if you understand the mechanism.

    Odds are, whatever explanation you have for gravity today, at some point in time in the future that explanation will be overturned as our instruments allow us to explore deeper and deeper into the nature of matter, energy, space and time. It has happened time and time again in the past, no reason to expect it wont happen again.

  36. Edbarbar

    I simply don’t think there is a clear understanding of gravity at present.”

    There is not a clear understanding of the cause of gravity, but there is a very clear understanding of its magnitude and how that depends on the mass and separation of objects. Likewise magnetic fields. It is because the magnitude is understood that this paper is implausible in the extreme.

    Philip Bradley

    The 60 year natural climate cycle is well accepted, at least around here

    Indeed, so it would seem. But, it is usually described as a “quasi-cycle”, e.g. in that paper, by which they mean it turns out at 60 + or – 4 . The fact that it is not a constant value is enough to rule out an astronomical origin – the orbits of the planets are precise – they do not gain or loose 4 years every now and then. It is not necessary to know exactly how something is caused, to state some of the reasons which could not be the cause.

  37. What the paper does is to show that the mid-latitude aurora records present the same oscillations of the climate system and of well-identified astronomical cycles. Thus, the origin of the climatic oscillations is astronomical what ever the mechanisms might be.
    ———-
    It looks suspiciously like some just can’t get “correlation is not causation”.

    The difference between Scafetta and Kelvin is that Kelvin had a well understood physical mechanism as a foundation. Scafetta does not have this.

  38. Legatus: Regarding your November 10, 2011 at 4:25 pm comment, the PDO does not represent the Sea Surface Temperature of the North Pacific (north of 20N) so your observations are flawed. The PDO is actually inversely related to the North Pacific Sea Surface Temperature variations. Refer to:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/an-inverse-relationship-between-the-pdo-and-north-pacific-sst-anomaly-residuals/

    And:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/an-introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3/

    Regards

  39. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
    Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.

    In contrast to science, both astrology and CAGW propose a physical mechanism but have no predictive ability better than chance.

    Thus, physical mechanism is not a valid scientific test. It tells us nothing, because it assumes knowledge is finite. That assumption is wrong.

    There are an infinite number of things about the universe that we don’t know. And, no matter how much we learn, there will still be an infinite number of things we don’t know. So, to say we must know the underlying cause before we can predict, that is not science.

    All we need to predict is to observe and find an identifiable, repeating pattern. Armed with that pattern, we can then predict. Thus, early humans predicted the seasons long before we understood the cause. Thus modern humans can predict the tides and the climate.

  40. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 5:45 pm
    There is a very clear understanding of its magnitude and how that depends on the mass and separation of objects.

    But what is the underlying physical mechanism? You have said “Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology’. What is the physical mechanism that gives rise to gravity?

    We have many scientific theories that are very valuable without any understanding of the physical mechanism.

    In contrast astrology proposes that are lives are controlled by the planets and their position in the heavens. A clear physical mechanism without any predictive skill.

    Now we have CAGW, which proposes that the climate is controlled by industrialization. A clear physical mechanism with the same predictive skill as astrology. Actually, my horoscope is right more often than the IPCC model predictions for post 2000 climate.

  41. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 5:45 pm
    there is a very clear understanding of its magnitude and how that depends on the mass and separation

    The relationship between gravity, mass and distance is the repeatable pattern that Newton discovered that allowed him to predict gravity.

    What Newton never did was discover a physical mechanism for gravity. Neither did Einstein with GR.

  42. “jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
    “Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.””

    Indeed? I know how we can describe and measure mass, inertia, momentum and gravity. I have no idea what mass, inertia, momentum and gravity actually are.
    Gravity appears to suggest that all matter in the universe is coupled to all other matter in the universe.
    I find it very difficult to understand how an attractive force can connect all matter. So, I have no understanding of what mass actually is and how mass is able to communicate with mass.
    Perhaps you could help me out.

  43. If you are trying to tell if A causes X and all you have is empty correlations;
    then it would not hurt to take an old trick from the discredited behavoutalist psychologists.
    I am talking about ABABA.

    Apply treatment A – does result X appear.
    Remove A (treatment B = absence of A) – does result X disappear?
    Apply A again – does X reappear?
    Remove A for the last time – check again that X is gone.
    Apply A – X should reappear once more.

    If you don’t have enough instances of a phenonema, than you are just guessing.

    Does the climate cycle up and down repeatedly in response to the aurora every 60 years or so
    Then you know what causes what (as long as all other potential influences can be elimanated or controlled.

    Does does CO2 cycle up and down every 60 years?
    No it does not.
    Then perhaps it can also be eliminated without much sadness.

  44. Doug Jones says @ November 10, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    It [is] implausible that the magnetic fields of Jupiter or Saturn could affect the magnetic fields in the inner solar system, since the solar wind is supersonic- no disturbance created at 5 or 10 AU can propagate back toward the sun any further than the bow shock at each planet.

    How do you know there is no dipole feedback at 90 degrees to the ecliptic and how would you propose checking for the existence of and measuring such an effect with the solar wind roaring through, possibly inducing changes in the former? Are we not looking at dynamos within a dynamo here? Only asking :-)

  45. According to Robert Nemiroff and Jerry Bonnell of NASA,” the solar bow shock may lie at around 230 AU from the Sun.” 5.2 Astronomical Units is the average distance of Jupiter from the sun.The solar wind streams off of the Sun in all directions at speeds of about 400 km/s (about 1 million miles per hour). Magnetism moves at the speed of light. Calculating interactions at this level is beyond my ability, sadly. The way I see it, if the sun’s influence reaches Jupiter as is clearly seen suggesting no interaction is implausible.

  46. I don’t think people get my initial statement….

    The authors of that paper have an apparent correlation , and they suggested a mechanism. But their mechanism (gravitational and magnetic fields due to Jupiter) is physically impossible. So their proposed mechanism is in the realm of astrology, not physics. You don’t like that observation? Well tough, learn something about the relative magnitudes of forces. In science you have to be quantitative not just qualitative – if a given proposed cause is not of a magnitude to result in an observed effect of a particular size, then it is not the cause.

    And stop making comments about the IPCC and climate science – I am not trying to defend them, because two wrongs do not make a right. Scepticism properly applied looks in both directions. If something is rubbish then it should be described as that even if it would support something you want to be true

  47. Anthony;

    “Eleven frequencies with period between 5 and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 and 0.25°C, and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn.”

    I know you don’t like to hear this, but:

    This corroborates Landscheidt – Earth climate correlates with the output from the Sun which in turn correlates with cycles in the position of the centre of the solar system relative to the centre of the Sun driven by variations in the orbital pull of the major planets.

    Mike H

  48. Part of a growing acknowledgement of a link between top down solar effects on the atmosphere and air circulation patters.

    Keep it simple.

    Solar changes affect the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere especially towards the poles. Mechanism currently unclear but in my view related to atmospheric chemistry involving ozone but with different effects at different levels.

    The result is a change in the degree of zonality/meridionality/latitudinal positioning of the mid latitude jets in particular but most likely the entire surface air pressure distribution too.

    Long looping jets increase global cloudiness. Shorter more direct jets reduce global cloudiness. No need for cosmic rays to affect cloudiness but there may be some such effect.

    I think the consequent effects on global albedo and solar energy uptake by the oceans are by now pretty much a given.

    There you have the entire climate change phenomenon in a nutshell. Not even any need for any change in total system energy content to occur. Just a redistribution of energy within the system as the rate of energy flow through the system responds to air circulation changes. We perceive that as climate change because the direction of air flow across surface sensors changes as the positions of the permanent climate zones shift relative to those sensors. The satellites record much smaller changes as the system adjusts the rate of energy leaving the system in order to maintain radiative balance.

    The radiative balance is constantly maintained by internal system adjustments that always act negatively to any forcing that tries to change the system energy content. It even deals with the faint sun paradox whereby the Earth’s temperature has stayed much the same over billions of years despite a 30% increase in solar output.

    The shifting climate zones have made fools of climatologists.

  49. jimmi_the_dalek;
    But their mechanism (gravitational and magnetic fields due to Jupiter) is physically impossible.>>>

    Can we get some trolls in on this to argue with? At least they have some semblance of an argument that one can rebutt rather than simply shouting “that’s impossible!”

    Jimmi, can you answer this question:

    What is the ratio of the earth’s gravitational effect on your body versus the gravitational effect of your body on the earth?

  50. I can’t really critique the paper at all since I am not a scientist but it sounds pretty far fetched to me. Without something being accurately measured I would put as much faith in any correlation as I would to Michael Mann’s tree ring correlation with global temperature.

  51. Jimmi, can you answer this question:

    Yes I can actually – it is of the order of 10^23 (ratio of the masses since the distance of myself from the earth the same as the distance of the earth from me) Which is tiny. Which of course is my point. Which I already made when I pointed out that , for example, the effect of Jupiter’s magnetic field on the Sun is less than the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on the sun. Do we worry about the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on the Sun? No? Then why should we consider the effect of Jupiter’s if is less than half that (you do know how I calculated that I suppose?)

  52. I’ll grant that I’m just an old EE, but I don’t see how this is different than a Fourier Transform. I would be somewhat surprised if you took 300 or so data points from any natural system, did a transform using half a dozen frequencies or so, and then did the reverse transform that you wouldn’t get a reasonably close match.

  53. davidmhoffer says:
    November 10, 2011 at 7:02 pm
    “What is the ratio of the earth’s gravitational effect on your body versus the gravitational effect of your body on the earth?”

    I nominate this for the question of the week and some funds from Big Oil as well ;)

  54. If aurora were visible in London in late 14th century they they must have been incredibly powerful.

    The magnetic pole has probably moved a considerable distance since then. It is currently moving at a rate of 37 miles / year toward Russia but the rate and direction changes over time.

  55. Jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
    Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.

    LOL! And so if you put a physical mechanism like the CO2 greenhouse effect into a computer and make a bunch of calculations that is science?

    Was Kepler a scientist? Copernicus?

    Take your lame rhetoric elsewhere sir.

  56. Gene,

    I’ll grant that I’m just an old EE, but I don’t see how this is different than a Fourier Transform.

    Ah well yes, that’s another problem. I wasn’t going to mention that, but if you start doing Fourier Transforms of short sequences of noisy data then you can get just about any periodicity that you want.

    Mark

    I nominate this for the question of the week and some funds from Big Oil as well ;)

    I am afraid I have to decline your offer as I would not accept funds from such a source ;);)

  57. Dr. Scafetta writes in and attaches the full paper in email to me (Anthony) this week saying: […]
    Note that aurora may form at middle latitude or if the magnetosphere is weak, so it is not able to efficiently deviate the solar wind

    I’m afraid this is yet another bad case of cyclomania. The magnetosphere being weak and not able to efficiently deviate the solar wind is just nonsense, pure and simple. The Earth’s magnetic field changes only very slowly [by about 1 in a thousand per year] and the size and extent of the magnetosphere is controlled by the dynamic pressure of the solar wind and changes just the opposite way of what Scafetta describes [“During the solar cycle maxima the magnetosphere gets stronger” – whatever that means]. Here is the time evolution of the solar wind flow pressure during the space age: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Flow-Pressure.png
    The reference in the article to Lord Kelvin’s tide calculator is a bit misleading. It says: “conceived by Lord Kelvin in 1867,which is currently the only methodology that accurately predicts tidal heights.” Modern tidal calculations rely on the Doodson Numbers [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Thomas_Doodson ] which give the position of the Sun and the Moon, and which are curve fitted to a Fourier expansion of tidal data as observed at the location in question. No physics here, pure curve fitting. During the D-Day invasion, knowledge of the tides was crucial and the British sent in under cover of darkness crews in small boats and mini-submarines to actually measure the tides so that they could be curve fitted to the Doodson Numbers. The tide predictions work because the is a well-known physical cause, Scafetta’s curve fitting has no physics behind it.

  58. Mark
    “The International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program” is monitoring the effect of the sun on the earth, not the effect of the earth on the sun.

  59. Eric

    “LOL! And so if you put a physical mechanism like the CO2 greenhouse effect into a computer and make a bunch of calculations that is science?

    Was Kepler a scientist? Copernicus?

    Take your lame rhetoric elsewhere sir.”

    This lack of reading comprehension is starting to annoy me. Have I said I believe the IPCC’s computer models (for a point of information I do not). What I have said is that this paper has no plausible physical content, which is another thing entirely.

    I will repeat something I said further up:
    And stop making comments about the IPCC and climate science – I am not trying to defend them, because two wrongs do not make a right. Scepticism properly applied looks in both directions. If something is rubbish then it should be described as that even if it would support something you want to be true

  60. jimmi_the_dalek,

    Fair point about quasi-cycles. I learned something.

    Stephen Wilde,

    The radiative balance is constantly maintained by internal system adjustments that always act negatively to any forcing that tries to change the system energy content.*

    That’s pretty much my view, although I’d substitute feedbacks for adjustments, but we are left with the puzzle of what does cause the known climate variation. It has to be factors that affect the feedbacks themselves. Cloud modulation is top of my list.

    * this allows some effect from radiative forcings such as GHG, but limits it through increasingly negative feedbacks. So increasing CO2 could have some effect that stops at some point irrespective of how much CO2 increases beyond that point, which is essentially what we have observed since 1960.

  61. A thought provoking article, but this supposition;

    “perhaps the strength of the Earth’s magnetosphere is also regulated directly by the gravitational/magnetic forces of Jupiter and Saturn and the other planets whose gravitational/magnetic tides may stretch or compress the Earth’s magnetosphere in some way making it easier or more difficult for the Earth’s magnetosphere to deviate the cosmic ray.”

    appears dubious, which make me more skeptical about the rest of it.

    For reference, here is a simulation of Earth’s Magnetosphere getting hit by an X Class Flare:

    here is the current state of Earth’s Magnetosphere;

    http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/index.html

    available from here:

    http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/home.html

    WUWT’s Geomagnetism Reference Page;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/geomagnetism/

    is also a valuable resource.

    In terms of aurora, they “primarily occur in the thermosphere. Charged particles (electrons, protons, and other ions) from space collide with atoms and molecules in the thermosphere at high latitudes, exciting them into higher energy states. Those atoms and molecules shed this excess energy by emitting photons of light, which we see as colorful auroral displays.”

    but while “the thermosphere is considered part of Earth’s atmosphere, the air density is so low in this layer that most of the thermosphere is what we normally think of as outer space. In fact, the most common definition says that space begins at an altitude of 100 km (62 miles), slightly above the mesopause at the bottom of the thermosphere. The space shuttle and the International Space Station both orbit Earth within the thermosphere!”

    “Much of the X-ray and UV radiation from the Sun is absorbed in the thermosphere. When the Sun is very active and emitting more high energy radiation, the thermosphere gets hotter and expands or “puffs up”. Because of this, the height of the top of the thermosphere (the thermopause) varies. The thermopause is found at an altitude between 500 km and 1,000 km or higher.”

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/thermosphere.html

    Here are POES Northern and Southern Auroral Activity;

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html

    here’s an animated version of Northern Auroral Activity;

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/AnimateN.html

    and Southern Auroral Activity:

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/AnimateS.html

  62. crosspatch says:
    November 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm
    If aurora were visible in London in late 14th century they they must have been incredibly powerful. The magnetic pole has probably moved a considerable distance since then. It is currently moving at a rate of 37 miles / year toward Russia but the rate and direction changes over time.
    1: it was not the 14th century but 1550-1650
    2: in the year 1600 the magnetic pole was at latitude 85.03N degrees and longitude 306.55E. Today it is at 82.53N and 276.37E, so London was actually at a lower magnetic latitude back in 1600, so would see fewer aurorae.
    3) many aurorae were seen because the Sun was quite active.

  63. “jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 5:45 pm
    60 + or – 4 . The fact that it is not a constant value is enough to rule out an astronomical origin – the orbits of the planets are precise – they do not gain or loose 4 years every now and then.”

    Things are not always as precise as they seem. For example at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet

    “Halley’s prediction of the comet’s return proved to be correct, although it was not seen until 25 December 1758, by Johann Georg Palitzsch, a German farmer and amateur astronomer. It did not pass through its perihelion until 13 March 1759, the attraction of Jupiter and Saturn having caused a retardation of 618 days.”

    Also, Jupiter and Saturn meet every 19.85 years. Since it is not an even 20.00 years, there will be different seasons on Earth with every meeting. In addition, other planets such as Venus and Uranus also have their influences so years could be added or subtracted. As well, the sun would be at different phases in its sunspot cycle each time so it is not surprising that we have 60 + or – 4.

  64. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    My point was interaction between the bodies. If the sun’s influence reaches Jupiter then they interact. Any influence however small should be considered. For example: My girlfriend who is 4’9″ frequently alters my position on things even though I’m a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier.

  65. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 7:19 pm
    Jimmi, can you answer this question:
    Yes I can actually – it is of the order of 10^23 (ratio of the masses since the distance of myself from the earth the same as the distance of the earth from me) Which is tiny.>>>

    OK, so the question now is, are you prepared to follow some math and perhaps learn something?

    The question is actually a trick question of sorts. The ratio is exactly 1:1
    No, I’m not kidding. The formula for calculating the amount of force that two bodies exert on each other is:

    F=(G*m1*m2)/r^2

    Where F = Force
    G is a constant
    m1 is the mass of one body (let’s say you)
    m2 is the mass of the other body (let’s say earth)
    r is the distance between the centres of gravity of the two masses.

    So let’s go through the assumptions you’ve made to show why they are commonly made mistakes.

    Assumption 1: The ratio of gravitational force is determined by the relative mass of the two bodies. Incorrect. It doesn’t matter if YOU are m1 and the earth is m2 or the other way around. The force between the two is exactly the same. If the earth exerted more force on you than you exert on the earth, then you would actually move the earth simply by standing on it.

    Assumption 2: The distance between you and the earth is tiny. Again, common assumption that since you are standing on it, the distance is zero. But it isn’t because r in the formula above is calculated between the centres of gravity of the two bodies. The diameter of the earth being about 13,000 kilometers, r is, in this case, about 6,500,000 meters. Not close to zero at all.

    In fact, if the distance between two bodies approaches zero, then the force between them approaches infinity because 0^2 is still 0 and anything divided by zero is infinity. If you followed this far, you should now understand what a “black hole” is. When matter is compressed so much that the distance between any two particles starts to approach zero, the force between them becomes so great that it collapses time and space. Trust me, though you might hug the earth with all your might, you’re in no danger of creating a black hole.

    Now take what you’ve learned and apply it to some of the things you’ve said. How much force does Jupiter exert on the Sun? Answer: exactly as much as the Sun exerts on Jupiter.

    Now take the next step. Jupiter orbits the Sun, and I’m betting if I asked you exactly at which point inside the Sun it is the Jupiter orbits around, I’m guessing that you, like most people, would say the centre of the Sun. You’d be wrong again.

    The answer is that when two bodies are in orbit, their orbits revolve around the centre of gravity of the two bodies taken together as one. For you standing on the earth surface, your mass is in fact so small that you probably can’t measure the change in centre of gravity of you and the earth if your mass were to instantly double. But it isn’t zero. Juptier on the other hand, is big enough to cause the centre of gravity of it and the sun to be somewhere between the centre of the sun and the surface of the sun. Both Jupiter and the Sun orbit around that centre of gravity. So, Jupiter being rather small compared to the Sun, has a very large orbit, and the Sun has a very small orbit. But if you were so far away in space that all you could see was the Sun as a tiny point of light, and you had instruments accurate enough, you would be able to figure out that something the size of Jupiter exists, because over time, you would notice that the star isn’t sitting still, it is wobbling around itself.

    Now let’s keep going and talk tides. The moon raises tides on earth, even though it is only one sixth the mass of the earth, it raises tides of several meters in some cases, and does so based on a 24 hour rotation. Now certainly, Jupiter is far less than one sixth the mass of the Sun, but it has YEARS to raise a tide on the sun, not hours.

    OK, that’s enough physics for me tonight.

  66. Mark ro says:
    November 10, 2011 at 7:27 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    November 10, 2011 at 7:02 pm
    “What is the ratio of the earth’s gravitational effect on your body versus the gravitational effect of your body on the earth?”
    I nominate this for the question of the week and some funds from Big Oil as well ;)
    ————-

    Why thank you. Assuming I am awarded both of these and they are in the usual as based on historical averages, my net worth just increased by zero. I tried converting to various currencies with little success. American green backs, zero. Canadian dollars, zero. Euros, zero. The experiment ended when I converted to Zimbabwe’s currency. Mugabe phoned me up, advised that the amount wasn’t worth the paper it was written on… and sent me a bill for the paper. Sigh, I’m actually in the hole on this deal.

  67. Mark ro;
    My girlfriend who is 4’9″ frequently alters my position on things even though I’m a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier.>>>

    Stop complainging. I upgraded Girlfriend 11.3 to Wife 1.0 and discovered that it deleted all of my opinions and positions entirely as a side effect of the upgrade. Also deleted were Weekly Pokernight 4.2 and Annual Fishing Trip 7.6. I considered trying to downgrade back to Girlfriend 11 (any version) but apparently the upgrade wipes out the existance of the previous Girlfriend version. I was tempted by the potential return of Girlfriend 6.0, but was advised by Wife 1.0 that further attempts to communicate in any way shape or form with Girlfriend 6.0 would invoke Legal Proceedings 2.0. Not certain what that is yet, but it sounds bad.

  68. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 7:46 pm
    Eric

    This lack of reading comprehension is starting to annoy me.

    I agree Jimmi. You need better reading comprehension. Try reading up on the scientific process and then review your posts here.

  69. The greater magnetic and gravitational fields of the Galaxy permeate the whole solar system and pass through the entire system. Originally we had flat earth thoughts, then heliocentric mindedness, where most people are stuck, the local galaxy we are invested in, is slave to the greater local super group’s magnetic fields and gravitational influences. To not be aware of the constructiveness of the whole system is to be lost to the whole truth. The influences of the galaxy push magnetic fields into the poles of all the planets and the sun, the sun responds with the rest of the solar system to the flux in their strength, and balance is struck between each and all bodies in the system.

    http://research.aerology.com/natural-processes/solar-system-dynamics/

    Excerpt; Posted: January 31, 2011 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

    24 Recent update, reflecting the ideas I have found in the rest of these blog stuff links by others.

    All of the universe affects the rest of it, as all sits in a common bowl of gravitational and magnetically connected and driven mass of ions and regular atoms, that respond to the basic physics detailing the “normal rules or laws”. To think that there are voltages or ions that move without magnetic fields attached violates first principles.

    The stars are surrounded with a ion shell the heliosphere, that protects them [like ferro fluid particles with oxalic acid coats to keep them from merging as they float around] from running into each other the outer surfaces are composed/covered with free electrons hanging on the outer edge of the magnetic fields.

    The mutual static repulsion keeps the stars separated just as mutual static repulsion keeps the neutralized moisture in a cloud from condensing. As the background cumulative charge gradient increases it reduces droplet size and polarizes them. With the added side effect of lowering albedo by becoming more transparent to short wave sun light.

    The galactic magnet fields are also influenced by these same basic rules of action as well, which leads me to the conclusion that the interactions of the composite system of magnetic interactions from the rotation of the Galaxy, and the declinational movement of the solar system in that larger frame of reference, as well as the density waves that propagate around driving the spiral arm flux variances give rise to the longer term cyclic climatology of the Earth.

    The heliopause of our sun Sol, seems to have auroral knotted bands (recently spotted ribbons of ion activity) on its leading side as it progresses through the interstellar gases and dust clouds, the solar system passes through in its travels. I think that this is due to the conductance of the galactic fields into and through the heliopause, coupling through the polar regions of the sun and planets, altering the interactions of inertial and inductive drives to near stable states at or near equilibrium.

    The residual shifts in balance are felt as steering currents in the slow transition of the orbital dynamics and swaying of the solar system as it winds its way through the static charges on heliopause, as Sol makes its way through the gravitational attractions and radiation pressures gauntlet, shoved around ever so slowly by the rest of the individual stars.

    The magnetically permeable inductive components of planetary bodies and their moons are susceptible to Ohms laws, and Maxwells power equations, that drive the interactions of electromagnetic forces that equally apply to the full frequency spectrum from near DC standing magnetic fields to the most energetic particles seen.

    All electronic gadgets, radios, toys, and computers work with these modulation techniques derived from compounding the effects of the individual components, through inductive and capacitive couplings into and through semi conducting amplifiers, filtering for the frequency range required for the end function desired. The formula for solving the initial circuit design has long been known and has been taken to almost single atomic scale in state of the art semiconductor manufacture.

    So we should be able to understand, by the application of these common formula, and to figure out from the sizes of the forces at work, the interactions of the sun with the planets and their moons, by determining the shifts of flux of the magnetic fields, with the shifting density and speed of the solar wind, in their resultant periodic harmonic interactions as they became stable over the past 4.8 billion years.

  70. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 10, 2011 at 7:39 pm
    Scafetta’s curve fitting has no physics behind it.

    And with no physics, it is truly meaningless regardless of how well he can predict the future. Welcome to the myopic world of Dr. Svalgaard.

  71. Eric Barnes says:
    November 10, 2011 at 8:58 pm
    And with no physics, it is truly meaningless regardless of how well he can predict the future.
    He has not predicted anything well yet.

  72. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 10, 2011 at 9:03 pm
    He has not predicted anything well yet.
    **********************************************
    Reply; By applying the repeating patterns of the inner planet and lunar declination 240 cycle affects on the past weathers resultant recorded data, I have been able to forecast daily weather almost as good as the 3 to 5 day out NWS forecast for periods out to ten years at a time.
    Mechanism outlined on web site as well as four year old forecast maps, and the next two years also forecast back in 2007.

  73. crosspatch says: November 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    If aurora were visible in London in late 14th century they they must have been incredibly powerful. The magnetic pole has probably moved a considerable distance since then. It is currently moving at a rate of 37 miles / year toward Russia but the rate and direction changes over time.

    Leif Svalgaard says: November 10, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    1: it was not the 14th century but 1550-1650
    2: in the year 1600 the magnetic pole was at latitude 85.03N degrees and longitude 306.55E. Today it is at 82.53N and 276.37E, so London was actually at a lower magnetic latitude back in 1600, so would see fewer aurorae.
    3) many aurorae were seen because the Sun was quite active.

    Here is a map with the North Magnetic Pole location back to 1600;

    this one is from 1831 to 2001;

    and this one is 1900, through current and projected:

    Here is NOAA’s North Magnetic Pole from 1600 to Present:

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/poles/NP.xy

    According to NOAA, and in reasonable agreement with the other sources above,
    in 2010 the North Magnetic Pole was at latitude 84.742N and 129.077W, whereas in 1600 it was at 74.833N and 111.690W.

    Leif, why the difference in the locations that you’ve cited versus those in the sources above?

  74. Hi Anthony
    I’ll be frank and say I can’t tell the difference between this and some of the cycl0-mania calculation papers that have been sent to me over the last few years.

    The strongest argument in my opinion is that the tides are calculated in a similar manner, so if true and the data fit backwards and forwards in time one should take it seriously. I have often argued that the planet orbits are like a giant clock against which there will be a coincidence of any periodic manifestation, in a similar way that we use 24 hour clocks for defining time changes . I keep an open mind as far as causality, though there should not be much doubt about sun and moon effects, as they are strong enough .

    Yes, time will tell, as with all climate related models/predictions.

  75. First I would like to thank Anthony for the post about my article and all readers who have found my paper intersting.

    Just a few thoughts about some of the numerous comments.

    I see that some persons insist with the thesis that a finding would be scientific only if everything is already fully understood and clear. However, I need to say that in scientific research one does not start with a full and complete knowledge about an issue. The full and complete knowledge of an issue is the conclusive step of a scientific research not its beginning. In scientific research people start with the data and try to understand what the data tell us. Then they try to model the phenomenon and/or propose possible mechanisms. This is what makes a theory. A specific proposed theory may then be further supported or rejected by additional research on the topic. This is the way in which science, in every field, progresses. So, there is nothing wrong if a single paper on an ongoing research does not explain in detail every possible issue related to the studied phenomenon, in particular if, as it is in this case, the phenomenon under study is extremely complex. And there is nothing wrong is such a kind of paper may contain some conjectures which may also be found wrong in the future.

    About the comments from Leif Svalgaard, I need again to invite him to read my paper before criticize it and to do that with a little bit of open mind (of course he does not need to open it too much because we do not want that his brain get lost somewhere).

    About the tides Svalgaard does not really appear to understand the issue. Time ago he was claiming that nobody in the past, before Newton, knew that the tides were induced by the moon. I needed to prove to him that in the past, on the contrary, everybody knew that the tides were induced by the moon even if the people did not know about Newtonian mechanics.

    Now he insists that I do not understand Kelvin’s argument about the tides because in his opinion I ignore Doodson’s work, which by the way I have referenced in my paper together with the work of Kelvin.

    Svalgaard does not understand the fact that it is not possible accurately calculate and predict the tides using the fundamental law of physics because of the enormous physical complexity of the problem, which is not limited to only know the existence of the gravity but also requires a detailed knowledge of a lot of other things including thermodynamics, fluido-dynamics and the fundamental local resonances. To overcome this ignorance issues Kelvin proposed a harmonic model based on astronomical cycles without putting any physics in it, but using astronomical geometry. Doodson simply expanded the argument of Kelvin.

    That the method of Kelvin does not require any modern quantitative physics but only a qualitative argumentation based on empirical astronomy is proven not only in the same works of Kelvin on the topic but also by the fact that an equivalent methodology was adopted since ancient times to predict the tides. One medieval work that addresses the issue and explains quantitatively how the tides could be predicted based on astronomical cycles is the De temporum ratione (The Reckoning of Time) by the Northumbrian monk Bede in AD 725: quasi 1000 years before Newton.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_temporum_ratione

    Perhaps Svalgaard has a very restricted understanding of what constitute science which does not appear to me to coincide with what scientists involved in research normally think.

  76. Just The Facts says:
    November 10, 2011 at 9:20 pm
    why the difference in the locations that you’ve cited versus those in the sources above?
    Because the concept of the ‘magnetic pole’ is a bit complicated. If you are walking on the ground with a compass or a device measuring the dip of the needle you might find a point where the horizontal force is zero and the magnetic field is vertical, so that is one definition of the ‘magnetic pole’ [and the one your sources show. But that is not the pole the particles that create the aurorae see. That is called the ‘corrected geomagnetic pole’. And those were the numbers I quoted. For recent years it can be computed here: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/cgm_vitmo.html The reason for the difference is that the small-scale magnetic sources that control the field on the ground disappear or weaken with height, so that out in the magnetosphere the field is simpler and different. For times before 1900 a different model and method is needed, but I have such back to 1590. In general you can trust what I say as being relevant and factual.

  77. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    for example, the effect of Jupiter’s magnetic field on the Sun is less than the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on the sun. Do we worry about the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on the Sun? No ?
    ———————————-

    That does not make your point plausible.

    The earths influence has a cycle of exactly 1 year. It is then not detectable as it is completely mixed with seasons and eccentricity of the orbit.

    The most important planetary long term cycle then comes from Jupiter.

    The influence doesn’t have to be exactly 60 years, as, for example, cosmic rays and sun output are not as reliable as planetary orbits.

    The effect could even be amplified by an oscillation through exitement every 60 years for billions of years, either an oscillation within the sun or in our climate system or even around an eigenmode.

    This may all not be true, but your just saying it is impossible is more astrology than science.

  78. Richard Holle says:
    November 10, 2011 at 9:15 pm
    I have been able to forecast daily weather almost as good as the 3 to 5 day out NWS forecast for periods out to ten years at a time.
    Daily weather where? In Timbuktu? Is weather the same all over the globe?

  79. A deeper understanding of the earths spheres and the electro-magnetic throughput of both energy and matter are much needed, Obviously, the best studies ocurr when the sensors are within the medium and this is difficult for measuring the upper troposhere, the mesosphere, the stratosphere and all layers within the ionoshhere. As we see molecular matter going through breakup phases straight to their atomic form, what is exactly happening? More importantly what happens during periods of increased magnetic influences (CME’s and all their proton, electron, X-ray flows etc..) and the angles that they arrive and the status at the event times (low to absent D layer, day or night, sporadic E layer properties etc…)?
    We know very little about the transport of mater and energy entering and leaving the six spheres surrounding our planet. The mechanisims and structures are being studied in a number of ways, but the mediums we’re looking at are a tough one to measure. We’ve had a huge number of satellites with their sensors monitoring the topside and the magnetotail to the cusps, but the data collected is minimal and we certainly have a long way to go…
    Cheers!

  80. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 10, 2011 at 9:51 pm
    About the tides Svalgaard does not really appear to understand the issue. Time ago he was claiming that nobody in the past, before Newton, knew that the tides were induced by the moon. I needed to prove to him that in the past, on the contrary, everybody knew that the tides were induced by the moon even if the people did not know about Newtonian mechanics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei :
    Galileo, Kepler and theories of tides
    [24] Galileo considered his theory of the tides to provide the required physical proof of the motion of the earth. This theory was so important to Galileo that he originally intended to entitle his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems the Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea.[25] The reference to tides was removed by order of the Inquisition.
    For Galileo, the tides were caused by the sloshing back and forth of water in the seas as a point on the Earth’s surface speeded up and slowed down because of the Earth’s rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun. Galileo circulated his first account of the tides in 1616, addressed to Cardinal Orsini.[26] His theory gave the first insight into the importance of the shapes of ocean basins in the size and timing of tides; he correctly accounted, for instance, for the negligible tides halfway along the Adriatic Sea compared to those at the ends. As a general account of the cause of tides, however, his theory was a failure.
    [28] Galileo dismissed as a “useless fiction” the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

    “In the 9th century, the Arabian earth-scientist, Al-Kindi (Alkindus), wrote a treatise entitled Risala fi l-Illa al-Failali l-Madd wa l-Fazr (Treatise on the Efficient Cause of the Flow and Ebb), in which he presents an argument on tides which “depends on the changes which take place in bodies owing to the rise and fall of temperature. “[citation needed] He describes a precise laboratory experiment that proved his argument.[36]”

    To overcome this ignorance issues Kelvin proposed a harmonic model based on astronomical cycles without putting any physics in it
    As I said, curve fitting, but with a sound physical basis.

  81. The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60–70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced.

    The remaining 30-40% of the warming has been manufactured by cooking the books

    I personally look forward to reading more about the electric properties of the ionosphere… fingers crossed that WUWT doesn’t shut down this line of investigation.

  82. Leif Svalgaard says: November 10, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    That is called the ‘corrected geomagnetic pole’. And those were the numbers I quoted. For recent years it can be computed here: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/cgm_vitmo.html The reason for the difference is that the small-scale magnetic sources that control the field on the ground disappear or weaken with height, so that out in the magnetosphere the field is simpler and different. For times before 1900 a different model and method is needed, but I have such back to 1590.

    Interesting.

    “The provided code calculates the Corrected GeoMagnetic (CGM) coordinates and several other main geomagnetic field parameters for specified points at the Earth’s surface (geocentric coordinates) or in near-Earth space (and vice versa).”

    “By definition, the CGM coordinates (latitude, longitude) of a point in space are computed by tracing the DGRF/IGRF magnetic field line through the specified point to the dipole geomagnetic equator, then returning to the same altitude along the dipole field line and assigning the obtained dipole latitude and longitude as the CGM coordinates to the starting point. At the near-equatorial region, where the magnetic field lines may not reach the dipole equator and where, therefore, the standard definition of CGM cooordinates is irrelevant, a new approach based on a Bmin value along the given magnetic field line is developed and applied. This approach is discussed in detail by Gustafsson et al. [1992].

    Because the “local” CGM meridian is non-orthogonal to the “local” CGM latitude, we approximate the “local” direction of this meridian.by the great-circle arc, connecting the given point (station) and the corresponding (North or South) CGM pole. Therefore, an azimuth of this arc with respect to the local geographic meridian (which is also the great-circle arc, connecting the station and the corresponding geographic pole) is our “meridian” angle: positive to East from the North geographic meridian and positive to West from the South geographic meridian.

    According to the definition of geomagnetic coordinates under the dipole approximation, the magnetic local time (MLT) is measured by the flare angle formed by two planes: the dipole meridional plane, which contains a subsolar point on the Earth’s (or any altitude) surface, and the dipole meridional plane which contains a given point on the surface (that is, the local dipole meridian). This definition cannot be applied to the CGM coordinate system because the latter is non-orthogonal and the CGM meridians do not cross the magnetic equator elsewhere [cf. Gustafsson et al., 1992]. Therefore, the dipole-based approximation is invalid in defining MLT for the CGM coordinate system.

    Here we propose to utilize another approach in defining MLT for the CGM coordinate system. Let us assume that the station is located at local midnight, i.e., at some UT instance the local geographic meridian is at 00 LT and the station is “behind” the geographic pole with respect to the Sun. If the Earth rotates through an angle (measured in UT hours and minutes) so that the station’s local CGM meridian (approximated by the great-circle arc) is moved to 00 MLT, then the station is “behind” the CGM pole with respect to the Sun. This UT instance (in hours and minutes) would be “a local MLT midnight in UT” which is computed in our algorithm.”

    http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/cgmm_des.html

    In general you can trust what I say as being relevant and factual.

    I know, but it is important that we challenge each other. It is how many errors are identified, flaws are exposed and lessons are learned.

  83. Nicola Scafetta said @ November 10, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    “About the tides Svalgaard does not really appear to understand the issue. Time ago he was claiming that nobody in the past, before Newton, knew that the tides were induced by the moon. I needed to prove to him that in the past, on the contrary, everybody knew that the tides were induced by the moon even if the people did not know about Newtonian mechanics.”

    Not “everybody” Nicola. Galileo took Kepler to task for his “astrological” claim that the tides were caused by some mysterious force exerted by the moon. Galileo wrote in the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems that the tides were caused by the rotation of the earth causing the oceans to slosh about. It was the Pope’s scepticism of Galileo’s idea that led to Galileo putting the Pope’s words into the mouth of Simplicio (Idiot) in the Dialogue and his trial for heresy. The heresy was ridiculing the Pope and had little to do with Copernic’ heliocentric theory.

  84. Just The Facts says:
    November 10, 2011 at 10:28 pm
    I know, but it is important that we challenge each other. It is how many errors are identified, flaws are exposed and lessons are learned.
    You are being a bit presumptuous, but OK, as long as you learned something. When things are different from what you think, always first assume that you are wrong. That is a good skeptical stance. As Richard Feynman pointed out, the easiest one to fool is yourself.

  85. jimmi_the_dalek says: November 10, 2011 at 5:45 pm
    There is not a clear understanding of the cause of gravity, but there is a very clear understanding of its magnitude and how that depends on the mass and separation of objects. Likewise magnetic fields. It is because the magnitude is understood that this paper is implausible in the extreme.

    Perhaps there is a third element if the magnetic and gravitational influences are too weak… a third force that dares not speak its name….

    An aurora is a natural light display in the sky particularly in the high latitude regions, caused by the collision of energetic charged particles with atoms in the high altitude atmosphere. The charged particles originate in the magnetosphere and solar wind and are directed by the Earth’s magnetic field into the atmosphere.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy)

  86. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 10, 2011 at 9:51 pm
    In scientific research people start with the data and try to understand what the data tell us.
    The auroral counts are difficult to calibrate, but we know that when mid-latitude aurorae occurs they are always accompanied by magnetic disturbances. And we have fairly good data about those going back to the 1840s. So, they should show a 60-yr period if there is one. Here is the FFT power spectrum of the geomagnetic Ap-index back to 1844: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Ap-1844-2011.png as you can see there is a sharp peak at 0.5 year [this is the well-known semiannual variation – that activity is smallest at the solstices], and a broad peak around 11 years [this is the solar cycle variation], but no trace whatsoever of a peak anywhere near 60 years, although we have almost three intervals of 60 years.

  87. jimmi_the_dalek says:

    But their mechanism (gravitational and magnetic fields due to Jupiter) is physically impossible.

    Right up there with confusing correlation with causation: thinking you have proven a negative.

    Well tough, learn something about the relative magnitudes of forces.

    Something about the relative magnitude of forces like: if the sun can swing a mass the size of jupiter around the solar system, then jupiter can swing a mass the size of itself around the interior of the sun?

    But, it is usually described as a “quasi-cycle”, e.g. in that paper, by which they mean it turns out at 60 + or – 4 . The fact that it is not a constant value is enough to rule out an astronomical origin – the orbits of the planets are precise – they do not gain or loose 4 years every now and then.

    The period and magnitude of the ocean tides changes a little from cycle to cycle, therefore the moon, with its precise orbit, cannot be the origin of tides?

    In science you have to be quantitative not just qualitative – if a given proposed cause is not of a magnitude to result in an observed effect of a particular size, then it is not the cause.

    So, pulling the trigger on a gun cannot be the cause of a murder, because the four or five pounds of force it takes to pull a trigger is not of deadly magnitude?

  88. Ingvar Engelbrecht says:
    November 10, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    Correlations are correlations. Cause has to be found.

    No, there might be a cause, but it doesn’t have to. Sufficient fudging will always give you correlations.

  89. I know, but it is important that we challenge each other. It is how many errors are identified, flaws are exposed and lessons are learned.

    ###########
    wow and I thought gavin was the only one who could not admit his errors frankly.

  90. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 10, 2011 at 4:43 pm
    Volker Doormann (November 10, 2011 at 3:30 pm) wrote:
    “The Moon is not involved.”

    Do you acknowledge that lunisolar cycles are confounded with solar system cycles?

    As I have shown in my reply … “High resolution (month) profiles need eleven objects.

    http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_hadcrut3.gif
    … both, longterm global temperature reconstructions and high frequency simulation and climate forecast (month) can be calculated very simple with the solar tide functions of Mercury outwards the Sun, but it do not need the frequency of the Earth Moon.

    What is true that all matter (or moving matter) in the universe – including the Earth Moon – is connected i.) by a field that local let matter be in harmony with that field. Because each moving object owns an angular momentum since the Big Bang (which is strong related to the magnetism of the bodies from Moon to big stars), which is not to be destroyed, but only to ‘transferred’ to other objects, common physics has problems thinking mostly in causal mechanism like a steam machine.

    But this thinking cannot be used to explain resonance phenomena – like the frequency resonance of Jupiter and Saturn 2.672 nHz : 1.0685 nHz = 2.50078 or 5:2 – of low integer ratios. There is no clear acting direction of force which source has an effect the other object. Same problem in the solar system.

    Because of the resonance phenomena, which are ever of harmonic nature, there are quantitative frequencies detectable, which are also connected to the Moon’s frequencies and solar frequencies, but these frequencies are not to be found in global temperature spectra like hadcrut3 . And because this simulation of the high frequency terrestrial climate spectra is based on heliocentric = solar tide geometries including the Earth frequency, the Moon has approximately the same heliocentric frequency as the Earth.

    However, it seems that the solved climate code is not a point of interest, but a lot of sayings what is NOT (science) without showing by arguments. But that itself is not science.

    V.

    ‘Superstition brings misfortune’.

  91. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 10, 2011 at 9:55 pm
    Richard Holle says:
    November 10, 2011 at 9:15 pm
    I have been able to forecast daily weather almost as good as the 3 to 5 day out NWS forecast for periods out to ten years at a time.
    Daily weather where? In Timbuktu? Is weather the same all over the globe?

    I believe his method involves repeating patterns. So as long as you have a history going back far enough for any location, his method may be applied to it. At least that’s what I gather from a 2 min visit to his site.

  92. Interesting, kudos to Scafetta. Much more convincing that his last paper on this .

    It looks like he is using HadCrut3 to judge by the divergence <1880. This is one area where I think the Berk-EST may be nearer the mark. Their method seems more accurate with the older more noisy data and would follow the trends Scafetta's synthesis more closely.

    Once B-est have fixed the fact the magnitude of short-term swings and long term rise is probably at least 50% more than it should be , I think they have a skillful means of extracting temperature.

  93. Crosspatch and others comented on my original post as to why there were so many reports of the aurora borealis being visible from the south of England that I noted in the historic accounts of 1550 to 1650 during a visit tothe Met office archives

    Crosspatch said;

    “My guess is that the skies of the South of England were much darker at night in 1550-1650 than they are today. Aurorae that might have been visible then may be completely invisible now. Also, London is at about the same latitude (51degN) as Winnipeg, Canada (49 degN). Winnipeg sees aurorae rather often.”

    What was equally interesting and may or may not be relevant, is how many earthquakes were mentioned during the same time period. They were never serious as here in the UK we tend to have tremors rather than full blown earthquakes, but the[y’]re sufficient in numbers that they warranted a complete section in the reference book I was reading.

    tonyb

  94. Phew…. I remember in my youth being told scientists are big headed.
    Now in my dotage I am beginning to believe it. :-)

  95. Geoff Sharp says:
    You are missing the point Vuk, Nicola is proposing a link between the Earth’s magnetosphere and tidal/magnetic links from Jupiter and Saturn. Right up your alley I would have thought.

    Hi Geoff, long time no see….

    Last July I wrote:
    I suggest have a careful look at this NASA’s link:

    Observe that a large fraction of the solar system, in its equatorial plane, gets engulfed with the CME.

    Underlining effects are close circuits (closing at the solar surface) of magnetic field and electric currents. Both magnetic field and electric current are partially short-circuited by the huge magnetospheres of both Jupiter and Saturn (known as magnetic reconnection).
    Every 19.859 years (Leohle and Scafetta -20years cycle) this short-circuiting is particularly effective since both planets find themselves in the same direction. Now imagine our little Earth zipping in between, its tiny magnetic field gets zapped by these huge currents:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm

    Heliosphere is highly squashed in the head on direction so the effectiveness of the zap is far more severe when both Jupiter and Saturn find themselves in this head on direction. This happens every 59.5 years (Leohle and Scafetta -60years cycle).
    For more details see:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm

    and effect on the climate at:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm

    There is your mechanism.
    Now lets there be peace among men!

    nicola scafetta | July 26, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Reply
    I see that somebody started to think.

    Rest of the exchange you can follow on the Judith Curry’s blg Climate etc.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-on-climate-change-attribution/#comment-90560

    Finally I concluded:
    I wouldn’t bet much money on it though. Reality is most likely more down to earth (or the Earth), but just in case here is a quick reminder:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm

    nicola scafetta | July 26, 2011 at 4:16 pm | Reply
    Well, people need to start from somewhere

  96. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 10, 2011 at 2:56 pm
    That is what I thought when I first read the paper, but after discussions with Nicola it is apparent his paper is not about solar variation but more about planetary influence on our magnetosphere.
    Do you mean as it was discussed on Judith Curry’s blog Climate etc.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-on-climate-change-attribution/#comment-90560

    see my post above:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/#comment-793943

  97. Further to my post at 12.17 regarding the juxtaposition of earthquakes and aurora borealis in Britain. Below is original extract from a reference book from 1870

    “1540 summer exceedingly hot
    1541 dry and hot
    1573/4 the weather by november pleasant and fair leaves on hawthorn and plane trees before xmas.
    1574… Earthquake
    .,.
    England. There were three earthquakes this year in
    England
    1574… Plague

    At Chester. -PiioU
    1574… Aurora Borealis

    Nov. 11. A very remarkable display. -Camden and Slow
    1574… Aurora Borealis

    Nov. 15. id: id:
    1574… Aurora Borealis

    Novetnber 15 and 16. Burton-on-Trent, from 10 p. m.
    till dawn, as bright as day, most so at 4 a. m. –
    Rer. Steb6ing Sham
    1575… Aurora Borealis …
    February 13. Brilliant ”

    Obviously I am curious as to if there is any conceivable connection between earthquakes and borealis

    tonyb

  98. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 11, 2011 at 12:33 am
    Underlining effects are close circuits (closing at the solar surface) of magnetic field and electric currents. Both magnetic field and electric current are partially short-circuited by the huge magnetospheres of both Jupiter and Saturn (known as magnetic reconnection).
    No. they are not, and the solar wind is carrying everything away from the Earth, Jupiter, and the Sun in any event. The wind is 11 times supersonic, which means that it moves away from the Sun eleven times faster than magnetic and electric effects can travel upstream towards the Sun. I have lost track of how many times this has been pointed out to you. Perhaps this time it will sink in…

  99. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 11, 2011 at 12:33 am
    the huge magnetospheres of both Jupiter and Saturn
    They are not so huge. The make up about a 1/10,000 of the sky seen from the Sun, so are tiny targets.

  100. climatereason says:
    November 11, 2011 at 12:17 am
    there were so many reports of the aurora borealis being visible from the south of England that I noted in the historic accounts of 1550 to 1650 during a visit to the Met office archives

    perhaps because the Arctic’s magnetic field 1600-1700 was about 10% or so stronger then currently.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm

  101. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.

    Science is a method to recognise what IS in nature. That what is in nature is nor to be shown, but to recognised. If truth would to be shown, it would have an observable existence. But it has not. It has only speakers about nothing.

    It would be a basic contradiction, if nature is to be divided in more than one order, because then it would be possible that something can be true AND at the same time untrue. It is the own recognition of a scientist that it is impossible that something can be true AND at the same time untrue.

    There is only one nature, but a lot of fallacies in statements.

    Physics. Physics is the part of science, which deals exactly only with occurrence in the outer world, named forces. Logic, math, algebra, music, harmony are because they have neither a mechanism nor a detectable force NOT part of physics.

    Astrology is the science of the logic of the objects the Greeks have called planets, the wandering stars on the sky. Physicians can understand that each frequenting mass multiplied with Plancks constant h is equal to energy E in [eV]. This implies the Doppler effects of the moving surface of the Earth towards East or move away from West.

    Astronomy is the science of the laws of the moving planets, J. Kepler has shown in his book Astronomia Nova.

    If one is arguing ‘astrology’ seriously, without showing that it has any existence, it is called a straw man fallacy, because it is only used to promote the ‘spirit of the holy science community’. > ‘It’s a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.’ <.

    If one is arging valid, he acknowledge the basics of philosophy, and from this it is clear that ‘causal mechanism’ what ever this means, cannot beat the basics of philosophy.

    Causality. In nature there are some things not to be proved like endlessness, or a beginning. Because of this causality should have a beginning and an end. But this is in contradiction with the definition of causality and/or a mechanism. A mechanism cannot have and end. Thermodynamicers do know this.

    Sayings, personal sayings (avoiding arguments) as authority of the science community are that dirt that covers in public the hidden truth in nature, only to recognize in the own consciousness.
    Moreover, like the CO2 dirt, much hard clean work has to be done – like the WUWT blog – which binds people, who are interested in valid scientific arguments, about what IS.

    What is real in physics? A velocity? A space in meters? A time in seconds or years? Has time a beginning? Has time an end? Has space and end? Both are no forces, but only idols of the physicians in QM or climate science and the science community.

    The phase difference phi = 2 Pi * (R-1) or phi = 2 Pi * [(t2/t1)-1] with R = t2/t1 and t1′ = c’ and t2 the second tune of the interval in the Pythagorean scale of the science of music are based on integer ratios. Most people and children do acknowledge these ratios as true harmony.

    R t1=c’ phi

    25/24 cis' 15°
    13/12 des' 30°
    9/8 d' 45°
    7/6 dis' 60°
    6/5 es' 72°
    5/4 e' 90°
    4/3 f' 120°
    11/8 fis 135°
    7/5 ? (2x72°=)144°
    17/12 ges 150°
    3/2 g' 180°
    19/12 gis 210°
    8/5 as' (3x72°=)216°
    5/3 a' 240°
    15/8 b(h)' 315°
    7/4 ais 270°
    9/5 b(b)' (4x72°)288°
    2/1 c'' 360°

    In a 2Pi circle like the ecliptic viewed from a geocentric perspective astrologers like J. Kepler do know this language of the stars, and do understand it, because they have learned the language. Physicians have not.

    It is a simple but valid argument that if the geometric ratios in the music scale have a reality in a living consciousness, the very same geometric ratios in the sound of the planets must have a reality in this one nature.

    The most important (heliocentric) aspects to simulate the terrestrial climate are the conjunction and the opposition, and J. Kepler
    has said
    this for geocentric aspects. These aspects both are well known as tide functions and it takes no wonder that a summing of the tide functions of 11 celestial bodies in the solar system leads to a simulation of the high frequency global climate as published as hadcrut3 data:

    V.

  102. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 11, 2011 at 1:27 am
    ….
    Your sense of humour has been swept away with the solar wind. You missed the final ‘crescendo’ of my post : “I wouldn’t bet much money on it though”.

  103. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 11, 2011 at 1:38 am
    perhaps because the Arctic’s magnetic field 1600-1700 was about 10% or so stronger then currently.
    A stronger field means fewer aurorae. The influence of the solar wind on the Earth increases if the screening effect of the Earth’s magnetic field decreases. As the field has weakened the past several hundred years, geomagnetic activity and aurorae have increased.

  104. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 10, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Richard Holle says:
    November 10, 2011 at 9:15 pm
    I have been able to forecast daily weather almost as good as the 3 to 5 day out NWS forecast for periods out to ten years at a time.
    Daily weather where? In Timbuktu? Is weather the same all over the globe?
    *********************************************
    Reply; The global circulation is driven by the solar/lunar tidal effects in sync with the inner planets, the outer planets interactions influence the solar output, which also electromagnetically modulates the ion content and electromagnetic processes, that allow the outer planets to modulate the air flow patterns, with increased or decreased precipitation trends for ANY part of the world you wish to apply the cyclic pattern of data assimilation from past cycles, to the next/current cycle to produce the forecast fore the expected weather parameter you wish to examine.

    I am in the process of adding forecasts for Alaska, Canada, and Australia because I have now gotten access to their data base, and they will appear on my site when I can get the development of the mapping process finished.

    If you wish you can look at the data for the area of YOUR interest, by the same method and generate a forecast for your self any where in the world you have enough data to give good coverage. More than enough details of the process are publicly viewable on my web site, or if you need assistance just ask.

  105. An early explanation of tides was given by Galileo Galilei in his 1632 Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, …

    At the same time Johannes Kepler correctly suggested that the Moon caused the tides, based upon ancient observation and correlations, an explanation which was rejected by Galileo. It was originally mentioned in Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos as being derived from ancient observation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides#History_of_tidal_physics

  106. Interesting. There must be some connection between climate and astronomical events as propose. There are many interacting things here.

  107. Nicola and Leif

    I had always thought it was Pytheas who dscovered the correlation between moon and the tides

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytheas

    It was every day information possibly lost in the destruction of the great library of Alexandria and the knowledge rediscovered only many centuries later.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

    This would fit in with the comment from Barney Frank at 3.14 above, regarding it being derived from ‘ancient observation’. Ptolemy lived several hundred years later than Pytheas so the description of ‘ancient observation’ would fit.

    Are either of you able to add to my comment about the observed frequency of the Aurora and Earthquakes during 16th Century Britain-my post at 1.18 refers
    tonyb

  108. steven mosher says: November 10, 2011 at 11:49 pm

    I know, but it is important that we challenge each other. It is how many errors are identified, flaws are exposed and lessons are learned.

    ###########
    wow and I thought gavin was the only one who could not admit his errors frankly.

    Please… I presented additional facts to further demonstrate that I was wrong. Leif obviously got it, as did any cogent readers. Do you expect a full on mea culpa whenever any fact withstands scrutiny? BTW, the last time I demonstrated you to be wrong;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/30/earths-climate-system-is-ridiculously-complex-with-draft-link-tutorial/#comment-692222

    you just ran away…

  109. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 10, 2011 at 2:53 pm
    Right up your alley I would have thought.

    Not right alley though, 60 year one, looks like to be a blind alley.
    However, the sun – earth link is undoubtedly there:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm

    The longest and most reliable temperature record, the CET does have certain degree of resonance with solar activity, but clearly does not contain 60 year period:

    http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-CET.pdf

    Recent analysis of global temperatures by the BEST team found its fundamental is at 72 years http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/BerkeleyEarthSantaFe.pdf
    page 10.

  110. pat says:
    November 10, 2011 at 5:06 pm
    Yeah, this is OT, but of the eye rolling, not smile sort…

    smile:

    9 Nov: Daily Mail: Hugo Gye: Blink and you’ll miss it! Friday sees once-in-a-lifetime moment as time and date read 11.11.11 11.11.11

    And the last time it happened, on November 11 1911, an almost supernatural event saw temperatures drop by more than 60F in a single day.

    It remains to be seen whether 11.11.11 will produce such surprises this time around, but people should be sure to keep a careful eye on the weather – and on any local Hellmouths – at 11 seconds past 11 minutes past 11 o’clock…

    I suppose the Daily Mail was trying to be cute (do they ever try to be newsworthy?), but the “Witch of November” – an extreme extratropical storm in the Minnesota area is a well studied event. It is also quite predictable by today’s forecasting tools. I think it is quite safe to say the weather there will not surprise anyone today.

    Yesterday was the 36th anniversary of the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald, so a mention of http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/10/35-years-ago-the-witch-of-november-come-stealin/ is warranted. While that post doesn’t discuss a 1911 storm, 60°F temperature falls in that area aren’t especially notable. Other storms, like the 1940 Nov 11 storm, are.

  111. steven mosher says:

    Wow, the readers sure brought their skeptical best on this post.
    not.

    I don’t see anyone threatening to tax civilization out of existance, or feign justification to micromanage the lives of others based on Scafetta’s paper. What is your beef?

    It may seem crazy, but it would not have been published otherwise. What else are we to talk about?

  112. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 3:59 pm
    To those who claim I have not read the paper – I have read more of it than the people who think it is about cosmic rays. Also, the relation to astrology is simple – science has to be quantitative not just handwaving. Do you realise for example that the magnitude of the gravitational field of Saturn on the Sun is less than the effect of the gravitational field of Earth on the Sun? Jupiter is larger but its mass is 1/1000 of the sun’s and it is 800 million kilometers away from the Sun – you work out what the gravitational forces are. Jupiter has a strong magnetic field it is true, being roughly 10 time stronger than Earth’s , but since Jupiter is 5 times as far from the Sun, roughly, the effect of Jupiter’s magnetic field on the Sun, is lessthan that of Earth’s on the Sun. And I am not claiming that correlations should not be investigated, and am stating that a proposed mechanism for a correlation has to be physically possible.
    And for those who reckon I am a troll, or a “warmist” – I am neither – but I realise than skepticism has to work in both directions – and this paper is BS.

    Jimmy, you like back of the envelope maths. So from http://www.universetoday.com/15141/mass-of-jupiter/ we have the statements:

    “The mass of Jupiter is 1.9 x 1027 kg. It is hard to fully understand a number that large, so here are a few comparisons to help. It would take 318 times Earth’s mass to equal Jupiter’s. Jupiter is 2.5 times more massive than all of the other planets in our Solar System combined. Jupiter is actually so massive that if it gained much more mass it would shrink.”

    Now you are emphasizing that the effect of gravitational fields are extremely small. But how much force is necessary to keep a planet with a mass of 1.9 x 1027 kg in orbit? The continual velocity change requires a continual acceleration toward the Sun. You think that this requires only an infinitesimally small force?

    Stars like the Sun are being identified as having planets around them by the fact that the stars ‘wobble’ due to the orbit of their planets around them. Or more correctly the stars and their planets are orbiting their barycenter – their center of mass. But magically you postulate that the Sun is different it has no wobble indeed the planets around it have no effect whatsoever as the force from the planets is so small? I thought that you were trying to take the scientific position. ;-)

  113. @J.H. says:
    November 11, 2011 at 4:45 am
    An Electric Universe…… Why not?
    For sure!, and this is the new paradigm which will surpass the idea of a “Flinstones´ Universe”

  114. P. Siolar says:
    November 11, 2011 at 12:13 am “Once B-est have fixed the fact the magnitude of short-term swings and long term rise is probably at least 50% more than it should be , I think they have a skillful means of extracting temperature.”

    You are joking, right?
    Have you looked at the Database Taverage values and not just read their papers?

  115. About the problem of tides, it was known since ancient times that the major driver was the moon. Every fishermen knew it very well.

    It is true that some people have proposed alternative theories, such as Galileo, but these alternative theories were not believed by anybody. Galileo troubles mostly mostly caused by his anomaous theory of tides that even fishermen could disprove at his times. Kepler, instead reasoned correctly basing its theory on actual data and careful observations.

    climatereason says:
    November 11, 2011 at 4:10 am
    Are either of you able to add to my comment about the observed frequency of the Aurora and Erarthquakes during 16th Century Britain-my post at 1.18 refers
    tonyb

    Probably there is a link between earthquakes and climate and aurora and astronomical cycles and ocean current and LOD etc and everything is physically coupled to everything else.

    In any case, my paper focuses on the indirect link between mid-latitude aurora historical records and climate cycles and the coerence of these cycles with astronomical cycles. And I show that with these cycle it is possible with a reasonable accuracy to forecast climate oscillations att hedecadal scale. I use only 4-5 cycles, not just one. Also the paper focuses on the physical mechanisms that may cause these climatic oscillations, that is albedo oscillations, read section 7.

    The paper is not supposed to address any possible geophysical problem one might think. Nor it addresses Leif’s cospiratory theory (November 11, 2011 at 12:19 am) according to which the aurora record presents a 60-year cycle because somebody (that Leif does not name) put it in.

  116. Werner Brozek says:
    Also, Jupiter and Saturn meet every 19.85 years.

    It is interesting that this is the cycle I found in Iowa tree ring data, and it, by far, appears to be the most important cycle in the data. In an article I wrote (back in the early 90s), I speculated that it might be connected to the Saturn/Jupiter lap period along with the rotation of the sun. i have no idea if the tidal forces on the sun might be sufficient to cause solar variability that could be detected in tree ring data in Iowa, however.

    For this cycle to repeat, we should see some poor growing conditions for trees in Iowa into the middle of this decade.

  117. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 11, 2011 at 2:13 am
    “I wouldn’t bet much money on it though”.
    So perhaps it did sink in, after all.

    climatereason says:
    November 11, 2011 at 4:10 am
    I had always thought it was Pytheas who dscovered the correlation between moon and the tides
    This is not the point. The issue was whether that relationship was generally accepted and as the case with Galileo [and others] show, it was not. Furthermore the relation was not understood. That had to wait for Newton.

    Richard Holle says:
    November 11, 2011 at 2:56 am
    apply the cyclic pattern of data assimilation from past cycles, to the next/current cycle to produce the forecast fore the expected weather parameter you wish to examine.
    So just curve fitting to cycle without any understanding of the physics.

  118. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 11, 2011 at 7:52 am
    In any case, my paper focuses on the indirect link between mid-latitude aurora historical records and climate cycles and the coerence of these cycles with astronomical cycles.
    The records of geomagnetic activity [varies in step with aurorae] and sunspot numbers do not show any 60-yr cycles, so there is no cycles to link.

  119. Leif, please try to think with an open mind.

    The aurora record presents that cycle and we can say that the aurora record has been collected by using as detector the entire Earth in the space. The geomagnetic activity index that you like, which was collected at some specific location on the ground, does not show exactly the same pattern?

    So what!

    The two observables are not the same thing, evidently.

    Why you never try to be a little bit humble and acknowledge that there are several things that you do not understand?

  120. It is clearly useless to discuss with Leif!

    The multimillenarian scale temperature and Be reconstructions are too poor to accurately reproduce a 60-year cycle because the data are very sparse: there is one point every several decades. My paper is filled with references where the 60 year cycle is seen in numerous solar-related and climatic records. Unfortunately Leif does not feel the need to read them with an open mind, just as all sophists do.

  121. Massive weaknesses in this paper. The suggested physical mechanism, as presented in this paper, of cosmic rays and clouds is NOT validly or reliably accomplished. Plausibility (IE the mechanisms well-reasoned details) is entirely lacking in the paper. Mechanisms MUST be girthed with plausibility when being thrown into a paper focused on solar/climate cycle matching. In my opinion, Scafetta’s paper is mortally wounded by such a failing.

  122. There’s spatial geometry, so tide tables are fit LOCALLY.

    Doesn’t make sense using epicycles to fit GLOBALLY (due to local spatial phase reversals, such as when the jet stream moves from one side of a location to the other).

    Circulation is a function of GRADIENTS, not global averages. Too much weighting of speculation towards clouds and not enough towards CIRCULATION.

    Change the shape of the temperature gradient only slightly and the land-ocean flow regime is altered. (That’s what atmospheric circulation index (ACI) is all about.) Since land & ocean have strongly contrasted heat capacities, global averages move as a function of nothing more than gradient changes. (Remember COWL?!)

    The north-south Y-asymmetry in the geomagnetic field DIFFERS IN SHAPE from the north-south land-ocean asymmetry affecting climate, but the 2 transmissions have a common crank shaft. So beware confounding.

    Silly as it may sound – (too much anomaly-think perhaps?)
    – here’s what’s being missed:
    It matters whether it’s winter or summer and north or south (when Earth samples the solar cycle).

    That’s ALL this graph says:

    (Since a misunderstanding / misrepresentation keeps coming up: That’s NOT a curve fit.)

    It seems people are hoping it’s more complicated, but it’s just asymmetric aliasing changing the shape of gradients.

    I STRONGLY advise everyone to read up on the statistical concepts leveraging & Simpson’s Paradox and the spatial analysis concepts “modifiable areal unit problem” & fractal dimension.

  123. Leif

    As you well know a great deal of the knowledge of the ancients was lost-some through the destruction of the great library of Alexandria, some as the Roman Empire declined.

    Some science was rediscovered in the early days of the Moslem empires who had a great regard for Greek knowledge and actively sought it out. Pytheas was perfectly well aware of the moon and its effect on tides, as would fishermen be. I am not disagreeing that it was not scientifically quantified again until Newton, but the knowledge already existed.

    “Pytheas on the tides
    Pliny reports that “Pytheas of Massalia informs us, that in Britain the tide rises 80 cubits.”[61] The passage does not give enough information to determine which cubit Pliny meant; however, any cubit gives the same general result. If he was reading an early source, the cubit may have been the Cyrenaic cubit, an early Greek cubit, of 463.1 mm, in which case the distance was 37 metres (121 ft). The maximum tidal rise in the Wash, where the tides are highest, is 6.8 metres (22 ft). However, higher tides occur on the west coast – for example 15 metres (49 ft) in the Severn Estuary. One well-circulated but unevidenced answer is that Pytheas is referring to a storm tide.[4]

    Matching fragments of Aëtius in pseudo-Plutarch and Stobaeus[62] attribute the flood tides (πλήμμυραι plēmmurai) to the “filling of the moon” (πλήρωσις τῆς σελήνης plērōsis tēs sēlēnēs) and the ebb tides (ἀμπώτιδες amplōtides) to the “lessening” (μείωσις meiōsis). The words are too ambiguous to make an exact determination of Pytheas’ meaning, whether diurnal or spring and neap tides are meant, or whether full and new moons or the half-cycles in which they occur. Different translators take different views.

    That daily tides should be caused by full moons and new moons is manifestly wrong, which would be a surprising view in a Greek astronomer and mathematician of the times. He could have meant that spring and neap tides were caused by new and full moons, which is partially correct in that spring tides occur at those times. A gravitational theory (objects fall to the center) existed at the time but Pytheas appears to have meant that the phases themselves were the causes (αἰτίαι aitiai). However imperfect or imperfectly related the viewpoint, Pytheas was the first to associate the tides to the phases of the moon

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytheas#Circumstances_of_the_voyage

    tonyb

  124. Nicola

    I said;

    climatereason says:
    November 11, 2011 at 4:10 am
    Are either of you able to add to my comment about the observed frequency of the Aurora and Earthquakes during 16th Century Britain-my post at 1.18 refers
    tonyb

    To which you replied;

    “Probably there is a link between earthquakes and climate and aurora and astronomical cycles and ocean current and LOD etc and everything is physically coupled to everything else.”

    Interesting. Are you aware of any papers that explore this unified theory in more detail? Does it have any credibilty in scientific circles?.

    tonyb

  125. steven mosher says:
    November 10, 2011 at 11:51 pm
    Wow, the readers sure brought their skeptical best on this post.
    not.>>>>

    Nice drive by insult. Do you have anything of value to add to the discussion?

  126. climatereason says:
    November 11, 2011 at 9:16 am

    Interesting. Are you aware of any papers that explore this unified theory in more detail?

    There are partial papers on the topic. Look in internet.

    One paper connecting things is
    A. Mazzarella and N. Scafetta, “Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change,” Theor. Appl. Climatol., DOI 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4 (2011).

  127. Dr. Scafetta
    a) solar activity (300 year record) has no 60 year cycle
    b) the Arctic circle magnetic field, to which auroras are related (400 year reconstruction from the navigation records available, i.e. from shipping logs of magnetic inclination and declination ) has no 60 year cycle
    c) the most accurate temperature record available, the CET (350 years long) has no 60 year cycle.
    This is not to say there are no natural cycles in the climate records, indeed there are, and they can be loosely correlated to the solar activity, but there is no astronomical 60 year connection.
    There is about 50-ish year period in the solar activity, Arctic magnetic events and the CET, this can be linked to the astronomical events as I have shown in here :

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm

    (P1+P2)/2 =107 (half period 53.5 years)
    P1-P2 =22 Hale Cycle
    All clearly seen in the solar cycle spectrum:

    and in the CET natural variability waveform

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm

    and if you whish in the geomagnetic field.

  128. @Lief,

    I am honestly confused by this discussion. Doesn’t the paper show power spectrums and data clearly demonstrating a 60 year cycle? The data is right there in the paper. So, the question is, what exactly are you refuting?

    What needs to be refuted is the source of the data being used to show these 60 year cycles (as are clearly shown in the paper, power spectrum and raw data), or the statistical/mathematical methods employed. The data source itself may be corrupted, or manipulated, analysis applied incorrectly, etc. But just saying there’s no power spectrum showing 60 seems ignorant, since the paper shows that in several ways, clearly.

    That’s what confuses me about this discussion. You two are talking past each other, and nothing is getting discussed, from what I see.

    I really would like an actual comprehensive discussion on what is going on in this paper, with its data, and such.

  129. “davidmhoffer says:
    November 10, 2011 at 8:28 pm
    Jupiter on the other hand, is big enough to cause the centre of gravity of it and the sun to be somewhere between the centre of the sun and the surface of the sun.

    The moon raises tides on earth, even though it is only one sixth the mass of the earth,”

    I wish to comment on these two sentences. As for the last one, the moon actually has 1/81 of the mass of the earth. Where you got that 1/6 from is that if you were to stand on a scale on the moon, you would weigh 1/6 as much as on earth. So since the moon averages about 240,000 miles away, the center of mass for the earth-moon system is about 3000 miles from Earth’s center or 1000 miles below the surface of Earth.

    As for the first sentence, that is correct. But I just want to add that when several big planets are on the same side as Jupiter, the center of gravity can actually be beyond the surface of the sun.

  130. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 11, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Vukcevic you need to read my paper and the references that it contains that argue for the 60 year cycle first.

    For example, you reference CET. You need to realize that CET is a too local record that may be effected by vocano and local patterns. On the contrary in my paper

    A. Mazzarella and N. Scafetta, “Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change,” Theor. Appl. Climatol., DOI 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4 (2011).

    I use a reconstruction of the NAO that includes CET as well as all other available records from europe and a quasi 60 year cycle appears more clearly.

    The same can be said for the other records you reference.

    Data analysis is a complex matter that requires careful mathematical and physical considerations in particular when proxy models are used with all their errors and ancertenties.

    Not all records are equally valid for a specific purpose, not all records show the same things. This is perfectly normal and it is part of the complexity of the problem.

    Moreover FFT is the poorest way to calculate the spectrum for a lot of reasons, beginning by the fact that it is discrete.

    In any case, if you believe that your analysis is better and you have a better theory, you need just to write a scientific paper and submit it to a science journal. Once it is pubblished we can discuss it.

    My above paper focuses on the Aurora records patterns and global temperature patterns, not on other things. And I show that the two records presents the same major frequencies and these major frequencies correspond to major planetary frequencies.

    So, I invite you as well as Leif to focus on the actual content of the paper, not on things that the paper was not supposed to address in any details such as what happened in central england or what happened to the sunspots that are only a small subset of the solar and heliosphere dynamics.

  131. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 11, 2011 at 9:28 am
    One paper connecting things is
    A. Mazzarella and N. Scafetta, “Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change”

    The NAO is made up of two components, one has a quasi period of 50+ years, the other one around 70 (but they change a bit if you change length of the data sets), and as result you get (P1+P2)/2. This is also directly reflected in the AMO, so you get 60-65 quoted by various authors.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-SST.htm

  132. To Ged says:
    November 11, 2011 at 10:14 am

    Yes, Ged, Leif wants to confuse things in the hope to confuse people less careful than yourself.

    To M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 11, 2011 at 11:00 am

    I never said that the cycle must be exacly 60 years. In dynamical system the things oscillate around limit cycles, So sometime a physical cycle may be larger than 60 year and another time may be smaller than that. This is particularly true if you look at subsystems. In the literature there are a lot of papers arguing for a 50 to 70 year oscillation in mutiple records. My interpretation is that ther exists a dynamical attractor at about 60-year that would explain the finding. This attactor points to Jupiter and Saturn 60-year oscillation.

    If you do not like the interpretation, that is fine for me, but does not change my position.

  133. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 11, 2011 at 10:44 am

    There’s NO paywall here:

    Scafetta, N. (2011). A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013.

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-auroras.pdf

    _____________________________________________

    Thank you but I’d already found the link on Tallbloke’s blog. :-)

    Caveat: The preprint isn’t necessarily the same as what goes to press.

  134. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 11, 2011 at 9:39 am

    @Volker Doormann
    You’re attracting attention:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/scafetta-and-aurora/#comment-9318

    Cautionary note from first-hand experience:
    If your commentary becomes too mature, you’ll be banned from that site.
    The proprietors of the site have a theory (based on observation, supposedly) that mature commentary deters site visits.

    I think the very point in this age is the climate code and is it hacked?.

    It is.

    I’m off.

    V.

  135. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    “Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.”

    You didn’t get an impressive score on the verbal part of the SAT, didja?

    FAIL

  136. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 11, 2011 at 11:19 am
    ……….
    I am only pointing out that one has to take into account that the oscillation at a fundamental frequency is not the same as cross-modulation, which may produce a particular frequency.

    Paul Vaughan says:
    November 11, 2011 at 11:22 am
    Vukcevic, can you tell us whY?…

    Could you be more specific?

  137. Abstract
    The study of the global atmospheric electric circuit has advanced dramatically in the past 50 years. Large advances have been made in the areas of lightning and thunderstorm research, as related to the global circuit. We now have satellites looking down on the Earth continuously, supplying information on the temporal and spatial variability of lightning and thunderstorms. Thunderstorms are electric current generators, which drive electric currents up through the conducting atmosphere. They maintain the ionosphere at a potential of ∼+250 kV with respect to the Earth’s surface. The global electric circuit is completed by currents flowing through the fair weather atmosphere, remote from thunderstorms, and by transient currents due to negative cloud-to-ground lightning discharges. The time constant of the circuit, , demonstrates that thunderstorms must occur continually to maintain the fair weather electric field. New discoveries have been made in the field of sprites, elves and blue jets, which may have a direct impact on the global circuit. Our knowledge of the global electric circuit modulated by solar effects has improved. Changes to the global circuit are associated with changes of conductivity linked with the time-varying presence of energetic charged particles, and the solar wind may influence the global electric circuit by inferred effects on cloud microphysics, temperature, and dynamics in the troposphere. We now have a better understanding of how the conductivity of the atmosphere is influenced by aerosols, and how this impacts our measurements of the fair-weather global circuit. The global atmospheric electric circuit is also beginning to be recognised by some climate researchers as a useful tool with which to study and monitor the Earth’s changing climate.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682600001127

  138. Nicola

    I found the paper you referenced to me, thank you

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Mazzarella-%20Scafetta-60-yr.pdf

    In it you have an appendix in which you comment on a new paper From John Kennedy concerning SSt’s

    I wrote this article that appeared at Climate etc

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/27/unknown-and-uncertain-sea-surface-temperatures/

    and subsequently had a long series of email exchanges with John Kennedy. The manner in which SSTs were collected are highly unscientific and have little merit as a serious temperature record . Dr Judith Curry is also of the opinion that anything prior to around 1960 is seriously flawed.

    I do not think they have a place in any scientific paper due to their huge margin of error. Sorry.

    Incidentally I am sure that you are aware that CET is very well correlated as a significant proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures? It would be very interersting to see the results of your study (which I thought verygood) using CET but excluding SST’s to 1850.
    best regards

    Tonyb

  139. I didn’t see a section in the paper discussing the aurora data itself. While I don’t necessarily disagree that aurora strength is a decent proxy for solar magnetic field strength, and I don’t necessarily disagree that solar magnetic field strength can influence albedo, what I would point out is that the relationship between climate and aurora record works in both directions.

    Here’s what I mean. I grew up at 43N latitude. That’s a mid-latitude and I don’t ever really recall seeing an aurora. They’re rare events in mid-latitudes. I’m sure there were some and if I’d been diligent I might have spotted some. But here’s the thing – auroras can only be seen on clear nights, which has foiled my viewing more often than not. So the very clouds that are purportedly regulated by the aurora (or the solar activity for which auroras are a proxy) themselves effect the ability to see the aurora. So not only might auroras influence cloud cover, cloud cover influences the ability to observe auroras! The influence might work in both directions is what I’m saying.

    Moreover, in looking at what little is portrayed of the aurora record in the paper I notice the graph of them, figure 2B, is cut off at the year 1966.

    It would appear that the last 45 years of aurora data is not taken into account in this study. That seems like a pretty big omission. Hide the decline kind of stuff to put it bluntly. A suspicious person might think the correlation fell apart after 1966…

  140. Ged says:
    November 11, 2011 at 10:14 am
    I am honestly confused by this discussion. Doesn’t the paper show power spectrums and data clearly demonstrating a 60 year cycle? The data is right there in the paper. So, the question is, what exactly are you refuting?

    A very powerful ingredient of the scientific method is replication. If a claim cannot be replicated, preferably with different data and different methods, it suffers. Just cranking through the same data the same way is not replication [as one always assumes that the claim was made in good faith by competent people – unless evidence to the contrary]. If an effect is clear in the data, even the crudest method [such as FFT, which does in my esamples find the semiannual peak and the solar cycle peak and a 60-yr peak if I put one in] will show it. If it takes extensive massaging and tweaking to ferret out an effect, it is plausible that it is not there in the first place.

    So, I use independent data of geomagnetic activity [much better than auroral counts – which for example show a clear lunar cycle, because they are harder to see at full moon], cosmic ray data, sunspot numbers, and even climate, and show that none of these show any 60-year cycle over long enough time periods [centuries]. Thus replication fails and the claim fails.

  141. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    “Thus replication fails and the claim fails.”

    Great. Give us a link when your refutation is peer reviewed and published. Personally I don’t think you’ve compared apples to apples and it won’t be accepted but that’s just me. I think you first have to establish a link between mid-latitude auroras and the hodge-podge of other proxies you mention. Scafetta’s discovery is a correlation between mid-latitude auroras which may or may not correlate well with those other proxies. Apples and oranges IMO. At least for now.

  142. Leif, read the paper and the references!
    Your way to analyze the data is just naive. You need to think more deeply.

    Tonyb.

    I may agree about the fact that the composite of the tempeature data may have problems, but that is what we have.

    If Judith Curry believes that the data before 1960 are seriously flawed she should have said it in her BEST papers and she should have limited her BEST reconstruction to post 1960 which is something that she did not.

    In the paper I analyze several records, not just the Kennedy record, including both HadSST2 and HadSST3 records.

    Moreover, I have analyzed all available temperature records from all groups and from all regions of the Earth (Norh and South, Land and Ocean) and the results are approximately the same. Those records present major frequency peaks at about 9, 10-10.5, 20-21 and 60-62 year.

    Although these records might have errors, their error is likely less than the error of using CET as a proxy for the global temperature.

    About CET you clealy see maxima around 1940 and 2000. Then the 60-year cycle predicts a maximum in 1880s which is seen in the global temperature data. However CET does see a cooling instead of a warming. This is probably because in the 1880s there was a huge Krakatoa volcano eruption that might have caused a significant cooling in England and disrupted the pattern. Then the 60 year cycle predicts a maximum around 1820 and a minimum around 1790 and these are there. Before 1790 CET is very poor, and the patterns are less clear. So a 60-year cycle may be present in CET although it may be disrupted by some volcano activity in particular in the 1880s.

    But the issue is that global accurate records needs to be used, the local one are just “local”

  143. davidmhoffer says:
    November 10, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    “Jupiter on the other hand, is big enough to cause the centre of gravity of it and the sun to be somewhere between the centre of the sun and the surface of the sun. The moon raises tides on earth, even though it is only one sixth the mass of the earth”

    The moon has barely 1% the mass of the earth. Jupiter has less than 0.1% the mass of the sun.

    You really, really, really need to double check what you intend to write as facts before you hit that “post comment” button. Seriously dude. Even I do that. If you don’t someone else will and it ends up being very embarrassing.

  144. to Dave Springer

    the records are limited because those aurora were in the past seen and recorded mostly in the cities. After 1900 street light has made very difficult to see these auroras and mobody cared to report the aurora as seen in the country-side.

    You argument with the clous is not valid. More auroras were seen during the multidecadal cold periods, that is the most cloudy ones. Moreover, there aurora are not observed in just one location but in a very large region

  145. @Hoffman

    Adding insult to injury the force of gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance so the moon, at 1% the mass of the earth at a distance of 250,000 miles has approximately 400 million times as much gravitational pull on the earth as Jupiter does on the sun with Jupiter being about 2000 times as distant and 10 times less relative mass. Not going to be much of a tide on the sun from Jupiter. Maybe a micrometer? That’s why detecting planets around other stars is so difficult. They really need a planet as big Jupiter orbiting as close as Mercury to detect the wobble caused by the offset in barycenter. Either that or they need very long observation times to pull smaller deflections out of the noise.

    Sheesh.

  146. @Leif,

    “A very powerful ingredient of the scientific method is replication. If a claim cannot be replicated, preferably with different data and different methods, it suffers. Just cranking through the same data the same way is not replication [as one always assumes that the claim was made in good faith by competent people – unless evidence to the contrary].”

    I absolutely agree, as you make a wonderful point. However, there are many aspects of science where new techniques are made to allow observations or analysis of data no other techniques can do. If the techniques are sound (as no one has really presented an argument or evidence that they are not, so far), and the base data is showing us something, we still have to address why this data, why these techniques; we can’t simply dismiss. Even if other methods cannot replicate, that the techniques and data used in the paper can be replicated means it is science and fit for our consideration.

    And I guess that’s really the issue for me. What I’m saying does not, in any way, detract from what you said–as you are completely right. The fact other methods are not supplying supporting data to this hypothesis weakens it–we aren’t seeing anything yet that provides it additional strength. Artifacts can happen (maybe something about the aurora and particular temperature data creates this artifact, but no one has said or argued as such), spurious results do occur, and multiple lines of evidence are in the end required for any hypothesis to make it to the level of theory. But it all doesn’t -disprove- the hypothesis either. It’s still valid from what I see. Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and all that.

    There are references though, and mounting data that shows this 60 year phenomenon from what I’ve seen, but I can make little sense of it. Hence my interest in your points and discussion.

  147. Werner Brozek;
    Thanks for the correction, you are of course correct on both points.

    Dave Springer;
    See how easy it is to have a civil conversation about a complex topic? I’ve since dropped the thread, but I don’t recall you apologizing or admitting how completely and totaly wrong you were about IT penetrating water during a heavy rainstorm by posting a link to a paper that you apparently hadn’t read or understood because it supported my point, not yours. Frankly, even when I agree with you on something, which I frequently do, I’d rather not voice my support because of your bullying, ad hominem attacks, foul mouth and ignorant attitude. You seem to be one of those people who think they can pull themselves up by putting someone else down. I feel sorry for you.

  148. Dave Springer;
    My apologies, typo above. I meant IR not IT. IT penetrates water just fine. throw the computers into the water and see if you don’t believe me. I’ve been told that while the computers sink, the programmers frequently float. I believe this to be evidence that computer programmers may be witches.

  149. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 11, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    to Dave Springer

    “the records are limited because those aurora were in the past seen and recorded mostly in the cities. After 1900 street light has made very difficult to see these auroras and mobody cared to report the aurora as seen in the country-side.”

    WTF? We’re talking 1966 not 1666. In 1966, incredible as it may seem to boys your age, we had telephones, radio, AND television not to mention hundreds of millions of people living in mid-northern latitudes away from streetlights. No aurora visible in mid-latitudes went unreported between 1966 and present. The excuse you just pulled out of your backside is unacceptable and absurd on the face of it. You’re either lazy or hiding something. Either way it’s a FAIL.

    “You argument with the clous is not valid. More auroras were seen during the multidecadal cold periods, that is the most cloudy ones.”

    Really? I thought it was common knowledge that clear nights are the cold ones and cloudy nights are the warm ones. I’m afraid that’s another FAIL. Three strikes and you’re out. Don’t try bullshitting me a third time.

    ” Moreover, there aurora are not observed in just one location but in a very large region.”

    Which is bloody well why no aurora could possibly have been missed after 1966 because so very much of the Northern Hemisphere was populated, even in rural locations, with instantaneous communications. The number of astronomical observatories on mountaintops alone by 1966 makes your premise incredibly poorly thought out. I hope the rest of your work isn’t as shallow but now I wonder.

  150. So, going back to davidmhoffer 8:28pm

    You think my answer was wrong? Unfortunately your question was not precise – you did not ask me to compare the force the earth exerts on me with the force I exert on the earth. You asked to to compare “the effect”. You are perfectly correct in that the forces are equal, but unfortunately I chose, recognising the ambiguity, to compare the magnitude of a different effect, one which gives a better illustration of the importance of size and mass. Which one? – the gravitational potential which determines the accelerations.

    Which means that the rest of your somewhat pompous lecture is irrelevant, or worse. I never stated that I thought the distance between myself and the earth was zero (read it more carefully),
    and I am well aware of center-of-mass motion. Indeed I seem to have a better idea of where the barycenter of the solar system is than you do, as I know that it changes position slowly and it is sometimes within the structure of the sun and sometimes outside.

    So to tides – two problems with your comments here. Firstly the effect of Jupiter does not “have years to build up” because sun rotates! In fact the rotation is different for different regions of the sun, being about 25 days at the equator and 36 at the poles. It is this differential rotation that is though to cause the very strong magnetic fields which cause sun spots, according to what is known as the Babcock model. And people think that the magnetic field of Jupiter 800 million kilometers away can have an effect on something like that…
    The other mistake you made was to get your magnitudes wrong – if you get the right masses and distances you can work out that the ‘tides” on the sun caused by the planets are less than 1mm. If you think that could have an effect then here is a reference to a paper, 35 years old but still unchallenged http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1975SoPh…42..529C/0000531.000.html

    Oh, and it is the gravitational accelerations that cause the tides…

  151. Volker Doormann (November 11, 2011 at 11:25 am) declared:
    “I’m off.”

    Yes. Here’s your 1800 year cycle:

    Keeling, C.D.; & Whorf, T.P. (2000). The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change. PNAS 97(8), 3814-3819.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full.pdf

    It’s child’s play to trace it hierarchically / historically up to longer J-S cycles of the solar system, but that’s deflecting attention – via confounding – away from home (Earth-Moon system).

  152. @hoffer

    IR doesn’t penetrate water during a rainstorm. It’s still water and it’s still opaque to IR. You have quite the tendency to rewrite history. You were never able to produce any evidence whatsoever that downwelling far infrared can slow down the rate of heat loss from the ocean. You feeling sorry for me is like Pee Wee Herman feeling sorry for Brad Pitt, by the way. I doubt Pitt would care and I surely don’t. I don’t feel anything for you except a certain fondness like what a dog might feel for a chew toy before he destroys it. :-)

  153. Dave Springer at 11:51 am

    You didn’t get an impressive score on the verbal part of the SAT, didja?

    Well they didn’t have SAT’s when I was at school, and I think you mean the written part.

    But let’s try analysing my opening sentence “Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science”
    So firstly what does the “this” refer to – well clearly it is this particular paper, not any other paper, not a whole field of science, just this one.
    Now “without a physical mechanism” , what is that – well the paper notices a correlation, and suggests a mechanism. But I am saying the mechanism is implausible i.e it is not a physical mechanism i.e not one founded surely in physics.
    So to “astrology” – well if it is not a mechanism which is securely founded in physics, then the paper is suggesting a influence of the planetary motions without a physical origin – and what is that – well it is astrology, not science.
    “science” – curve fitting is not science.

    So you can disagree with my point about physically plausible mechanisms if you want – so why don’t you try to explain what you think their mechanism is, and whether it is sensible, and if you cannot, then say what you description of the paper is.

  154. davidmhoffer says:
    November 11, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 11, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    “Dave Springer; See how easy it is to have a civil conversation about a complex topic?”

    Any possibility of that went out the window when you talked about me losing a few teeth over some perceived slight. Besides, I can’t have a conversation about a complex topic with you. That implies an exchange of ideas between peers. All I can do with you is lecture and that’s not possible if you won’t STFU. So I’m left doing drive-by corrections and some mockery for the entertainment value.

  155. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 11, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Volker Doormann (November 11, 2011 at 11:25 am) declared:
    “I’m off.”

    Yes. Here’s your 1800 year cycle:

    Keeling, C.D.; & Whorf, T.P. (2000). The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change. PNAS 97(8), 3814-3819.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full.pdf

    It’s child’s play to trace it hierarchically / historically up to longer J-S cycles of the solar system, but that’s deflecting attention – via confounding – away from home (Earth-Moon system).

    That link to the Scripps paper is awesome. How the heck did they ever get it published when it proposes a natural cycle of rapid cooling happening every 1800 years when tidal force from the moon is strongest at the equator and then maximizes mixing of cold deep water with warm shallow water.

    I had no idea that tides had any periodicity longer than the 9 and 18 year cycles caused by lunar orbital precession. But I guess there must be quite a few others now that I think about it. The earth’s axis precesses in a cycle of 26,000 thousand years so there’s going to be a change in tides due to that as well.

    Thanks for the link. And thanks for the laugh “Yes”. Good one.

  156. Ian W at 6:47 am

    “Now you are emphasizing that the effect of gravitational fields are extremely small. But how much force is necessary to keep a planet with a mass of 1.9 x 1027 kg in orbit? The continual velocity change requires a continual acceleration toward the Sun. You think that this requires only an infinitesimally small force?”

    No I think it needs the acceleration due to the gravitational potential of an object 1000 times as massive.

    “Stars like the Sun are being identified as having planets around them by the fact that the stars ‘wobble’ due to the orbit of their planets around them. Or more correctly the stars and their planets are orbiting their barycenter – their center of mass. But magically you postulate that the Sun is different it has no wobble indeed the planets around it have no effect whatsoever as the force from the planets is so small? I thought that you were trying to take the scientific position. ”

    OK so since various people have mentioned it, I think it is time to think about what this wobble means (I have never denied its existence by the way). Lets try a thought experiment, what physics calls a “to first approximation” scenario, which is useful for working out the most important features, and then asking how the real system differs.

    So take a solar system with just a star and a heavy planet. Now imagine a model which is just two weights connected by a rod. Find the balance point, which is the center of mass. Let the two object rotate about that point. If you are and observer outside the system what do you see? Well the “star” is sometime one side of the center of mass, sometimes the other, so to an outside observer it appears to “wobble” in its position. But here’s the important bit – that wobble has no effect on the properties of the star because all the distances are constant So thats the “to first approximation” – the wobble is simply the rotation about the center of mass, and has no effect on the properties of the star. Now the real system – because the planet has an elliptical rather than a circular orbit, its distance varies slightly. It is only this variation which might cause a change in the properties of the star. Jupiter’s distance changes by about 4% from maximum to minimum – so the question is, can that modulation have a significant effect? I say no.

  157. Ooops! My apologies. I goofed above with reference to the center of gravity between Jupiter and the sun. It turns out that if only the sun and Jupiter existed in their present orbits, the center of gravity is actually outside the surface of the sun. Here are the important numbers:
    Mass of the sun = 1.99 x 10^30 kg.
    Mass of Jupiter = 1.90 x 10^27 kg.
    Mean orbital radius of Jupiter = 7.78 x 10^11 m.
    So the center of mass between Jupiter and the sun is
    7.78 x 10^11 m x 1.90 x 10^27 kg/1.99 x 10^30 kg = 7.43 x 10^8 m.
    However the sun’s equatorial radius is 6.96 x 10^8 m. This, of course, is less than the center of mass for Jupiter and the sun. The other planets will either add or subtract to this center of mass, depending on their location relative to Jupiter.

  158. jimmy_the_dalek;

    good points.
    I’d forgotten the rotation of the sun, but my point still stands. The moon raises quite the tide in a 24 hour cycle. Jupiter has weeks. Only one millimeter? Let’s take your word for it at this point. While the earth is covered mostly in water, it is a fairly thin layer compared to the diameter of the planet as a whole. The sun on the other hand is molten (though it may have a core of some sort that is different for a variety of reasons) but the fact of the matter is that gravitational pull from something the size of Jupiter shifts things inside the sun as well as raising a tide. As Werner Brozek pointed out, when the planets aligne, the centre of mass actually lies outside of the surface of the sun. That’s quite the wobble to impose on something as big as the sun and at the same time claim that variations in orbit don’t affect climate on earth because it is “impossible”. Consider also that if Jupiter and Saturn can raise tides on the sun and cause it to wobble about itself in space, that they also affect the orbit of the earth. For all we know, the fluctuations induced in earth’s orbit are the larger factor than changes induced in the sun, or perhaps they are additive, or perhaps they work against each other. We need not know the answer to those questions in order to observe that specific alignments of the planets and moon in relation to the earth correlate to climactic conditions. If so, let us investigate and discover the reasons why, or if it is a coincidence.

    If coincidence, it is a really really BIG coincidence. But impossible? Hardly.

  159. Dave Springer;
    Have you read the book “How to Win Friends and Influence People”?

    If not, perhaps you should. If you have, might I suggest you do so again, but this time don’t read it upside down and backwards.

  160. Leif said,

    Just cranking through the same data the same way is not replication

    Pity no one pointed this out to Muller and the BEST team.

  161. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 11, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    Dave Springer at 11:51 am

    “You didn’t get an impressive score on the verbal part of the SAT, didja?

    Well they didn’t have SAT’s when I was at school, and I think you mean the written part.

    ____________________________________________________________________

    Sir, FORGIVE ME! The SAT became a standard metric for university admissions in the year 1926 when some 8,000 students took it. That makes you over 100 years old!!!! I would never in a million years make fun of a man your age.

    The SAT is entirely written, by the way. When I took it in 1978 there was a verbal section and a math section each with a maximum possible score of 800 points. I had a combined score of 1480 which is in the 99.97th percentile. I’m actually somewhat higher than that as I had a perfect score on the math portion of the test so it was not difficult enough to fully measure my math aptitude.

    Anyhow, forgive me for messing with you, a centenarian. May you live another hundred years!

  162. JJ at 11:23 pm

    So, pulling the trigger on a gun cannot be the cause of a murder, because the four or five pounds of force it takes to pull a trigger is not of deadly magnitude?

    Well you have just put a major positive feedback in there – pulling the trigger initiates a chemical reaction. I hope you are not going to say the earth’s climate system has major positive feedbacks, because around here people tend to shout at you for that.

    The period and magnitude of the ocean tides changes a little from cycle to cycle, therefore the moon, with its precise orbit, cannot be the origin of tides?

    The amplitude changes, which is entirely explainable as due to the positions of moon, sun and their distances from the earth. I do not think there are major changes in the period – do you have information to the contrary?

  163. @Dave Springer (November 11, 2011 at 3:24 pm)

    …And all the solar system barycenter chattering you hear is also confounded with things closer to home:

    Keeling, C.D. & Whorf, T.P. (1997). Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides. PNAS 94(16), 8321-8328.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8321.full.pdf

    I’ve pointed out the confounding before, but many accidentally misinterpret and others deliberately misrepresent. The way the game goes for obfuscators seems to be something like: If I say climate drives EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters), they claim I said EOP drive climate. If I say lunisolar cycles are detectable in the QBO, they claim I said Jupiter drives terrestrial global average temperatures. Something like that.

  164. @ Dave Springer
    The aurora catalog was not compiled by me. The appropriate reference are in the paper: read them or write to those authors for explanation. The above is the exaplantion I heard from people expert in those records. The record that ends in 1966 refers to the Faroes’ Island that are located North England which were quite more isolated than the central and north Europe where it was becoming increasingly difficult to see mid-latitude aurora and people lost interest in emphasizing them as they were doing in the past.

    @ Ged
    well written!

    It is very inappropriate in science to dismiss a finding based on specific records simply claiming that different records do not show the same identical patterns. Each record is produced by its own physics and each record stresses the patterns compatible with its own physics. It is perfectly normal that different records present different patterns. Thus, a comparison may be made only after that the physical link between two records is established.

    So what people do is to look for those records and thecniques that may reveal a physical coupling mechanism that other records may not reveal as well or as clearly.

    If all records would present the same identical patterns everything would be linearly coupled to everything else and no errors would exist, which is not the case in natural systems.

    The problem with Leif is that he does not appear to understand basic phylosophy or how science of complex systems really works. It is like as if I say that today in NY it is raining, and Leif responds that I am wrong because he looked at the weather in CT and it was not raining so he could not replicate my claim! Does such a reasoning make any sense to anybody?

    As Ged understood, “There are references though, and mounting data that shows this 60 year phenomenon”. In figure 3 of my paper I show some of these records, but many others are present in the references.

    Not all records present the same identical patterns. So what? the correct question is to understand why. Is it because the chosen data are very local? is it because the data are disrupted by something else? is it because there are errors in the measurments? is it because the data are mostly sensitive to something else? is it because the data are just different? is it because of complex non linear couplings? etc.

    Moreover, in Figure 11 I buid a model based on these cycles and show that the relative climate patterns can be forecasted with a precision far above the IPCC models.

    So, Leif just need to be more open minded and stop with his hand waving logic that proves nothing about my paper and much about his behavior. If he does not like my theory he is very welcome to propose an alternative theory and shows that it works better than mine!

    For example, does Leif know of any IPCC climate model that has been able to “forecast” the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2010 and backward from 1850 to 1950 as I show in my figure 11B? Please, name one!

    @ jimmi_the_dalek:
    in the paper I do not do just curve fitting. I show that the harmonic model based on those specific astronomical cycles seen inthe aurora record from 1700 to 1900, for example, is able to forecast the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2010. You may fit a record with an infinity of curves that you like, but if the functions that you use have nothing to do with the dynamics of the system, that same model would immediately fail any forecasting.

    Your definition of science (a theory must be supported by a mechanism, if not it is astrology) has nothing to do with science but with methaphysics. In science a theory should be able to agree with the data and reproduce and forecast them. The ultimate mechanisms may be simply unknown. All science of complexity is based on the assumptions that a macroscopic system can be described by using empirical models which do not need to be explicitly backed by microscopic physical explanations. And the ultimate mechanisms explaining the fundaments of physics are unknown (what is the mechanisms that explain gravity, what is the mechanisms that explain the time contraction in special relativity? etc).

  165. Werner Brozek says:
    November 11, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    Ooops! My apologies. I goofed above with reference to the center of gravity between Jupiter and the sun. It turns out that if only the sun and Jupiter existed in their present orbits, the center of gravity is actually outside the surface of the sun. Here are the important numbers:
    Mass of the sun = 1.99 x 10^30 kg.
    Mass of Jupiter = 1.90 x 10^27 kg.
    Mean orbital radius of Jupiter = 7.78 x 10^11 m.
    So the center of mass between Jupiter and the sun is
    7.78 x 10^11 m x 1.90 x 10^27 kg/1.99 x 10^30 kg = 7.43 x 10^8 m.
    However the sun’s equatorial radius is 6.96 x 10^8 m. This, of course, is less than the center of mass for Jupiter and the sun. The other planets will either add or subtract to this center of mass, depending on their location relative to Jupiter.

    Yes, you can google that in a few seconds although I already knew it. The center of mass just clears the surface. However, of the raduis sun is about 700,000 kilometers and it orbits the center of mass once every 12 years, so Jupiter causes the sun to wobble at a speed of 0.2 meters per second. So when trying to detect planets around another star we have to be able to see a red/blue shift in the star’s light (given it’s exactly edge-on to us) of about a half-meter per second. Light travels at 300,000,000 meters per second so this frequency shift represents about two parts per billion and it would take twelve years to see one full cycle of the shift. This gives you some idea of why it’s so difficult to detect planets around other stars. Now imagine there are multiple planets, which is usually the case, mucking up the frequency shift as they all orbit with different periods. It’s quite the sticky wicket and there’s no small amount of controversy except in the cases of one or two gas giants in very close orbits.

  166. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 11, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    “So take a solar system with just a star and a heavy planet. Now imagine a model which is just two weights connected by a rod. Find the balance point, which is the center of mass. Let the two object rotate about that point. If you are and observer outside the system what do you see? Well the “star” is sometime one side of the center of mass, sometimes the other, so to an outside observer it appears to “wobble” in its position. But here’s the important bit – that wobble has no effect on the properties of the star because all the distances are constant So thats the “to first approximation” – the wobble is simply the rotation about the center of mass, and has no effect on the properties of the star. Now the real system – because the planet has an elliptical rather than a circular orbit, its distance varies slightly. It is only this variation which might cause a change in the properties of the star. Jupiter’s distance changes by about 4% from maximum to minimum – so the question is, can that modulation have a significant effect? I say no.”

    You fail to take into account the sun’s rotational period vs. the orbital period about the sun/jupiter barycenter. The latter I happen to know is 12 years. I don’t think the sun and Jupiter are tidally locked like the earth and the moon so let me look up the former… that’s about 25 days. So Jupiter is going to produce some tides on the sun. You and I would both be guessing if we said we knew what effect those tides might have although I’d tend to agree it’s going to be pretty minimal given the strength of Jupiter’s gravity on the sun is millions of times weaker than the moon’s pull on the earth.

    By the way, you WERE wrong about calling the OP astrology just because there’s no mechanism. A correlation without a known cause is a mystery. Science is full of mysteries. In fact science is all about mysteries! If there were no mysteries there would be nothing left to explain and nothing for science to do. Engineers could then take over (as if we don’t rule the roost already… lol) completely. Astrology on the other hand lacks mechanism AND correlation. If there’s no correlation there’s nothing to explain. It isn’t science until you can at least come up with some effect that needs explaining.

  167. My eyes were opened by a technical paper by W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe and N Willemse.

    Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development*

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/Alexanderetal2007.pdf

    This study is based on the numerical analysis of the properties of routinely observed
    hydrometeorological data which in South Africa alone is collected at a rate of more than
    half a million station days per year, with some records approaching 100 continuous years
    in length. The analysis of this data demonstrates an unequivocal synchronous linkage
    between these processes in South Africa and elsewhere, and solar activity. It is also shown with a high degree of assurance that there is a synchronous linkage between the statistically significant, 21-year periodicity in these processes and the acceleration and deceleration of the sun as it moves through galactic space.

  168. Leif Svalgaard says: November 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm
    …I use independent data of geomagnetic activity, … cosmic ray data, sunspot numbers, and even climate, and show that none of these show any 60-year cycle over long enough time periods [centuries]. Thus replication fails and the claim fails.

    Rubbish. Scafetta has already showed six different indices in his paper which all show with stunning clarity the formative presence of a 60-year cycle: PDO, AMO, auroras, monsoons, meteorites, and global temperatures (detrended etc). Thus replication has already succeeded so the claim holds so far. The correlations are highly evocative, I don’t know how to quantify them statistically but visually they shout. Thus the likelihood increases that your apparent non-correlations may have other factors at work, that do not disprove the presence of a 60-year cycle.

  169. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 11, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    @ Dave Springer
    The aurora catalog was not compiled by me. The appropriate reference are in the paper: read them or write to those authors for explanation. The above is the exaplantion I heard from people expert in those records. The record that ends in 1966 refers to the Faroes’ Island that are located North England which were quite more isolated than the central and north Europe where it was becoming increasingly difficult to see mid-latitude aurora and people lost interest in emphasizing them as they were doing in the past

    Here’s the bottom line Nicola. You have, at best, 120 years of semi-accurate temperature record to work with where the past 30 years (the satellite era) are by far the most accurate, precise, and the only part with anything that can be called “global” in coverage without snickering.

    Then, with your aurora data ending 45 years before the temperature data ends, you have a period of 85 years where you can look at both records for correlation. Now then, you’re trying to peddle a correlationon a 60-year cycle when you have only 1.3 cycles to compare. A correlation with a sample size of 1.3 isn’t statistically sound. In order to strengthen this you need to get extend the work of others and generate the most recent 45 years of aurora data and make it reasonably comparable to the other two. This will require some effort on your part, kiddo.

    Here’s what I would suggest. Find some small towns at a similar latitude with similar weather patterns similarly remote from any light pollution of larger cities and comb the local newspaper for aurora sightings. These rarely go unreported. Or let this paper of yours be consigned to insignificance with no citations and stay an assistant adjunct professor (what is that, anyway, one pay grade above a lecturer?) the rest of your life. I can lead a horse to water but I can’t make him drink.

  170. I believe that Dave Springer understood fully the issue.

    “A correlation without a known cause is a mystery. Science is full of mysteries. In fact science is all about mysteries! If there were no mysteries there would be nothing left to explain and nothing for science to do. Engineers could then take over (as if we don’t rule the roost already… lol) completely.”

    Here the real difference is between those who understand what sciene is about (there are correlations with unexplained misteries that need to be explained) and those who mistake science for engineering (the science is settled, no need to look forward).

    In climate science the major problem is that many people do not understand the difference between “science” and “engineering” any more. We have computer climate modellers, who properly speaking are engineers and not scientists, who go around claiming to be “scientists” and that the “science is settled”, and everytime a real scientist observes that the science is not settled because the data show specific patterns that the climate models do not explain, then the climate modellers start to deny the data and accuse the scientist of astrology just because he did not provide them a full and complete theory that they can implement in their models.

    Science does not start with a complete theory of everything. That is the ultimate goal of science, not its starting point! This is an important point for those that really want to understand science.

  171. Dave Springer;
    Here’s what I would suggest. Find some small towns at a similar latitude with similar weather patterns similarly remote from any light pollution of larger cities and comb the local newspaper for aurora sightings. These rarely go unreported. >>>

    If you had grown up in such a town (which I did, latitude 50) you’d be aware that auroras are so common that only a very intense display would ever make the local paper, and often not even then. Such a methodology would be complete hit and miss, and the exact opposite of the scientific precision which you demand.

  172. Dave Springer says:

    “When I took it in 1978 there was a verbal section and a math section each with a maximum possible score of 800 points. I had a combined score of 1480 which is in the 99.97th percentile.”

    Well, that beats my SAT score [I took it in 1966]. But I aced this test with 100% correct. ☺

  173. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 11, 2011 at 3:57 pm
    “…And all the solar system barycenter chattering you hear is also confounded with things closer to home:”

    I hear ya. Most people don’t know that gravitational problems involving more than two bodies are exceedingly difficult unless one of the bodies has an insignificant mass like an Apollo capsule heading to the moon or a deep space probe doing flybys of inner planets to generate delta-v. For n-body problems where n is greater than 3 only increasingly imprecise approximations are possible. Pretty much the same thing holds true for quantum mechanics and greater than two particles. Interestingly, Voyagers 1 and 2 aren’t in the predicted positions after decades of travel and reaching the outskirts of the solar system. One of them, I forget which, is about to penetrate the heliosphere shock-wave and reach into true interstellar space. There’s some fun arguments about why they aren’t where they’re supposed to be. Also, interestingly enough, their radiothermal power supply radioisotope fuel appears to have a half-life that is changing with distance from the sun. There’s some fun with that too. There’s also some weirdnesses with radioactive decay rates on earth changing with the seasons which also correlates with distance from the sun. Some pretty basic things in physics, the constancy of radioactive decay rates and the gravitational constant, are under assault from increasingly accurate observations. There’s a LOT of resistance to that, let me tell you. The list of excuses and excusers claiming the observations are somehow flawed is long, distinguished, and all really contrived if you axe me.

  174. Lucy Skywalker, thank you for your comment and for having read my paper: a thing that Leif and other critics did not do.

    I showed six different indices plus two planetary records (speed of the sun relative to the barycenter and tidal elongation at the Earth orbits) (which makes eight indexes explicitly shown in the figures).

    Plus in my 2010 paper I study the global north temperature, global south temperature, global ocean temperature, global ocean north temperature, global ocean south temperature, global land temperature, global land north temperature, global land south temperature, which make other eight indexes.

    Plus in my other 2011 paper with Mazzarella I show the same cycle in the NAO,and LOD, which makes other two indexes explicitly shown.

    Total 6+2+8+2=18 indexes

    plus I reference numerous other papers that enphasize the existence of a quasi 60-year cycle in the climate and solar records for centuries and millenia.

  175. Dave Springer says:
    November 11, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    “Then, with your aurora data ending 45 years before the temperature data ends, you have a period of 85 years where you can look at both records for correlation. Now then, you’re trying to peddle a correlationon a 60-year cycle when you have only 1.3 cycles to compare. A correlation with a sample size of 1.3 isn’t statistically sound.e, you have missed the point of the paper. ”

    Sorry Dave, you have missed the point of the paper!

  176. Smokey says:
    November 11, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Well, that beats my SAT score [I took it in 1966]. But I aced this test with 100% correct. ☺

    http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3B47-9675-41E0-9CF3-072BB31E2692&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

    I got a 94% on the civics test. Two questions wrong.

    I got the question about the Gettysburg Address wrong. I thought the phrase “government of the people, by the people, for the people” came out of the Constitution but it was Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. How embarrassing! But in my defense I only took “American History to 1850″ in college and that was enough to satisfy the general-education requirement. I haven’t seen the Gettysburg address since probably 1966 (fifth grade). I’ve read the constitution and all the amendments at least several times in the last 10 years though so it’s a weak excuse.

    But I’d argue there were two correct answers to the only other question I missed and that was “If government tax revenue equals government spending which of the following is true”

    1) there is no government debt
    2) wrong answer
    3) wrong answer
    4) the average taxes a person pays is equal to average government spending per person

    I believe both these responses are correct. I chose #1 and that was deemed incorrect. I considered which answer to choose for at least 30 seconds (an eternity for me) and couldn’t decide if one was superior to the other so I picked the one that seemed to better follow the political bias (conservative) of the person who formulated the test.

  177. Dave,

    I am a fair way from 100 yet – SAT means different things in different countries. In England it refers to a set of assessment tests first introduced in schools in 1191.

  178. davidmhoffer says:
    November 11, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Dave Springer;
    Here’s what I would suggest. Find some small towns at a similar latitude with similar weather patterns similarly remote from any light pollution of larger cities and comb the local newspaper for aurora sightings. These rarely go unreported. >>>

    “If you had grown up in such a town (which I did, latitude 50) you’d be aware that auroras are so common that only a very intense display would ever make the local paper, and often not even then. Such a methodology would be complete hit and miss, and the exact opposite of the scientific precision which you demand.”

    You just can’t stop digging your hole deeper, can you? Amazing.

    If you’d read the paper that Scafetta referenced you’d know that they were only reporting an average of maybe 5 sightings per year. I didn’t count them all and take an average but that’s accurate enough.

    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.dat.rev

    Surely some small observatory in some mid-latitude location where auroras can only be seen several times per year has a record from 1966 through today. The actual number they record per year doesn’t really matter much as it’s only the change from year to year that is of interest but it would be best to stick with about the same number as reported in the other catalogs for consistency as we want to try to match the minumum intensity level (apples to apples) when moving from one data source to another.

    If acquiring the data for non-trivial scientific research was easy anybody could do it. I specifically told Scafetta it might require some effort on his part and wondered whether he’s just lazy or he’s hiding something. I won’t be the only one wondering about that. It’s a pretty friggin’ glaring thing to cut off a data set for a commonly observed astronomical event in 1966.

    What would you think about a global warming claim where they lopped off the temperature data in 1966?

    Oh wait, we already know the answer to that. That’s what the climategate emails revealed. They chopped off the tree ring data (pun intended) 20 years early, circa 1960, and stitched in the instrument record from that point forward because the tree ring data went “off message” at that point which meant, if they’d included it, it would have impeached the credibility of the prior years of tree ring data . The skeptics screamed bloody murder when they found out.

    Well, Hoffman, I don’t like double standards and if I protest something an AGW pundit did with the data I’m going to hold an AGW skeptic to the same standard. Write that down. It’s called intellectual honesty. You might be an intellectual in your next life and need to know that.

    What Scafetta did in this paper was plug some easily located numbers into a statistical analysis program (which is pretty much all he’s ever done in his short academic career), found some interesting correlations, produced some graphs, and imagined some mechanisms to explain them. Unfortunately the key data set, aurora frequency, leaves a lot to be desired both in quality and number of years that can be compared with global temperature data.

    Now as for you I strongly urge you to heed this sage advice:

    It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. ~Abraham Lincoln

    and this:

  179. Dave Springer;
    “If government tax revenue equals government spending which of the following is true”
    1) there is no government debt
    2) wrong answer
    3) wrong answer
    4) the average taxes a person pays is equal to average government spending per person
    I believe both these responses are correct.>>>

    Had the word “deficit” been used instead of the word “debt”, you may have had an argument with merit. As you didn’t differentiate the meaning based on the word “debt” versus “deficit”, you got the answer wrong.

  180. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 11, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Dave,

    I am a fair way from 100 yet – SAT means different things in different countries. In England it refers to a set of assessment tests first introduced in schools in 1191.
    ______________________________________

    I was just messin’ with ya. Couldn’t resist. Maybe science and astrology have different meanings in England too. In any U.S. context you were wrong. Astrology has no consistent replicable correlations between star/planet positions and things about people’s lives that hold up under any scrutiny. Scafetta found some valid correlations between climate data and astronomical observations. Or at least they appear valid at first blush but I do have my doubts about the sufficiency of the aurora data after a bit more scrutiny.

  181. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 11, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    “Sorry Dave, you have missed the point of the paper!”

    Silly me!

    I thought the point of the paper was in the title.

    A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature.

    My concerns addressed precisely what is described in the title.

    So what exactly IS the point?

  182. davidmhoffer says:
    November 11, 2011 at 7:22 pm
    Dave Springer;
    “If government tax revenue equals government spending which of the following is true”
    1) there is no government debt
    2) wrong answer
    3) wrong answer
    4) the average taxes a person pays is equal to average government spending per person
    I believe both these responses are correct.>>>

    Had the word “deficit” been used instead of the word “debt”, you may have had an argument with merit. As you didn’t differentiate the meaning based on the word “debt” versus “deficit”, you got the answer wrong.

    —————————————————

    There would be no debt accrued in any year where #4 held true. In any year where debt was accrued #4 could not be true. They travel hand in hand.

    Your logic, unsurprisingly, fails you.

  183. Dave Springer;
    Surely some small observatory in some mid-latitude location where auroras can only be seen several times per year has a record from 1966 through today. >>>

    Amidst your rambling rant telling me how stupid I am and how smart you are, you said the above. Sorry sir, but your original suggestion was that Nicola Scafetta comb through the newspaper records of small towns for mention of aurrora events. I pointed out to you that this would be a completely inadequate methodology, and why. Your entire rant is predicated upon using observatory data, which is NOT what you suggested, nor what I was rebutting. If that is what you meant to say in the first place, then I’m certain a man of your obvious intellect would see that your wording in your original statement did not match your intent, and your apology on the matter is accepted.

    If on the other hand you wish to maintain that your original position and this position are in agreement with one another, hence exposing my obvious intellectual short comings, then by all means feel free to do so. Your hypocracy is duly noted.

  184. Dave Springer;
    There would be no debt accrued in any year where #4 held true. In any year where debt was accrued #4 could not be true. They travel hand in hand.
    Your logic, unsurprisingly, fails you.>>>

    In any given time period during which there is no DEFICIT, there is no ADDITONAL debt incurred. This says absolutely nothing about any debts which were incurred in previous time periods and which are still being carried. Logic has nothing to do with it, all one needs is an understanding of the terminology.

  185. @Dave Springer
    “If you’d read the paper that Scafetta referenced you’d know that they were only reporting an average of maybe 5 sightings per year.”

    Sorry Dave, you are not understanding the issue,

    The record that I use since 1700 contains up to 140 events per year.
    Look at figure 1B in my paper, it is quite clear. The record before 1700 is quite incomplete so I did not use it. After 1900 it has also become so incomplete that the record stopped to be collected.

    You are not understanding these data. The data are likely accurate enougth between 1700 to 1900, and for the Faroes up to 1966.
    From 1700 to 1900 there was a great interest of the people in recording these data in the newspapers. Before 1700 there were not many newpapers around not much interest (which started likely with Newton) and after 1900 the interest collapsed in Europe also because it was getting harder to see these aurora from the bright cities.

    You should understand that the people that collected these aurora data were professionists, not idiots. They knew what they were doing. They compared several sources to determine the great auroras, they did not get the data from just one town.

    Moreover, you are not understanding the tecnique of analisis which is based of frequencies estimates, not on the actual amplitudes. To have a consistent record for frequency estimates you just need that the data are collected in some similar standard way, which is what was happening from 1700 to 1900, and for the Faroes up to about 1966.

    The two records of auroras that I analyze contain common major peaks of frequencies such as the 10, 20 and the 60 year cycles, see figure 4. The same peaks are found for the temperature. Moreover the 60-year cycles data back to 1700 in proxy models as I show in Figure 3

    The probability that everything coincide by coincidence is quite slim. Try it by yourself. Take two random sequences and ckeck whether they contain the same frequencies and are correlated like the records that I used in my paper.

    In any case, if you believe that you understand auroras records better than the people that have collected them, you are very welcome to visit several towns around in the Us, in Europe and in Russia and look at the their newspapers if they have it, collect your better catalog of great aurora record and then send the record to me.

    In my opinion these records have a very high quality compared to several other records that we have since 1700, and it is the only record that we have that refers to “direct observations” of the electric properties of the space and upper atmosphere since 1700, and the dates are exact. So, it is far above to any kind of ground based “proxy” model despite what Leif claims.

    The scientific quality of these aurora records is probably far above for geografical estension, for time continuity, for number of people indirectly invoved in the direct measurements (several hundred thousands, perhaps millions people just looking at the sky) and for timing and for number of written records than many other records we have, including the CET records.

    I know that you would like to have “perfect” and “infinite” data, but in geophysics we get what we get. We cannot go back in time and repeat the observations in an experimentally controlled way. This is part of the complexity of the problem. We need to put together pieces of informations from multiple records which may be incomplete and filled with uncontrolled uncertenties.

  186. Thanks for the post on this paper but I must say I find the response from some of the contributors a bit silly.

    The paper is another very useful contribution and the periodicities support work such as “Influence of Zodiac Dust on the Earth’s Climate” by Victor Ermakov, Victor Okhlopkov, and Yuri Stozhkov as well as the other work referred to. Different or related mechanism but still related to cloud formation.

    I find it utterly ludicrous that when analysing the climate of a spinning planet with an orbiting moon which in turn orbit a star in company with other planets and other material in the solar system and noting a whole series of periodicities in major planetary climatic/weather systems ( ENSO etc) that one would not start with the assumption of cyclical patterns influenced by the solar system generally ( considering the range of possible direct and indirect mechanisms) and only stop when you could not find any. The 60 odd year cycle is plain to see in the instrument temperature record as is the 1-11 year cycle in smoothed data so a Fourier or similar analysis is entirely warranted. Given the awareness of the 11 and 22 year solar cycles otherwise from sunspot and other direct solar observations / measurements I just wonder who the “deniers” are. I am reminded of that song by Dire Straits exhorting the listener to remember that when pointing a finger there are three more fingers pointing back at you.

    But then I am an engineer not a scientist, WTF would I know or understand?

  187. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 11, 2011 at 8:41 am
    The aurora record presents that cycle and we can say that the aurora record has been collected by using as detector the entire Earth in the space. The geomagnetic activity index that you like, which was collected at some specific location on the ground, does not show exactly the same pattern?
    The geomagnetic record is a global average of many stations all over the world.

    The two observables are not the same thing, evidently.
    We have a good understanding of both and they are just two sides of the same thing. Invariably [that is every single time] when you have a mid-latitude aurora you also have a strong magnetic disturbance, as has been known since the 1750s [slides 3-4 of http://www.leif.org/research/H02-FRI-O1430-0550.pdf ]. If there had been an auroral 60-yr cycle the last 170 years, there would also had been a magnetic activity cycle of 60 years, and there isn’t. This is evidence enough against your claim.

    The sunspot number (sampled every day) does not have a 60-yr cycle. Your ideas about the magnetosphere as expressed in the paper [which I have read, of course] are just mush and contradicted by the data. Some reading up on that might be helpful to you. Amazing the reviewer didn’t take you to task on this. Tidal effects are minute [less than a millimeter] and cannot have any effect, and you forget that the Sun is rotating so a tidal bulge would roll over a given location every 13 days just as the tidal bulge caused by our Moon has a 12.5 hour period.

  188. Doesn’t that 60 year or so climate cycle result from oceanic variability rather than solar variability ?

    Specifically the phase changes of the Pacific Multidecadal Oascillation (not PDO as Bob Tisdale keeps reminding us) whereby for about 30 years El Nino events dominate over La Nina and then for the next 30 years or so La Nina dominates over El Nino.

    In order to link solar events to that phenomenon it is necessary to find a causative mechanism but I don’t see one on such a short timescale.

    However on a 500 to 1000 year timescale as from MWP to LIA to date I do see a connection whereby slow changes in average solar activity across multiple solar cycles do seem to alter the net balance between El Nino and La Nina over successive 60 year oceanic cycles.That leads to the upward ‘stepping’ in tropospheric temperatures from one oceanic cycle to the next that has been observed ver the last 150 years.Presumably there was a similar downward stepping from MWP to LIA.

    Solar induced loudiness and albedo changes arising from latitudinal climate zone shifting is my favoured explanation for trhat rather than cosmic rays.

    To get a good solar/astronomic link to the 60 year timescale we need much better correlations than we have at present but the aurora data is a helpful move in the right direction.

    Leif’s negativity is fine as a tool to test the data and hypotheses but I think there is more to it than he currently accepts.

  189. Since cosmic rays were part of the mechanism proposed [and also is a measure of solar activity] it would be a crucial test of Scafetta’s ideas simply to plot his modulation function P1(t) vs cosmic rays as given by the 10Be record. We have a nice record from McCracken and Beer [Long-term changes in the cosmic ray intensity at Earth, 1428-2005, McCracken, K. G.; Beer, J., Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue A10, CiteID A10101, 2007]. So here is the result: http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-Function-vs-Cosmic-Rays.png [the curves are on arbitrary scales and offset in order to make the comparison easier]. R^2 for a correlation is very small 0.06 and is not considered significant, but it is also evident just by looking at the curves that there is no correlation and no common 60-yr cycle. Again FAIL.

  190. Stephen Wilde says:
    November 11, 2011 at 11:41 pm
    Leif’s negativity is fine as a tool to test the data and hypotheses but I think there is more to it than he currently accepts.
    My negativity comes from analysis [as above] and not from opinion. As I have said many times, I would love that there was some real correlations as that would vastly improved my funding situation, but, alas, is doesn’t seem there is. The notion of ‘open mind’ is silly.One should go as far as the data takes you, but not much further.

  191. Now let’s make this absolutely clear:

    Business of the 60 year cycle in the magnetosphere was raised by myself in an exchange involving Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Loehle on the Judith Curry’s blog:

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-on-climate-change-attribution/#comment-90560

    Although it was meant as a half-hearted comment, which is obvious from the tone of my post, but to my surprise, it was then taken seriously by both Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Loehle.

    I have looked into this, analysing number indicators considered as acceptable and widely available data sunspot record, Ap index, the Arctic’s magnetic field differential and McCracken data for the strength of magnetosphere at the Earth’s orbit, no evidence was found for consistent 60 year cycle.
    I did not look into auroras, but if I had data I would not taken it as reliable enough, since the other four relevant and by the science accepted data-sets have drawn a blank.
    McCracken data (he is retired NASA scientist) should be the first and a must reference to anyone investigating magnetosphere, but there is no mention of it in Scafetta’s work.
    Neither Dr. Leohle or Dr. Scafetta have prior to the above exchange on Climate etc. blog shown any interest in magnetosphere’s effects as far as I know, but Dr. Scafetta should be able to give precise details if he did, since Dr. Loehle has withdrawn from the equation in this new paper.
    My ‘credentials’ in this area as ‘good or lousy’ are well known to the WUWT readers, but I do invite those interested to visit the above link and familiarise themselves with the exchange.
    I also invite Dr. Scafetta to comment.

    [Vuk – I have removed the bold tags from your comment. This is akin to SHOUTING and is not considered polite on blogs. If you wish to highlight small passages in bold that is fine, but not your whole comment ~ jove, mod]

  192. Sorry Leif,

    You are just making confusion by randomly using proposed proxy data in an inappropriate way.

    The proxy models must be used with intelligence. The aurora record I use is not a proxy model but direct observation of what was happening in the upper atmosphere. So, it is far above any of your proxy models.

    For example, when using a proxy model for cosmic ray or other, you need first to understand that it is a proxy model and not a direct measurement, then you need to understand that those kind of proxy model might have huge uncertenties, then you need to understand that a given proxy model may refer not to any kind of cosmic rays but to specific cosmic ray energy bands, then you need to understand that it is not yet known which kind of cosmic rays may be influencing the cloud system most, then you need to understand that cosmic rays alone may not be sufficient because there might be other effect directly related to the electric properties of the athmosphere that may be regulated by something more than just cosmic ray, etc.

    Then you need to look at the data that I explicitly report in the paper istead of just randomly look at what you like.

    Then you need to read the references used in the paper.

    For example

    Earth(Klyashtorin,2001; KlyashtorinandLyubushin,2007;
    Klyashtorinetal.,2009; Le Mou¨el et al.,2008; Camuffoetal.,
    2010; Agnihotri etal.,2002; Agnihotriand Dutta,2003; Sinha etal.,2005; Goswami,2006; Yadava andRamesh,2007; Mazzarellaand
    Scafetta, 2011; Jevrejeva etal.,2008;
    Yuetal.,1983; Patterson et al.,2004; Ogurtsovetal.,2002; Roberts
    et al.,2007;Komitov(2009)

    Just few papers that contradicts your claims:

    The “Sun – climate” relationship. II. The “cosmogenic” beryllium and the middle
    latitude aurora. Boris Komitov

    http://www.astro.bas.bg/~komitov/07_BKomitov.pdf

    see figure 7

    Another paper is
    Late Holocene sedimentary response to solar and cosmic ray
    activity influenced climate variability in the NE Pacific
    Patterson et al.

    http://fossil.earthsci.carleton.ca/~tpatters/pubs2/2004/patterson2004sedgeol172_67-84.pdf

    see figure 11 and 12 with their huge peak at around 60 year.

    Another paper is
    LONG-PERIOD CYCLES OF THE SUN’S ACTIVITY RECORDED IN
    DIRECT SOLAR DATA AND PROXIES
    OGURTSOV et al.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1740143246t005l/fulltext.pdf

    several figures show spectral peaks around 60 year

    Many other papers do the same.

    Thus, as Lucy Skywalker says ( November 11, 2011 at 5:05)

    Your confused way of reasoning is just “Rubbish. Scafetta has already showed six different indices in his paper which all show with stunning clarity the formative presence of a 60-year cycle: PDO, AMO, auroras, monsoons, meteorites, and global temperatures (detrended etc). Thus replication has already succeeded so the claim holds so far. The correlations are highly evocative, I don’t know how to quantify them statistically but visually they shout. Thus the likelihood increases that your apparent non-correlations may have other factors at work, that do not disprove the presence of a 60-year cycle.”

    So, please, stop reasoning in a rubbish way and open your mind.
    If you start showing a little bit of respect and try a small apology it would not be a bad idea also.

  193. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    (November 12, 2011 at 2:17 am) Now let’s make this absolutely clear:

    Vukcevic, the blog on Judith Curry’s blog web-site started in 2011/07/25

    My above paper was submitted on 2011/04/20 and written much before that.

    Moreover I also talk about it in my 2010 paper section 6 I write for example

    “These gravitational and magnetic forces act as externalf orcings of the solar dynamo, of the solar
    wind and of the Earth–Moon system and may modulate boths olar dynamics and, directly or indirectly, through the Sun,the climate of the Earth.”

  194. Comment for the moderator, not required to go into the thread.
    Hi Jove
    Thanks. Originally post was meant to be the first paragraph, the link and the last sentence, as a kind of attention atractor, but then I kept inserting more in between, and as the post expanded I forgot to move /b sign. Maybe I should learn a bit more about the bloging etiquette. I still don’t know how to insert the ‘smiley’ face.

  195. Dr. Scafetta .. this week saying:

    “I can forecast climate with a good proximity. See figure 11. In this new paper the physical link between astronomical oscillations and climate is further confirmed.

    Figure 11 is important because it shows for the first time that climate can be forecast based on astronomical harmonics with a good accuracy.

    I use a methodology similar to Kelvin’s one and calibrate the model from 1850 to 1950 and I show that the model predicts the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2010, and I show also that the vice-versa is possible.

    Nicola Scafetta. Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Volume 72, Issue 13, August 2010, Pages 951-970”

    For the records:

    From: Volker Doormann
    Subject: Astrologie und Klima
    Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:48:28 +0100
    Organization: doormann.org
    Message-ID:

    Ich habe gerade einen Geometrischen Harmonie Index (GHI) gefunden,
    der, so wie es aussieht, nicht nur fuer laenger zurrueckliegende Zeiten
    mit dem Ausbleiben der Sonnenflecken, wie im 17. Jahrhundert
    zusammenfaellt, sondern auch, weil es ein einfacher astrologischer
    Index ist, fuer die Zukunft die Sonnen Aktivitaet bestimmen kann. Fuer
    die naechsten Jahrzehnte wuerde sich danach die Sonnen Aktivitaet weiter
    verringern, was dann mit einer Abnahme der mittleren Temperatur
    einhergehen wuerde. Ich bin gerade dabei den Geometrischen Harmonie Index auch fuerr die
    zurueck liegenden Zeiten bis ~2000 B.C. zu berechnen.

    Volker

    The index I have called Geometric Harmonic Index (GHI) in February 2010 is based und two discoveries I did in that month. The first discovery was that I have found that the synodic frequency of the plutinos Quaoar and Pluto was 1827.07 years^-1 [ 1/f = 1/(1/248.09-1/287.07) = 1827.07 years^-1 ], which correlates with the half main frequency J.R. Eddy and Dansgaard have found in samples. The second discovery was that the temperature phases of the data from both J.R Eddy and Dansgaard where coherent in time with the solar tide function of the plutino couple in that way that Nip tides correspond to cold times like the LIA, and Spring tides correspond with warm times:

    Adding solar tide functions from nine more planets (Mercury to Neptune) to that basic GHI it is obvious as has been show here already in this thread that such high frequency temperature data like Hadcrut3 correlates also with the refined GHI 11.

    I think it is not correct to claim “I can forecast climate with a good proximity … it shows for the first time that climate can be forecast based on astronomical harmonics with a good accuracy.” with a ~60 year cycle (without any relation to real frequencies in the solar system) without any nature.

    The above image shows the nature of the tide function of Quaoar and Pluto, and it results from the eccentricity of Pluto that over the time each exact Nip tide angle and both spring tide angles are mostly occurs three times in two centuries. Because of this it is senseless to think in cycles; cycles do say nothing. Moreover, it is well known that FFT analyses from temperature spectra searching only for sinusoid frequencies, and this leads astray, fitting simulations of ‘cycles’ to the temperature proxies. The only successful method is to take the NASA ephemeris of the objects in the solar system which are available -5000 years +1000 years.

    There is a difference whether a true conclusion comes from fallacious arguments or valid arguments. That a decreasing temperature is forecast from a fallacious arguments can be happen, but it is always a fallacy:

    “Take the fraction 16/64. Now, canceling a six on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4.”
    “Wait a second! You can’t just cancel the six!”
    “Oh, so you’re telling us 16/64 is not equal to 1/4, are you?”

    V.

  196. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 12, 2011 at 5:20 am
    The proxy models must be used with intelligence. The aurora record I use is not a proxy model but direct observation of what was happening in the upper atmosphere. So, it is far above any of your proxy models.
    The magnetic effect of the currents that flow in the aurora is not a proxy model or effect, but a direct measure of said currents [which can be verified by rockets and spacecraft]. It is as direct as measurements of electric current with an ammeter [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammeter ], or would you say that such measurements are just proxy models?

    For example, when using a proxy model for cosmic ray or other, you need first to understand that it is a proxy model and not a direct measurement, then you need to understand that those kind of proxy model might have huge uncertainties
    The 10Be data are good enough to show the solar cycle.

    Then you need to look at the data that I explicitly report in the paper instead of just randomly look at what you like.
    First of all, I don’t look randomly at anything, I go directly to the relevant data [the directly measured magnetic effects of the currents flowing in the aurora]. Second, by looking at those very reliable data rather than difficult to calibrate auroral sightings one is much closer to reality.

    If you start showing a little bit of respect and try a small apology it would not be a bad idea also.
    It shows respect to even considering your paper, without using words like ‘confused’, ‘rubbish’, etc.

  197. Direct quote
    nicola scafetta says:
    July 27, 2011 at 3:27 pm
    …………………..
    About Vuk’s idea concerning the Jupiter Saturn conjunctions towards the forward moving part of the heliopause, as I said it is an interesting idea that may well fit another idea that I add to explain the phenomenon. But I cannot talk about it now. Hopefully, we will have another occasion to discuss it extensively.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-707177

    Well I could talk about my ideas, and I did talk about heliosphere for some years now. Science is an open field, it belongs to all of us, the ideas come to life, get abandoned, revitalised by others there is no mystery there. Not many accept what I write about the solar system , but up to now it held pretty well:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm

    I suggest the McCracken paper

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117707001962

    one of the most authoritative papers on the strength of the magnetosphere.

  198. Vuk

    You insert the smiley by using the : key at the same time as the ) :)
    In many blogs such as Climate etc it will produce the actual face-mind you there doesn’t seem to have been too many smileys around this thread. I wonder if there is a ‘grumpy’ face that can be created? Or perhaps a ‘supercilious’ face. Or even an ‘arrogant’ face :)

    A ‘humble’ face would probably be very little used.

    tonyb

  199. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 12, 2011 at 8:47 am
    I suggest the McCracken paper

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117707001962

    one of the most authoritative papers on the strength of the magnetosphere.
    Both Nicola and you are a bit confused by that word ‘magnetosphere’. Without qualification it refers to the magnetosphere of the Earth. I think you conflate it with the Heliosphere, which at a stretch could be considered as the Sun’s magnetosphere, but I don’t think Nicola meant that.

  200. Tonyb etc

    happy face :-)
    a winking face ;-)
    sad face :-(
    surprised face :-0
    happy face but wearing glasses 8-)
    wearing glasses, and has a moustache 8-{)
    glasses, moustache, and a beard 8-{)>

    and for that special lady, a rose @~-,-‘=[

    ;^)

  201. Incorrect focus on global average cloud.

    Temperature gradients drive the equator-pole pressure gradient force. Where gradients are steep at mid-latitudes, flow is deflected 90 degrees (to the right = westerly) by Coriolis. However, there are exceptions due to factors such as surface friction and notably east coasts. (See links below to animations of land-ocean temperature-gradient geometry & resultant wind.)

    Temperature gradient spatial pattern & east coast circulation deflection varies multidecadally as a function of solar cycle acceleration.

    The focus should be on solar & lunisolar input vector effects on absolute temperature gradient patterns.

    The solar input vector may have small variance but its effect is NOT spatially uniform across day & night, across summer & winter, across land & ocean, etc. because the input response field is heterogeneous & nonstationary. It’s the gradients in the field that drive flow (including flow direction). Changes in the solar input vector drive changes in circulatory pattern. See p.4 here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases.pdf

    The sun strums our lunisolar framework. It’s real simple.

    A small change in flow angle has MAJOR consequences for climate. This has been known since at least the 1940s. What wasn’t known publicly before 2010 was that the spatial patterns and their deflections are a function of solar cycle acceleration. The westerlies circle the Earth faster than it rotates. When they straighten out or go loopy, that’s a change in how the radiator’s operating. (The window may still be open the same or a similar amount, but the fan is turned on or off or to a different speed.)

    It’s not just the latitude of sharpest temperature gradient, but also the SHAPE. During times of stronger land-ocean contrast, “loopiness” is higher meaning the flow travels a longer path length and that boundaries fill more space. A mathematician would say the fractal dimension is higher, meaning length:area & area:volume ratios are higher.

    Speculation: I suspect that if we look more carefully we’ll see that solar input vector changes also act through the spatial input response filter as a westerly/easterly mid-latitude/equatorial warm pool control valve at interannual timescales and that this will explain most EOP variation with possibly as few as 3 key terrestrial asymmetries.

    I suggest people make an effort to visualize the fractal dimension asymmetries (contrasting north-south “loopiness” vs. “straightness”) by starting with the average annual cycle.

    The following animations will run in Firefox, but not Internet Explorer. I’ve ordered the sequence to facilitate intuition-building…

    Credit: Climatology animations have been assembled using JRA-25 Atlas [ http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm ] images. JRA-25 long-term reanalysis is a collaboration of Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) & Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI).

    AnimNetSurfSolRad

    AnimPrecipitableWater

    Anim2mT

    AnimNetSurfHeatFlux

    AnimVerticalVelocity

    AnimOmega700hPa

    AnimHeating

    AnimWaterVaporFlux_
    (column integrated water vapor flux with their convergence)

    AnimMSLP

    AnimWind10m

    AnimWind850hPa_

    AnimPolarWind850hPa

    AnimKEhfv

    AnimWind200hPa

    AnimPolarWind200hPa

    AnimWind550K

    AnimWindZonal

    AnimTempZonal

    AnimTropCycloneDays

    Note that the southeast coast of South America is perpendicular (minimizing length of intersection of coastline / steep gradient with flow path) to what it would need to be to have an effect closer in strength to what we see for longer GS, KOE, & IPWP temperature gradients (i.e. to better match the sideways westerly-easterly-westerly V).

    And here’s one more variable – just one variable:

    AnimCloudLow

    Dr. Scafetta: Gradients cannot be ignored. We can’t just look at averages. Regardless of the external inputs, Earth has strong gradient patterns. Anyone studying external factors affecting Earth must get to know Earth’s shifting spatial filter. Please don’t try to model averages. Please try to model the shape of gradients. This is the ONLY way.

    A basic first-order test of whether the climate symmetries are balanced correctly in models (and thus whether models warrant any consideration whatsoever): They should reproduce EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters).

    Thanks for producing articles to stimulate discussion. (Meanwhile we see that others only want to shut down nature appreciation & efforts to understand nature. Not even remotely acceptable.)

    Here’s an experiment for readers to try:
    Flip a fan between speeds such that aliasing causes the apparent blade rotation direct to reverse. Do this flipping quasi-stationarily in time, but sample apparent rotation direction stationarily at a higher (but not too high) frequency. Plot the results. [ http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn4.png ]

    EOP can be used to quantify the anthropogenic effect on climate, but when NASA tried this they used the wrong metric [ http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html ].

    The problem: Fundamentally misguided anomaly-think where gradient summaries are the appropriate metrics. (Same conceptual framework problem the climatologists are having. Same problem the solar physicists are having with differential solar rotation data exploration.)

    Conventional mainstream conceptualization of how to detect changing drive wheel speed through differential transmission networks appears fundamentally flawed. Central mainstreamers appear to not realize that pulse position modulation is differential when there is no locked-clock. (For example, it should be simple enough to see that when calculating the rate of change of delta LOD, the constant cancels out, but mainstreamers are irrationally attached to the notion that the constant remains meaningful for purposes beyond eminently-sensible first-order approximation, which isn’t enough for multidecadal exploration, particularly given changes in the location & state of water).

  202. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 12, 2011 at 10:42 am
    Dr. Scafetta: Gradients cannot be ignored. We can’t just look at averages. Regardless of the external inputs, Earth has strong gradient patterns.
    This is completely irrelevant for solar activity and generation of aurorae which takes place tens of thousands of miles above the Earth..

  203. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 12, 2011 at 5:20 am
    Then you need to look at the data that I explicitly report in the paper
    Have done that many times. You auroral data seems to come from ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.dat.rev [Krisky and Pejml, 1988] and has data back to year 1000, which you ignore. The record 1000-1700 does not show any 60-year period, although the 11-year period is present. Krivsky discusses the ‘civilization’ factor, namely how the number of reported aurora depends on cultural, technologically, and possibly even climate factors. A good example of how unreliable the auroral record is, is your Faroe record which shows a high frequency in the beginning of the 20th century when solar activity was very low and a low frequency in the 1940s when solar activity was very high. So, the auroral data is not a stable and reliable proxy for the electric currents in the ionosphere. The magnetic data I provided is the best, objective, civilization-, and observer-independent data we have. The sunspot number [although less reliable] also shows no 60-year cycle.

  204. Dr. S.
    Correct, it was a slip, meant strength of heliosphere at the Earth’s orbit.
    Either way from historic perspective, McCracken paper is advisable, but I think he is a bit mean with periodicities only mentions 22 and 2300, but my spectrum analyser shows minor peaks at 43 and 61 years and most significantly at 107 years, confirming what is shown here as relevant:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETs.htm

    107 = (118+96)/2 and 11 = (118 – 96)/2 as cross modulation frequency products, suggesting the poor old sol has no periodicity of its own!

    Nearly forgot McCracken spectrum:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/McC.htm
    May be the Earth’s magnetosphere gets zapped a bit stronger every 60 years as per Vukcevic:
    I suggest have a careful look at this NASA’s link:

    Observe that a large fraction of the solar system, in its equatorial plane, gets engulfed with the CME.

    Underlining effects are close circuits (closing at the solar surface) of magnetic field and electric currents. Both magnetic field and electric current are partially short-circuited by the huge magnetospheres of both Jupiter and Saturn (known as magnetic reconnection).
    Every 19.859 years this short-circuiting is particularly effective since both planets find themselves in the same direction. Now imagine our little Earth zipping in between, its tiny magnetic field gets zapped by these huge currents:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm

    Heliosphere is highly squashed in the head on direction so the effectiveness of the zap is far more severe when both Jupiter and Saturn find themselves in this head on direction. This happens every 59.5 years

    Note for Dr. Scafetta:
    You are welcome to use any of the above, if that is of any interest to you, but it would be courteous to remember where it came from.

  205. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 12, 2011 at 11:44 am
    EOP indicate clearly that your conceptualization is fundamentally flawed.
    Happily my science is not. EOP is a consequence of atmospheric and oceanic changes so has nothing to do with the astrology discussed here.

  206. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 12, 2011 at 11:49 am
    Correct, it was a slip, meant strength of heliosphere at the Earth’s orbit.
    Too often people make such slips :-) sometimes is pays to be vague and hope nobody notices. Now, Scafetta meant the magnetosphere of the Earth [that is how I read the paper – after all about aurorae], so why do you go off the rail?

    Now imagine our little Earth zipping in between, its tiny magnetic field gets zapped by these huge currents
    There are no huge currents and no ‘shorts’. The solar wind is supersonic and sweeps everything outwards. The only exception is the very rare particles with very high energy [both in the solar wind and in cosmic rays and at times generated locally] that can travel much more freely. So there can be counter-streaming electrons and other such phenomena, but those are not huge currents and have no measurable effects on anything. When a CME hits Jupiter and Earth is in one of the ‘legs’ still connecting Sun and the CME we don’t see a thing. [nobody has reported any effect].

  207. @Leif Svalgaard

    Your conceptualization is wrong because your sampling & aggregation foundations are severely deficient.

    However, don’t misunderstand that I endorse Scafetta’s work; on the contrary, note that I have offered him cautionary advice.

  208. “When they (the jets) straighten out or go loopy, that’s a change in how the radiator’s operating”

    Correct.

    “Incorrect focus on global average cloud.”

    Wrong.

    Long loopy jets give a higher global cloudiness than straightened out jets.The length of the areas of mixing between differing air masses increases and it is that mixing that produces clouds.

    In equatorial regions where it matters most the widening equatorial climate zones during a warming spell reduce cloudiness further by dissipating low cloud cover over parts of the equatorial oceans. The size of the high pressure cells with their descending air either side of the ITCZ are critical in that respect.

    However the trick for the Earth system is that despite the increased sunshine into the oceans that energy is shoved out to space just as fast due to the faster water cycle from the poleward shift of the climate zones. Subject, that is, to modulations by ocean cycles which do vary the rate at which solar input is returned to the air.

    It really is that simple :)

  209. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 12, 2011 at 12:18 pm
    [nobody has reported any effect]
    ……..
    Well it’s time you started looking for one.
    Solar wind is irrelevant, CME clears it out of the way.
    But I am more interested in what the old McC came up with:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/McC.htm

    as Vukcevic found out some years ago:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm

    I am sure you will remember it.
    Even Dr. Scaffetta just about has a ‘get out of jail card’.

  210. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 12, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    Your conceptualization is wrong because your sampling & aggregation foundations are severely deficient.
    Generalities are not good enough. Over at the other thread you referenced you claimed “This key piece of the puzzle is relevant for geomagnetic aa index …”
    I asked you to specifically and clearly and in detail explain what that piece is for aa. And will do the same here. You try to evade that question, so let the record show that you do again.

  211. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 12, 2011 at 12:49 pm
    Well it’s time you started looking for one.
    Solar wind is irrelevant, CME clears it out of the way.

    Since there are no huge currents nobody has a motivation to even look. CMEs push into to solar wind on the way out, but never the other way. We measure by spacecraft also the flow direction of the interplanetary material and it is always out.

    Even Dr. Scaffetta just about has a ‘get out of jail card’.
    Regardless, Scafetta’s P1(t) functrion does not match McC’s cosmic ray record [R^2=0.06]:

  212. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 12, 2011 at 1:12 pm
    Even Dr. Scaffetta just about has a ‘get out of jail card’.
    Except he does not believe the cosmic ray record is any good :-)
    Now, we have two different records [14C and 10Be]. Plotting them together: http://www.leif.org/research/14C-10Be-Comparison.png shows some fair agreement [but also some of the problems]. For 1700-1900 there is a weak 60-yr period [in the red box] and Scafetta picked that up, but the point is that the relation fails outside of the red box while the planets just cycle on with no failures. So, the claim of planetary cycles determining cosmic ray flux [or solar activity or aurorae etc] is spurious because once we go outside the box on which the correlation is based, it fails. If the planetary theory is to be taken seriously [as a major driver] it must work at all times. If the theory is only a weak modulation with almost no effect, one can allow intermittent failures.

  213. I never thought that his ‘aurora business’ is as reliable as the other relevant and testable data. Since the only way to explain 60 year periodicity is ‘vukcevic hypothesis’ of the Earth being ‘zapped’ more often at a particular heliocentric direction (head or tail), Scafetta has a choice either to pursue the current strategy, or to switch from the auroras to the McCracken’s.
    Instead a vague assumptions about the E/J/S magnetospheres within the heliosphere, with a bit of gravitation thrown in, he has a clear cut case with the ‘vukcevic hypothesis’ which can be eventually proven by observations of J/S magnetospheres.
    According to JPL ‘The aurora is dynamic on Jupiter, just as it is here on Earth’ and the Saturn auroras appear to be spectacular.
    Earth gets zapped 2-3 days after the ejection, Jupiter perhaps 20-30 days later and for Saturn double that; perhaps the reason why they are not correlated before. In any case the Saturn auroras have been observed only in the recent years (notably by Cassini probe).
    Hay, even staying in all day and fighting nasty ‘cold or flu’, it ain’t that bad after all, if there is something to do
    Time to sign off.

  214. Leif is incorrigible! Leif did not undestand anything!

    “A good example of how unreliable the auroral record is, is your Faroe record which shows a high frequency in the beginning of the 20th century when solar activity was very low and a low frequency in the 1940s when solar activity was very high. ”

    The number of midlatitude auroras is a function of the planetary configuration that regulate the heliosphee and inversely proportional to the multidecadal decadal activity of solar activity. Everthing is clearly explained in the paper. Mid-latitude aurora are more easily seen during the cold multidecadal periods!

    “Regardless, Scafetta’s P1(t) functrion does not match McC’s cosmic ray record”

    Leif took a modulation function I created for simulating the modulation of the “temperature” between the time scale of 10 to 60 year which ignores both the fast frequencies and the secular time scales and also includes a lunar cycle that has nothing to do with cosmic ray, and Leif claims that I am wrong because that temperature modulation limited to the multidecadal pattern does not correspond exactly to a McC’s cosmic ray record. However, my multidecadal temperature modulation was NEVER supposed to represent a specific cosmic ray multisecular record deduced from a specific ground proxy!

    Other garbage, Leif ? Open your mind, it needs fresh air, Leif !

    My paper focuses on a shared frequency set between the aurora records and the temperature and the astronomical oscillations of the solar system. That is the topic of the paper, Leif! please, focus on the topic.

    Comments of some of the above readers about Leif’s sophistic way of reasoning:

    Ged said (November 11, 2011 at 10:14 am): “But just saying there’s no power spectrum showing 60 seems ignorant, since the paper shows that in several ways, clearly.”

    Lucy Skywalker said ( November 11, 2011 at 5:05)
    “Rubbish. Scafetta has already showed six different indices in his paper which all show with stunning clarity the formative presence of a 60-year cycle: PDO, AMO, auroras, monsoons, meteorites, and global temperatures (detrended etc). Thus replication has already succeeded so the claim holds so far. The correlations are highly evocative, I don’t know how to quantify them statistically but visually they shout. Thus the likelihood increases that your apparent non-correlations may have other factors at work, that do not disprove the presence of a 60-year cycle.”

    Sorry, Leif ! But the above is the truth.

  215. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 12, 2011 at 11:14 am
    “This is completely irrelevant for solar activity and generation of aurorae which takes place tens of thousands of miles above the Earth..”
    =======
    With great trepidation I offer the following, from:

    http://odin.gi.alaska.edu/FAQ/#altitude

    3) What is the altitude of aurora?

    The bottom edge is typically at 100km (60 miles) altitude.

    The aurora extends over a very large altitude range. The altitude where the emission comes from depends on the energy of the energetic electrons that make the aurora. The more energy the bigger the punch, and the deeper the electron gets into the atmosphere. Very intense aurora from high energy electrons can be as low as 80 km (50 miles). The top of the visible aurora peters out at about 2-300 km (120-200 miles), but sometimes high altitude aurora can be seen as high as 600 km (350 miles). This is about the altitude at which the space shuttle usually flies.
    ——
    I assume Leif’s comment is more about the generation altitude than the visible altitude ?

  216. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm
    Since the only way to explain 60 year periodicity is ‘vukcevic hypothesis’ of the Earth being ‘zapped’
    You make the same error as Nicola, namely that your way is the only way. Since the Earth is not zapped your ‘mechanism’ doesn’t work.

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm
    Leif is incorrigible! Leif did not understand anything!
    The number of midlatitude auroras is a function of the planetary configuration that regulate the heliosphere and inversely proportional to the multidecadal decadal activity of solar activity.
    No, it is a function of the magnetic field at Earth times the square of the solar wind speed times the cube root of the solar wind density times a steep function of the angle between the magnetic field in the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field. In particular, it is not inversely proportional to solar activity.

    However, my multidecadal temperature modulation was NEVER supposed to represent a specific cosmic ray multisecular record deduced from a specific ground proxy!
    So, was NEVER supposed to represent solar activity and auroral frequency. I’ll take note of that admission and stop believing you were talking about solar activity, cosmic rays, and aurorae.

  217. To all readers,

    I am sorry but Leif in my opinion is only trying to mislead the readers of this blog.

    In my opinion he always twists things, suppresses logic, alters the contents of my paper, switches arguments, mixes data, confounds models and at the end he remains the only one convinced of his own imaginary world.

    It is evident that a constructive discussion with Leif is not possible, not for my fault but for his prejudiced hostility agaist every paper and every concept that I write, what ever it might be.
    And unfortunately this is a story that is continuing since several years.

    Those of you that might be interested in my research, please read my papers. Do not relay only on what Leif says.

    Reading carefully my paper is the only way to understand my reasoning and what I have found. Often you may also need to read the refrences if you want to get the big picture.

    If you read my papers, please take into account that this paper as well as the other ones are not the end of the story and never it was supposed to be the end of the story. It is very important to understand that science progress one step by time, my paper is not supposed to solve any possible issue in the universe one might think.

    This is true for my paper as well as for any other scientific paper.

    As a reader said above, science is full of misteries.

    So, please consider than science is hard because those who try to do that try to understand nature.

    I thank Anthony for this opportunity to discuss my paper here. But I am quite busy so I need now to end my contributions.

    Hopefully, in the future we can continue the discussion addressing some other aspect of the big picture.

    Thank you very much to all, including Leif, of course.

  218. Nicola Scaffeta;

    Though plenty of the discuission was over my head, I for one appreciate your work and look forward to seeing more of it. I find some of the criticisms frankly, obtuse. You’ve demonstrated the ability to both forecast and hindcast from what would appear to be unrelated data with remarkable precision. My expectation is that with more accurate data and additional factors beyond those you have already incorporated, the precision will improve still more. Leif and others may dispute the mechanisms involved, and they may even be right in some cases, but results that are accurate speak for themselves regardless of why it is that they are accurate.

  219. u.k.(us) says:
    November 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm
    The bottom edge is typically at 100km (60 miles) altitude. […]
    I assume Leif’s comment is more about the generation altitude than the visible altitude ?
    Yes. the aurora stems from processes far out in the magnetosphere where magnetic reconnection creates electric fields that accelerate particles along field lines to eventually plunge into the upper atmosphere where they excite Nitrogen and Oxygen to glow.

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm
    It is evident that a constructive discussion with Leif is not possible, not for my fault but for his prejudiced hostility agaist every paper and every concept that I write, what ever it might be.
    I criticize every paper, post, or comment that I find flawed. Several posters here can testify to that having been on the receiving end. What makes you think you are any better than those good folks?
    All my criticism is, of course, my personal opinion based only on what I know and on analysis I may make of a paper. I’m probably the one person that have analysed your paper and data better than anybody else [including the referees, it would seem]. That should make you glad and proud.
    No doubt you’ll find solace in the postings from various people that have expressed gratitude for and delight in your research. Such is life, you win or lose adherents and sycophants one at a time.

  220. @Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 11, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    “About CET you clealy see maxima around 1940 and 2000. Then the 60-year cycle predicts a maximum in 1880s which is seen in the global temperature data. However CET does see a cooling instead of a warming. This is probably because in the 1880s there was a huge Krakatoa volcano eruption that might have caused a significant cooling in England and disrupted the pattern. Then the 60 year cycle predicts a maximum around 1820 and a minimum around 1790 and these are there. Before 1790 CET is very poor, and the patterns are less clear. So a 60-year cycle may be present in CET although it may be disrupted by some volcano activity in particular in the 1880s.”

    Krakatau was in 1883, but 1884 was very warm on CET: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
    The worst cold anomalies around then were in 1879-81 and 1885-88. To be really convincing, planetary theory needs to explain these deviations from normals at the scale they are occurring in the weather.

  221. climatereason says:
    November 12, 2011 at 9:41 am

    Vuk

    You insert the smiley by using the : key at the same time as the ) :)
    In many blogs such as Climate etc it will produce the actual face-mind you there doesn’t seem to have been too many smileys around this thread. I wonder if there is a ‘grumpy’ face that can be created? Or perhaps a ‘supercilious’ face. Or even an ‘arrogant’ face :)

    No, it just produces the ASCII sequence. If you want a real image (albeit smallish), try Alt-1 !!
    ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
    Or Alt-2 if you like reverse contrast:
    ☻☻

  222. @Stephen Wilde (November 12, 2011 at 12:28 pm)

    The focus on cloud is overly-narrow because too many (perhaps even most) contributors fixate on it without (sufficient) awareness of temperature gradient geometry, mass distribution, equator-pole pressure gradient force, & circulation. (Also, there’s that pesky problem that the data don’t support the over-simplified cloud narrative.)

    I appreciate the comments you volunteer to the community and look forward to future refinements & exchanges.

    Best Regards.

  223. Leif Svalgaard (November 12, 2011 at 12:50 pm) wrote:
    “You try to evade that question […]”

    So you falsely assume. I told you I’ll address your request if & when volunteer time & priorities permit over the months & years ahead.

  224. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm
    ………….

    Dr. Scafetta
    If you bring your work to WUWT do not expect a unanimous admiration, expect to suffer discomfiture of being shown weaknesses and errors in your work, and there are number. Pride has no place in science and the WUWT can be just as testing as I well know, but that does not stop me coming back to ‘face the music’, and there is lot to learn from the experience.
    A bit of ‘rough and tumble’ is nature’s and the evolution’s way to sort the strong from feeble, just the old Darwin’s natural selection.
    No mysteries in science, just our inability to comprehend.
    We’ll look forward to another visit.

  225. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 12, 2011 at 12:18 pm
    [nobody has reported any effect]

    If specific events do take place then in the above context will be noticed for few months every 19.6 and 59.5 years. CME clears solar wind in front, the Earth’s magnetic field may not get ‘zapped’ but effect is there:
    The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/

    is what the McCracken data spectrum shows, the GCR’s periodic ‘wobble’.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/McC.htm

    but what is more important it proves that the Sunspot anomaly formula, I published in 2004
    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/704882/files/0401107.pdf (page2) and shown here in more detail

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm

    is firmly embedded in the 10Be data records.
    This is result of another cross modulation process within solar activity, which may come to the solar scientists as a bit of a shock, but it is the bread and butter of every day’s existence for a designer of old fashioned analogue electronic circuits.
    No mysteries in science then.
    You may have enjoyed ‘rubbishing’ my equations for the last 3-4 years, but all three equations published in 2004, not a result of any expertise in solar physics, but just simply recognising cross-modulation patterns are far more than jumble of cosine functions.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm

    But of course as I’ve reported elsewhere McCracken misinterpreted the 10Be data, which when fully explained it will give science another problem to resolve, the North Atlantic Precursor, the true link between the solar activity and climate variability:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm

    Notice casual similarity between the natural climate variability (blue line) and the N.A. precursor (red line) against the background of the solar cycles progression, closer to now, closer the correspondence. The r^2 is good!

  226. Sorry Leif, but you are clearly not an expert in this field and your improper comments prove it extensively.

    Moreover, your way of reasoning contradicts basic concepts of philosophy and are filled with numerous logical fallacies such as the claim that the physical information contained in one record must be wrong for the simple motivation that the physical information contained in another record, not related to the first one, may be different.

    One of the numerous fallacies that you systematically adopt is the “Straw Man” logical fallacy. But there are many more logical fallacies in your reasoning such as false analogy, red herring, ignoratio elenchi, ad hominem (your new insinuations toward the referees of my paper that you do not know) , etc.

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    Straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed] or over-simplified version of the opponent’s original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent’s actual statement.

    The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
    1.Person A has position X.
    2.Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including: 1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position.
    2.Quoting an opponent’s words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
    3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
    4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
    5.Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

    3.Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

    This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

    In fact, dear Leif, you have not proven that the issue addressed in my paper (that is, the mid-latitude aurora historical records present the same major frequencies of the global surface temperature and of major astronomical oscillations of the heliosphere associated to the movements of Jupiter and Saturn plus some additiona Soli/Lunar frequency) is wrong.

    You just skattered around proposing and disproving your own understanding of the world.

    @Ulric Lyons
    Dear Ulric, in my paper I am not addressing the CET record which is a very local temperature record. What matters is not what happened in central England in the 1880s but what happened in the entire world in 1880s. In the 1880s in central England was apparently anomalously cold for most years, but in the entire world was relatively warm during that same period as predicted by the 60-year cycle: see figure 2A in my paper. Moreover, the model proposed in the paper is not supposed to predict the temperature in specific locations such as central England, central Bulgaria, central Sudan, or central Virginia or central NoWhere, but it gives an estimate of the global patterns. Local patterns do not move exactly like the global average. The world may warm but a specific location may cool, that is normal. Finally the proposed model is not supposed to explain year by year the temperature locally or globally because it has a decadal to 60-year scale resolution and does not contain at this point shorter or longer time scale resolutions.

  227. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 12, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    Even Dr. Scaffetta just about has a ‘get out of jail card’.
    Except he does not believe the cosmic ray record is any good :-)
    Now, we have two different records [14C and 10Be]. Plotting them together: http://www.leif.org/research/14C-10Be-Comparison.png
    shows some fair agreement [but also some of the problems].

    Interesting graph, trying to understand the implication of it. To do that would help to have the 14C data file, is there one available on line, or would you be willing to upload it for a while?

  228. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm
    Moreover, the model proposed in the paper is not supposed to predict the temperature in specific locations such as central England, central Bulgaria, central Sudan, or central Virginia or central NoWhere, but it gives an estimate of the global patterns.

    Dr. Scafetta
    That would lead one to assume considerable ignorance on your part.
    To understand climate you need to understand the CET, which is not just Central England, it is the North Atlantic basin, the home of the AMO, the most influential variable on the so called ‘global temperatures’ as the BEST team tells us that it is so.
    The CET is the only long reliable temperature record we have, and as any physicist will tell you ‘global temperature’ is bit of nonsense but that doesn’t stop statisticians having lot of fun adding and subtracting lots of spurious and questionable records, to formulate their hypothesis, which rise from equally spurious computer models.
    Learn the CET’s past and you will acquire precious knowledge of the climate system.

  229. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm
    Sorry Leif, but you are clearly not an expert in this field
    Astrology has never been my strong side, only auroral and geomagnetic physics with some solar physics and orbital mechanics thrown in. But since you don’t address any of those in a satisfactory manner it seems that you are too far out on the fringe for meaningful discussion, so being sorry is perhaps a good attitude to have. Just be glad that I have taken time to look at your paper(s).

    In fact, dear Leif, you have not proven that the issue addressed in my paper (that is, the mid-latitude aurora historical records present the same major frequencies of the global surface temperature and of major astronomical oscillations of the heliosphere associated to the movements of Jupiter and Saturn plus some additiona Soli/Lunar frequency) is wrong.
    You have this a bit backwards, you have not shown that your ideas are right or even plausible. Put is differently, I may have a higher bar for what is good science than you have, but there is a continuum all the way from that down to outright quackery. Too bad that some [but not all] journals are sliding downwards on that slope.

    M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 12, 2011 at 11:00 pm
    Interesting graph, trying to understand the implication of it. To do that would help to have the 14C data file, is there one available on line, or would you be willing to upload it for a while?

    http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-Mueschler-McCracken.xls

    Some comments: the 14C is from Raymod Mueschler [personal communication] and the 10Be is from Ken McCracken [personal communication] (corrected for glitch around 1950 – Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base ). The units are converted to HMF B nT, but the scales are really arbitrary. The only things of value are the relative variations. There are differences, but also substantial agreements. What you are looking at is in a sense ‘the state of the art’. We hope in Bern next year to have ironed out the differences and to converge on something we all can agree to (or at least put error bars on).

  230. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm
    Sorry Leif, but you are clearly not an expert in this field
    You can learn more about the relationship between aurorae and geomagnetic activity here:
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/index.html [see also http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/ for current conditions]. From the link: “Being able to see the Aurora depends mainly on two factors, geomagnetic activity (the degree of disturbance of the earth’s magnetic field at the time) and your geographic location”. To see aurora below 55N you need a K-index of at least 7. The geomagnetic indices tell you when that happens so are a very correct and sensitive and objective measure of auroral activity [better than auroral sightings that are unreliable and uncalibrated]. And geomagnetic activity [when we have good and unambiguous records] since the 1840s shows no 60-year cycle. In my book that is enough to show me that your claim is spurious.

  231. Leif Svalgaard says: November 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Nicola Scafetta says: November 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm
    Leif is incorrigible! Leif did not understand anything! The number of midlatitude auroras is a function of the planetary configuration that regulate the heliosphere and inversely proportional to the multidecadal decadal activity of solar activity.

    No, it is a function of the magnetic field at Earth times the square of the solar wind speed times the cube root of the solar wind density times a steep function of the angle between the magnetic field in the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field. In particular, it is not inversely proportional to solar activity.

    Is it possible that BOTH of you carry elements of verifiable hypothesis here? ie there is a factor of “inverse proportionality to solar activity” but also the functions Leif mentions? It seems to me perfectly plausible that while the 60-year cycle shines through, there are also other factors at work – and that Leif may, just may, have a handle on those.

    From the POV of climate science, the question is, what factor or combination of factors best corresponds to climate data? Volker Doorman’s work also looks interesting (though not conclusive) in this respect. And Richard Holle’s. And of course the Russian scientists don’t have the same coyness (or ignorance and rudeness) about planetary influences correlations that we inherit in the “West”.

  232. @Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm

    “Dear Ulric, in my paper I am not addressing the CET record which is a very local temperature record. What matters is not what happened in central England in the 1880s but what happened in the entire world in 1880s. In the 1880s in central England was apparently anomalously cold for most years, but in the entire world was relatively warm during that same period as predicted by the 60-year cycle:”

    The global mean was falling through the 1880`s:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1930

    The peaks at 1878/9, 1885/6 and 1888/9 are El Nino events, the first and last being strong events.
    To properly appreciate the detail in the global average, one has to aware that El Nino events are brought on by falling and lower solar wind speeds (less aurora if you prefer that measure), and so can tend to run contrary to negative monthly/seasonal land temperature deviations occurring during lower SW speeds.
    The colder months on CET are all there across Europe too:

    and mostly agree with US temperature series (see graphs):

    http://www.climatestations.com/chicago/

    so are not a local phenomena, but a response to short term solar variations.

  233. Lucy Skywalker says:
    November 13, 2011 at 2:46 am
    Is it possible that BOTH of you carry elements of verifiable hypothesis here? ie there is a factor of “inverse proportionality to solar activity”
    No, there is no factor of ‘inverse proportionality’. The number of aurorae is directly proportional to solar activity as has been known for more than 150 years. “Auroral displays are more likely around the time of the solar activity maximum (2000-2001 in the current cycle).” http://www.pfrr.alaska.edu/aurora/index.html

  234. @Nicola Scafetta (November 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm) [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/#comment-795634 ]

    You raise a weighty issue. Costs exceeding benefits are unsustainable. From years of experience running online forums, a minor but strategic modification of communication guidelines is a prudent work-around where personal self-restraint of a small number of disruptive participants is failing and creating a “wasteland of tangled messages” (to quote a former student whose potently concise & accurate diagnosis critically motivated decisive action that solved the problem permanently).

    Looking at it from a private sector perspective: Everyone should be replaceable. Being held hostage by dependency is neither a sensible nor tolerable long-term strategy. Any talented volunteer recruiters?

    Nicola: Thank you for stimulating appreciation of nature rather than attempting to smother it. And sincerest thanks for stopping by.

  235. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 13, 2011 at 1:46 am
    We hope in Bern next year to have ironed out the differences and to converge on something we all can agree to (or at least put error bars on).

    I hope you have lot of fun, not that you would agree but my ‘expertise’ of the North Atlantic Oscillations would be of some help when you try to persuade the panel that Svalgaard & Cliver may have superior reconstruction particularly in the contentious parts of the 19th century.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA.htm

    I left the sections where the North Atlantic disagrees. In the space age area there is only a sporadic agreement, so I also left it out too, that should be ringing bells loud on the Bern Münster (Bern Cathedral of St Vincent). If it comes to a violent disagreement, take note of:

  236. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 13, 2011 at 9:17 am
    I hope you have lot of fun, not that you would agree but my ‘expertise’ of the North Atlantic Oscillations would be of some help when you try to persuade the panel that Svalgaard & Cliver may have superior reconstruction particularly in the contentious parts of the 19th century.
    Thanks for your kind offer, which I’ll decline as I don’t think there is any value to be had.

  237. Hi doc
    My data are real measurements based on the daily recorded values, which have been scrutinised by many scientists. The stuff they dug out from the ice and snow of Greenland is ‘junk’ or science is grossly mistaken about many things, either way ‘science’ has no clue what is going on. I suggest save the graph:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA.htm

  238. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 13, 2011 at 10:27 am
    My data are real measurements based on the daily recorded values, which have been scrutinised by many scientists.
    As long as there is no description of how exactly the data is produced it has no value.

    REPLY: I’ll second that. Give a procedure. – Anthony

  239. Dear Leif,
    if everybody analize and understand physical data as you do, science will never progress.

    About the aurora records, first I am studying the historical mid-latitude aurora (<55N), not any kind of aurora such as those in Alaska at (60N-70N) and at high latitude monitoring stations that you reference in your link.

    Second. the mid-latitude aurora records present a decadal oscillations approximately correlated to the 11-year solar cycle as you expect that would happen. However, the 60 year cycle that the middle latitude aurora records present is clearly negative-correlated to solar activity, as Figure 2 shows. So, as you have brillantly noted, we have a lot a mid-latitude auroras during the 1900-1910 when the multidecadal solar activity was at a minimum. All these things are clearly explained in my paper and justify the qualitative mechanism I propose in section 2 and 7.

    So, mid-latitude formations clearly have multiple physical causes, not just the one that you understand.

    So, please do not continue in your logical fallacy arguments by mixing and confounding things around. This time yours is also an ignoratio elenchi logical fallacy. You start assuming that a phenomenon has only one single cause (the one that you know), then you mistake one record (polar auroras in Alaska 60-70N and equivalent latitudes) for another (mid-latitude aurora at <55N that I use) and you assume that all auora records at all latitudes must behave in the same identical way.
    Then you claim that because the data that I use do not show what you expect and, you deny the data and my analysis instead of questioning your initial reductionistic assumption and mistaken reference record that refers to a phenomenon different from that I analyzed (=the Straw Man logical fallacy argument).

    Sorry, Leif ! This is not how people understand Nature, Leif !

    @ Vukcevic and Ulric Lyons about CET.
    As I have explained above, in the paper I am addressing the global surface temperature and the things correlate well. Then I study some proxy models all over the world (AMO, PDO, Monsoon: see figure 3) and I show that an agreement with my theory is found. The same refers to several other data discussed in my citations.

    On the contrary the CET refers only to the Cental England region. It is sensitive to local weather oscillations and local events (also thermometers that break or are re-located) and may be strongly effected by vocano effecs. I have explained above that CET too seems to me to be approximately compatible with my theory if you take into account the volcano activity that disrupt the patterns, for example. However, because CET is not the topic of the paper, the paper does not address this specific issue. Is it so difficult for you to understand this elementary point fact?

    When I will publish a paper with the title "Analysis and implications of the Central England Temperature record" we can discuss your points.

    Anothe paper of mine addresses the NAO index which include the CET plus several other hystorical measurement indexes taken all over Europe. This is:

    A. Mazzarella and N. Scafetta, "Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change," Theor. Appl. Climatol., DOI 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4 (2011).

    And the things correlate well with my hypotheses.

    So, what you need to do is first not to imitate Leif, second try to study my paper and its references that discusses several of these issues with calm and interest, if you like.

  240. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 13, 2011 at 11:38 am
    So, as you have brillantly noted, we have a lot a mid-latitude auroras during the 1900-1910 when the multidecadal solar activity was at a minimum. […]
    So, mid-latitude formations clearly have multiple physical causes, not just the one that you understand.

    No, we know quite well here the mid-latitude aurorae come from. There is no other physical cause than the one I described. That the 1900-1910 record shows otherwise just shows how unreliable auroral records are [apart from the fact that the Faroe islands are at 62 degrees N and pretty close to the auroral zone and thus are not at ‘mid-latitudes’].

  241. Sorry Leif, you are clearly denying the data. The data is what suggests the mechanisms in physics, not viceversa.

    You must prove that the data that I am using are wrong, not claiming that my results are wrong just because you BELIEVE that the data are wrong because they do not fit your imagination!

    Another logical fallacy, Leif? In this case it is called Mind-Projection-Fallacy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_Projection_Fallacy

    Mind projection fallacy, as coined by physicist and bayesian philosopher E.T. Jaynes, occurs when one takes for sure that the way he sees the world reflects the way the world really is despite the contrary evidences.

    As I have explained in the paper the Faroe aurora data were included because despite they are located at 62N people expert in aurora records have noted a strong similarity of these auroras with the mid-latitude auroras at <55N (a unique case). So I have analyzed also the Faroe records too and I found the same results found in the Mid-latitude auroras A coincidence, dear Leif?

    So, dear Leif, what is your demonstration that both auroras records I analyzed are wrong?

  242. Paul Vaughan says: November 13, 2011 at 9:08 am

    …From years of experience running online forums, a minor but strategic modification of communication guidelines is a prudent work-around where personal self-restraint of a small number of disruptive participants is failing and creating a “wasteland of tangled messages”…

    Thank you Paul, I feel like I finally understand your minimalism.

    Nicola: Thank you for stimulating appreciation of nature rather than attempting to smother it. And sincerest thanks for stopping by.

    Seconded.

  243. Hi Anthony, Dr. Svalgaard
    I am emailing all the details to Dr. Svalgaard (at leif.org and at gmail.com) but if you email me back I will send it to you too. For time being I like to keep it confidential, since if I am correct, it will be part of my long article, which is moving ahead at a snails pace.

  244. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 13, 2011 at 11:38 am
    When I will publish a paper with the title “Analysis and implications of the Central England Temperature record” we can discuss your points.
    Anothe paper of mine addresses the NAO index which include the CET plus several other hystorical measurement indexes taken all over Europe.

    That is interesting, I shall look at it as long as it isn’t beyond pay wall.
    I just completed a longish article on the AMO-NAO, not on line yet, but the copies are with Dr. Hurrell of UCAR, Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Eric Steig of Washington University.
    Next one the CET, AMO, NAO will be finished in a week or two, since the draft is already completed.
    I will be putting all online in due course.

  245. Lucy Skywalker says:
    November 13, 2011 at 2:46 am
    … ie there is a factor of “inverse proportionality to solar activity” but also the functions Leif mentions? It seems to me perfectly plausible that while the 60-year cycle shines through, there are also other factors at work

    Hi Lucy Skywalker,

    there is a correlation between the inverse Neutron rate (Climax) and the global temperature (Hadcrut3 and UAH).

    From the POV of climate science, the question is, what factor or combination of factors best corresponds to climate data? Volker Doorman’s work also looks interesting (though not conclusive) in this respect.

    It seems that hot spots in the range of a year or so are not connected to the GHI background of solar tide functions of synodic couples. This is especially visible in the late fifties and between 2000 and 2010. But several spikes (lack of Neutrons) in the climax spectrum are also visible in the temperature proxies.

    There is a clear evidence that the frequency of the sun spot pattern is shifted in both directions from its main frequency of 1/11.196 year^-1 , and this is correlated with increasing temperatures (+f) or decreasing temperatures (-f) like in this year. Maybe it is also a long term tide effect which acts on the surface of the sun; I don’t know.

    If the Sun has a stable oscillator of f = 1/11.196 years^-1 but surface processes from tides do shift the visible frequency then it seems that it is not out of the question that the heat stream from the Sun to the planets has as well periodical terms from the GHI but also terms from surface processes of the Sun from internal changing of the frequency shift, with no characteristic pattern, with minor effect.

    V.

  246. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 13, 2011 at 11:38 am
    >@ Ulric Lyons about CET.

    The divergence you note (global versus CET), is not just with CET, and not only in the 1880`s either. It is because land surface temp`s are moving in the opposite direction to ENSO etc at certain scales.

  247. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm
    Sorry Leif, you are clearly denying the data. The data is what suggests the mechanisms in physics, not vice versa.
    Perhaps a tutorial is in order:
    The solar wind pushes part of the Earth’s magnetic field back into a long tail. This stores energy in the tail. There is a boundary between field lines that are swept into the tail [we say they are ‘open’] and those that are not [we say they are closed]. Once in the tail the open field lines can reconnect and become closed again. This accelerates particles towards the Earth along the boundary between open and closed field lines. The particles collide with Nitrogen and Oxygen in the upper atmosphere which make those atoms glow and we observe aurorae. Under normal circumstances aurorae occur all the time at this boundary and we get what is called the ‘auroral oval’ situation near 67 degrees [magnetic] latitude. Once in a while, the solar wind is strongly enhanced by coronal mass ejections. The wind is compressed and the push on the magnetosphere is much stronger and the tail thickens as more and more field is pushed into it. This causes much more energy to stored, and the boundary, the currents, and the auroral oval move equatorward. If the push on the magnetosphere and the energy stored in the field is large enough, the auroral oval can move to mid-latitudes [and in extreme case even to near the equator] and then we record aurorae at mid-latitudes at the same time as strong magnetic activity is observed. The number and push of the CMEs depends on the solar cycle, being largest at solar maximum so the number of aurorae seen at mid-latitude is at a maximum when solar activity is at maximum, and at the same time great magnetic storms occur. Now, actually seeing the aurora depends on many other things than the aurora being there: weather, people’s awareness, number of observers and their motivation and interest. Observing the magnetic storms does not as the observatories record 24/7 all the time. So if a record of aurorae does not show a strong maximum at solar maximum, it simply means that the record is faulty or unreliable. This is well-known and there is no mystery about it.

    To repeat myself:
    See http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/index.html [see also http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/ for current conditions]. From the link: “Being able to see the Aurora depends mainly on two factors, geomagnetic activity (the degree of disturbance of the earth’s magnetic field at the time) and your geographic location”. To see aurora below 55N you need a K-index of at least 7. The geomagnetic indices tell you when that happens so are a very correct and sensitive and objective measure of auroral activity [better than auroral sightings that are unreliable and uncalibrated]. And geomagnetic activity [when we have good and unambiguous records] since the 1840s shows no 60-year cycle. In my book that is enough to show me that your claim is spurious.

    Study these links carefully. If you have questions or need clarification, please do not hesitate to ask.

    M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 13, 2011 at 1:10 pm
    I am emailing all the details to Dr. Svalgaard
    that email also moves at a snail’s pace…

  248. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm
    As I have explained in the paper the Faroe aurora data were included because despite they are located at 62N people expert in aurora records have noted a strong similarity of these auroras with the mid-latitude auroras at <55N.
    The aurorae may look the same, but their frequency of occurrence is not the same. If you ook at
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/globeNE.html you may note that the auroral zone is over the Faroe Islands for moderate geomagnetic activity [Kp=3]. These aurorae are not visible over Germany and England [for instance]. To see aurorae down there, you need a Kp in excess of 5 or 6. When that happens, the oval move so far south that you can’t even see it from the Faroe islands, so perhaps explaining why you infer the ‘inverse’ relationship. You see, it helps to know a little bit of the physics to understand what is going on, rather than hunting with Google to find explanations of straw men and fallacies. Simply google ‘aurora mid-latitude’ and you’ll find http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/auror1.htm where you can learn more.

    Schroeder here specifically reports on mid-latitude aurora in Germany: http://www.geofisica.unam.mx/divulgacion/geofinternacional/iframes/anteriores/2011/04/6_schroder.pdf
    His conclusion:
    “Here we present a previously unpublished historical observations of 171 auroras in Germany. We confirm that: Most auroras appear for Kp > 5, although some auroras are observed also with low Kp indices of 1 and 2. Maximum auroral occurrence is during the equinoxes and minimum during the solstices. Finally, maximum auroral occurrence is around the sunspot maximum and minimum around sunspot minimum.”

    Read and learn.

  249. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm
    Sorry Leif, you are clearly denying the data. The data is what suggests the mechanisms in physics, not vice versa.
    Aurorae in Denmark [which is mid-latitude; Copenhagen 55deg 40min] follow the sunspot cycle very nicely:

    http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/soljord/nordlys_forsk/nordlys_obs.html

    Figure 1 [red] sunspot number [blue] number of nights per year with aurora. Note the very large number in 1957. This is partly due to heightened awareness cause by the IGY [International Geophysical Year], showing how careful you have to be to interpret the ‘data’, especially if you don’t know much about the phenomenon they are supposed to describe.

    To summarize: mid-latitude aurora are ordinary aurorae that can be seen at latitudes lower than the auroral zone because solar activity [maximizing at sunspot maximum] has perturbed the magnetosphere. The magnetic effects are a very good direct measurement of the auroral acitivity, using a compass needle instead of an eye, but no less direct and a lot more reliable.

  250. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 13, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    “Here we present a previously unpublished historical observations of 171 auroras in Germany. We confirm that: Most auroras appear for Kp > 5, although some auroras are observed also with low Kp indices of 1 and 2.

    This is exactly what Nicola is proposing. A variation in the Earth’s magnetic field that encourages mid latitude auroras at times of low solar output. How would the auroras be possible with a Kp index of 1 or 2?

    Aurorae in Denmark [which is mid-latitude; Copenhagen 55deg 40min] follow the sunspot cycle very nicely:

    http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/soljord/nordlys_forsk/nordlys_obs.html

    Figure 1 [red] sunspot number [blue] number of nights per year with aurora. Note the very large number in 1957.

    The Denmark records look to show a 60 year trend as per Scafetta. One must allow for the extreme solar activity during 1957 over riding the background magnetosphere trend. Of interest would be the cloud formation patterns from 1940-1970 during the cool PDO phase if available. The PDO went into positive briefly around 1957 again showing the over riding factor of the extreme SC19, but the background forces still managed to keep the trend negative overall.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg

  251. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 13, 2011 at 6:57 pm
    “Here we present a previously unpublished historical observations of 171 auroras in Germany. We confirm that: Most auroras appear for Kp > 5, although some auroras are observed also with low Kp indices of 1 and 2.
    This is exactly what Nicola is proposing.

    This is exactly the opposite of what Nicola claims.

    A variation in the Earth’s magnetic field that encourages mid latitude auroras at times of low solar output. How would the auroras be possible with a Kp index of 1 or 2?
    Of 171 aurorae, only 4 were at Kp = 1 or 2. And Nature is noisy, so some small departures must always be expected.

    The Denmark records look to show a 60 year trend as per Scafetta. One must allow for the extreme solar activity during 1957 over riding the background magnetosphere trend.
    The Danish record shows that aurora occurs at maximum solar activity just the opposite of what Scafetta claims. The very large peak in 1957 is an artifact caused by increased awareness of the IGY. I can remember how the papers wer full of this and ask people to watch for and report aurorae.

    The PDO has a well-known pattern of 30 cold and 30 warm periods, but that is not the issue. The aurorae, sunspots, and geomagnetic activity have not.
    Your mangling of the Danish record http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/aurora.jpg is about the worst I have ever seen, even from you.

  252. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 13, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    Of 171 aurorae, only 4 were at Kp = 1 or 2. And Nature is noisy, so some small departures must always be expected.

    How many auroras where recorded under 7 on the Kp index.?

    The PDO has a well-known pattern of 30 cold and 30 warm periods, but that is not the issue. The aurorae, sunspots, and geomagnetic activity have not.

    This is where you are perhaps not seeing the big picture. Scafetta has shown the 60 year pattern in the mid latitude aurora, sunspots or solar activity are working in conjunction with the overall modulation of the magnetosphere, so should be seen as a part contributor. The Kp index is only part of the story and does not report on other factors that might control the magnetosphere according to the theory. When looking at the aurora record of Denmark you need to keep this in mind, like other examples in the past where we need to combine solar and PDO records to match the temperature trends.

  253. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 13, 2011 at 7:53 pm
    How many auroras where recorded under 7 on the Kp index.?
    You can read can’t you. Read Schroeder’s paper. The exactly number is not important. A magnetic storm stores energy in the magnetotail, where it is released over the next ~48 hours.

    Scafetta has shown the 60 year pattern in the mid latitude aurora, sunspots or solar activity are working in conjunction with the overall modulation of the magnetosphere, so should be seen as a part contributor.
    He has shown no such thing. He maintains just the opposite of what observations and theory show. What he has convincingly shown is that his auroral dataset is unreliable.

    The Kp index is only part of the story and does not report on other factors that might control the magnetosphere according to the theory.
    We have a very good theory for what makes Kp and aurorae. There are no other factors.

    where we need to combine solar and PDO records to match the temperature trends.
    You don’t need to combine records. They speak for themselves. And nobody is contesting that PDO is temperature related.

  254. @Lucy Skywalker (November 13, 2011 at 12:59 pm)

    As we used to say when I worked in soil science:
    Beware infiltration that waters down content.

  255. Leif,

    as usual you are doing a great confusion and change topic everytime.

    The aurora record patterns are not equal everywhere.

    I am using the MID-LATITUDE full records at latitude <55N that is south of latitude 55N.
    The data that I have used is the combination of all major available catalogs and it is here

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/aeronomy/aurorae.html

    The record from Denmark that you are using for supporting your claims is out of range. Denmark is northern than latitude 55N not southern of it ! See here

    http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/country/denmark.html

    Do not change the data as you wish. When you go norther than latitude 55N you start to see aurora strongly correlated to the solar activity, but the mid-latitude aurora visible at latitude lower than 55 behave differently.

    Get it!

  256. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 13, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    The aurorae may look the same, but their frequency of occurrence is not the same. … Schroeder here specifically reports on mid-latitude aurora in Germany: http://www.geofisica.unam.mx/divulgacion/geofinternacional/iframes/anteriores/2011/04/6_schroder.pdf
    His conclusion:
    “Here we present a previously unpublished historical observations of 171 auroras in Germany. We confirm that: Most auroras appear for Kp > 5, although some auroras are observed also with low Kp indices of 1 and 2. Maximum auroral occurrence is during the equinoxes and minimum during the solstices. Finally, maximum auroral occurrence is around the sunspot maximum and minimum around sunspot minimum.”

    There is a negative (inverse) correlation of he Kp index (activity) to the measured (Climax) Neuton flux.

    There is no frequency visible of the Sun spot cycle^-1 in the hadcrud3 data, but a clear visible enhancement of the hadcrut3 temperature pattern in the time interval of the Sun spot number maximum, in respect to a pattern, which is in harmony with the solar tide spectrum from summarised synodic periods of planet couples.

    This leads to refine the GHI from the solar tide functions with a fraction of the inverse Neutron flux. But this is still a minor and temporary effect in the forecast of the global climate function. The main impact for the terrestrial climate comes from the synodic frequencies of couples much slower that the sun spot cycle:

    An important argument in the discussion of global warming and its nature, is the fact that the main global pattern of temperature proxies can be verified from well known solar tide geometries time coherent with the complex cycle of 2/1827 years^-1.

    Today we are on one maximum of three that is slightly cooling since 1997 until 2063 and it will warm up until 2138 on a higher level than now. The begin of the next cool LIA will then be reached in 2704:

    The importance leads from the recognition that the event of the LIA is a phase of a climate frequency which is well known also from Bond et al. (2001) for about 10 ky and is identified by me as a geometry from real moving objects in our solar system.

    This recognition is different from all that stuff extrapolating short term parts of that long cycle with math functions out of the math books. And it is the beating argument against people who do extrapolate the global warming from human CO2 output curves.

    These solar system geometries may simple lead to a precise climate forecast, but behind that geometries are still hidden processes, about the heat generation and the heat current from the Sun. But there are hints from the Neutrino capture rate from Homestake, and Japan that the fusion process in the Sun shows FFT frequencies, which are related to the planets.

    Neutrinos are of interest, because they have no time delay trough the big Sun; this is in contrast to the photons, they need up to ~190 ky from the center of the Sun to the surface. And it may help to unterstand the physics behind this celestial heat system.

    V.

  257. Nicola Scafetta, regardless of the merit of your claims, I agree 100% that Leif Svalgaard is patently not communicating in good faith.

    “[…] H. Fritz. This author was already aware that the occurrence of aurorae in mid and low geographic latitudes was a qualitatively different phenomenon, that the very frequent occurrence of aurorae at latitudes of over 55 degrees would not characterize the level of activity of the actual causal source of aurorae, which were already known then, that the occurrence of aurorae at latitudes below 55 degrees is connected with geomagnetic storms at mid-latitudes and it is quite frequently time-related to the occurrence of extensive sunspot groups on the solar disk. “
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.txt.rev
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.dat.rev
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/solar_activity.gif

  258. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 13, 2011 at 10:48 pm
    I am using the MID-LATITUDE full records at latitude <55N that is south of latitude 55N.
    The data that I have used is the combination of all major available catalogs and it is here

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/aeronomy/aurorae.html

    Your source has this: “the occurrence of aurorae at latitudes below 55 degrees is connected with geomagnetic storms at mid-latitudes and it is quite frequently time-related to the occurrence of extensive sunspot groups on the solar disk”

    The record from Denmark that you are using for supporting your claims is out of range. Denmark is northern than latitude 55N not southern of it !
    The Faroe Island record is not mid-latitude. and the occurrence of aurora does not change abruptly at 55N. And part of Denmark is actually below 55N [the southernmost is Gedser point at 54° 33′ 35″]. I am from Denmark and worked at the very Institute that compiled the data which I know very well. There is no sudden reversal of frequency right at 55° 00′ 00″. As you move from North to South the aurorae become rarer and you need more solar activity to see them. Here is a nice piece about aurorae in Denmark [and Iceland, Greenland]: http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/tr08-08.pdf some of the paintings shown in the article hang in my office. On page 86 you can see the oval and how it extended over Denmark during the famous Halloween magnetic storm in 2003.

    Do not change the data as you wish. When you go norther than latitude 55N you start to see aurora strongly correlated to the solar activity, but the mid-latitude aurora visible at latitude lower than 55 behave differently.
    It is just the other way around. Mid-latitude aurora are strongly dependent on the solar activity; at higher latitude that is no longer the case [at the auroral oval, aurorae are always present], at very high latitudes aurorae are even anticorrelated with solar activity as the auroral oval moves south. Let me quote Schroeder again on MID-LATITUDE aurorae in Germany:
    “maximum auroral occurrence is around the sunspot maximum and minimum around sunspot minimum”.
    Apparently you did not bother to consult and read the links I gave you on this. Your completely wrong assertion that mid-latitude aurorae are inversely related to the solar cycle undermines your paper and demolishes any scientific credibility you might claim. A good rule: “when in a hole, stop digging”.

  259. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 13, 2011 at 10:48 pm
    ..but the mid-latitude aurora visible at latitude lower than 55 behave differently.

    Get it!
    ~
    Yep, I think I get it.
    Let’s see..
    Location of magnetic pole
    Strength of Earth’s magnetic field at the time, for instanance is it in a recovery state from a recent solar incursion.
    Stength of solar storm or wind stream or CME.
    Earth’s N. Pole is negative so the IMF’s field polarity or direction when it tears a hole in the magnetosphere.
    Solar cycle is it max or min.
    And our old friend EQUINOX ha
    One more thing ..Kp

  260. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 14, 2011 at 5:45 am
    Nicola Scafetta, regardless of the merit of your claims, I agree 100% that Leif Svalgaard is patently not communicating in good faith.

    “[…] H. Fritz. This author was already aware that the occurrence of aurorae in mid and low geographic latitudes was a qualitatively different phenomenon, that the very frequent occurrence of aurorae at latitudes of over 55 degrees would not characterize the level of activity of the actual causal source of aurorae, which were already known then, that the occurrence of aurorae at latitudes below 55 degrees is connected with geomagnetic storms at mid-latitudes and it is quite frequently time-related to the occurrence of extensive sunspot groups on the solar disk. “

    In the auroral zone, aurorae are always present, regardless of solar activity. What Fritz showed was that at mid-latitudes aurorae occur at high solar activity. What Scafetta claims is just the opposite, namely that mid-latitude aurorae occur at low solar activity.

  261. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 14, 2011 at 5:45 am
    “[…] H. Fritz. This author was already aware that the occurrence of aurorae in mid and low geographic latitudes was a qualitatively different phenomenon,
    Fritz knew that the occurrence of aurorae in mod and low latitudes was qualitatively different, not that the aurorae were due to a different source. So, to summarize, Fritz knew that the occurrence of aurora at mid-latitude was contingent on high solar and geomagnetic activity. This is the opposite of what Scafetta claims. Perhaps we can get Nicola to confirm that Fritz was correct? That would a sign that he [Nicola] finally got it. My prediction is that Nicola will not do so, as this would invalidate his paper.

  262. I don’t see that Fritz (as quoted above) and Scafetta conflict. Apparently at low solar activity magnetic shielding is weak so that particles from the occasional CME can more easily enter the magnetosphere and cause low-latitude aurorae. Scafetta apparently observes a 60 year cycle in these sightings.

    Hell, if that doesn’t fit your theories, change the data!

  263. pochas says:
    November 14, 2011 at 7:54 am
    I don’t see that Fritz (as quoted above) and Scafetta conflict.
    Then look. Fritz [and I and everybody else who knows anything about this] say that there are more mid-latitude aurorae at high solar activity. Scafetta claims that at low solar activity there are more mid-latitude aurorae. How more opposite can the claims be.

    Apparently at low solar activity magnetic shielding is weak so that particles from the occasional CME can more easily enter the magnetosphere and cause low-latitude aurorae. Scafetta apparently observes a 60 year cycle in these sightings.
    The magnetic shielding is provided by the Earth’s magnetic field which does not vary with solar activity, so the number of mid-latitude aurorae depends on the number of CMEs. At solar max there are five CMEs per day. At solar minimum there is one CME every five days. So, a lot fewer and hence a lot fewer auroral sighting as observed. If Scafetta says otherwise, he is ignorant, mislead, cherry-picking, or worse. He is apparently using the same trick as Mann, making a composite time series [his Figure 2B] of data where some of the data is upside-down. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and ascribe this to ignorance. This does invalidate his paper.

  264. Leif Svalgaard
    and
    pochas

    In the mid latitudes the Earth’s magnetic field has changed great deal between 1600 and 2000. The greatest change has taken place across Central Europe.

    This would have an impact on the number of observations.

  265. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 14, 2011 at 9:39 am
    In the mid latitudes the Earth’s magnetic field has changed great deal between 1600 and 2000. The greatest change has taken place across Central Europe.
    The number of aurorae does not depend on the local magnetic field, but on the global field seen by the solar wind. And would not have any effect, anyway, on cycles shorter than ~100 years. The best description of auroral sightings over the last 500 years is that given by my friend Sam Silverman in http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf written in 1992. He comments on the ~100-yr period [low activity near every century change]and notes [page 350] that “these observations imply that the Sun will probably shortly undergo a change in regime”, which the Sun apparently is doing. His Figure 1 is revealing. About periods he notes that very many peaks can be found in the power spectrum and that many of them are simply multiples of 11 years. Even mentions the disfavored planetary theory.

  266. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:10 am
    And what about the Faroe Islands magnetic field change?
    is irrelevant as the aurorae are not generated locally, but is a global phenomenon, generated way out in the magnetotail. If you carefully place yourself on both ends of a magnetic field line in the North and the South, you’ll very often see precisely the same aurora [part of the same current] at the same time.

  267. my friend Sam Silberman
    Apologies to Sam for hitting the ‘b’ next to the ‘v’. Silverman it is.

    [Well, not bad; consider that spellcheck tries to make it Lieberman …. 8<) Robt]

  268. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:10 am
    And what about the Faroe Islands magnetic field change?
    the aurorae are not generated locally, but is a global phenomenon, generated way out in the magnetotail. If you could carefully place yourself on both ends of a magnetic field line in the North and the South, you’ll very often see precisely the same aurora [part of the same current] at the same time.

    This is nicely illustrated in this youtube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7jFoW7G344
    Which also shows how the aurora moves equatorwards into mid-latitudes when solar activity goes up.

  269. Leif,
    sorry but you are still mixing things.

    Firts, the mid-latitude aurora records that I am using refer to latituie BELOW 55N. This include the aurora that were seen from North Africa to Germany, from Europe to Japan. Denmark is out this range.

    I explained already why I also added the Faroe island record. Howeve, my claim was not based on that localized record, but on the mid-latitude aurora record that cover an extremely large region.

    About the relation with the sunspot cycle and the temperature I have already explained that here we have two different patterns. The pattern related to the 11-year sunspot cycle to which the mid-latitude aurora annual frequency are usually positive correlated (and are positive correlated with the temperature) but a general correlation between the aurora data and sunspot numbertrend varies according the location and period: sometime they are positive correlated and sometime they are negative correlated about the smooth trending.

    About the 60-year pattern the mid-latitude aurora record that I use appear to be negative correlated with the temperature 60-year pattern, as clearly shown in Figure 2.

    Note that the things are quite different from your expectations. The things are complicated.
    For example in 1880 the sunspot number cycle maximum was quite small the aurora number was not just small but extremely small, but the temperature on the Earth was at a maximum as predicted by the J/S conjunction. On the contrary in 1850 the sunspot number was at its maximum, but the climatic indexes were at a minimum. The same in 1960 when the sunspot number was at its maximum, but the temperature was decreasing since 1940 and in the 1960 was approcing its 60-year minimum.

    As I clearly state in the paper several times there is also the possibility, that you are complitely ignoring in your reasoning, that solar irradiance and other solar/heliospheric indexes relevant for the temperature on the Earth do not follow exactly the sunspot cycle and your theories, as you are dogmatically supposing.

    So, your definition of “low” and “high” solar activity defined on the sunspot number record is “relative” and not “absolute”. The above is a key point that you need to understand for not misinterpeting my reasoning and twisting my reasoning.

    As I said before the data of the auroras are plotted in the figure 2 and the pattern is clear. We see three 60-year cycles from 1700 to 1900 and these cycles are negative correlated to the 60-year temperature cycle. Se also figure 3 that dates back to 1700 for climatic proxy models.

    What matters for my paper is the common frequency set between aurora and temperature and the frequencies of Jupiter/Saturn orbits which implies the astronomical origin of the temperature oscillations. However, in the paper I am not arguing about a direct linear or monotonic positive correlated relashioship between the Aurora record and the temperature, I am just talking of a not well defined “link” between the aurora records and the temperature. Indeed, I am arguing about a more direct relashioship between the J/S configuration and the temperature, when J/S are closer to the Earth the temperature goes up and apparently the mid-latitude Aurora tend to go down: see also figure 7 in comparison with figure 2 and read section 5 and 6. I argue that when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the Sun, less cloud form which cause a warming.

    You are essentially mistaking my argument which is based of the aurora “frequencies” with an argument based on the aurora amplitudes and phases as if I am claiming that it is the aurora that cause the warming/coling cycles, that is not my reasoning, but your misinterpretation of it. So, try to understand my paper before misinterpreting it. A good starting point may be reading the title and the abstract.

    Sorry, Leif. About my figure 2B both records are upside-down. So, no Mann’s trick there.

    This is from the paper describing the Faroes data:
    “Examination of the trends shows an initial decline to about 1877, a minimum period till about
    1890, then an increase till about 1910, followed by a decline to about 1942, and an increase to 1960…..during the prolonged solar activity minimum from 1900 to about 1916 we get a maximum in auroral occurrence. …..The spectrum for the Faroes is very similar to that of mid latitude stations.”
    So, dear Leif, there is an anticorrelation with the smooth trending of the sunspot number during that period about the Faroes auroras.

    The things are more complicated than what you think, dear Leif!
    Apparently, You are reasoning on the base of a theory that may be only partially correct.

  270. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 14, 2011 at 5:45 am

    “[…] H. Fritz. This author was already aware that the occurrence of aurorae in mid and low geographic latitudes was a qualitatively different phenomenon, that the very frequent occurrence of aurorae at latitudes of over 55 degrees would not characterize the level of activity of the actual causal source of aurorae, which were already known then, that the occurrence of aurorae at latitudes below 55 degrees is connected with geomagnetic storms at mid-latitudes and it is quite frequently time-related to the occurrence of extensive sunspot groups on the solar disk. “

    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/solar_activity.gif

    The rel. simple function of the bottom graph, showing >polar aurora homogenized< from the year 1000 AD to 1900 AD, can easy simulated with the help of Mr. Excel, using only four solar tide functions of four couples, i.) Uranus/Neptune, ii.) Uranus/Pluto, iii.) Neptune/Pluto, and iv.) Pluto/Quaoar:

    The job is to sum up the four normalized tide functions from the file

    http://volker-doormann.org/ghi4z.txt

    weighted by the empirical factors: i.) 1.286, ii.) 1.0, iii.) 4.3, and iv.) 3.2 divided by 6 to fit in the plot range of the shown four single synodic tide functions.

    Because the tide functions of this four couples are given from 3000 BC to 3000 CE, these data can be used to calibrate 14C data or other sample data of fewer accuracy than the astronomical data.

    I think this reduces the science of climate forecast to a simple summation of the well known and published NASA ephemerides. The (war of the) heliocentric climate world view is opened.

    “It’s one thing not to see the forest for the trees, but then to go on to deny the reality of the forest is a more serious matter.”
    (Paul Weiss)

    V.

  271. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 14, 2011 at 9:15 am
    
Leif:
    “The magnetic shielding is provided by the Earth’s magnetic field which does not vary with solar activity,”

    Then why do cosmic ray counts and geomagnetic indices vary with solar activity?

    Leif:
    “so the number of mid-latitude aurorae depends on the number of CMEs.”

    among other things.

    Leif:
    “At solar max there are five CMEs per day. At solar minimum there is one CME every five days. So, a lot fewer and hence a lot fewer auroral sighting as observed. ”

    Accordingly, the five CME’s at solar max do not show up as mid-latitude aurorae, but the one per five days at solar minimum does, and the counts at solar min show a 60 year cycle. I agree that this is a remarkable claim, but if that’s what the data shows…

    Nicola, if you’re still here and I’ve got any of this wrong, please spank me.

  272. http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf

    “He detected abrupt discontinuities
    near the years 1766, 1796, 1838, 1868, and 1895. The
    first of these corresponds to the activity minimum proposed
    here as about 1765, the second is at about the beginning of
    the minimum around the beginning of the nineteenth century,
    the last precedes by a few years the beginning of the minimum
    at the beginning of the twentieth century, the third
    (1838) follows shortly after the end of the minimum. The
    fourth, in 1868, may be identified as preceding the decline
    in activity which occurred about 1879, which, in turn, may
    be identified with a minimum in the number of originated
    spot groups in Kopeck,’s decomposition.”

    There are some mighty cold winters in those years, as well as others given in the pdf.

  273. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 14, 2011 at 11:05 am
    First, the mid-latitude aurora records that I am using refer to latitude BELOW 55N. This include the aurora that were seen from North Africa to Germany, from Europe to Japan. Denmark is out this range.
    The range overlaps with Denmark, but that is not really the issue. The character of aurora occurrence in Denmark is not different from locations south of it. As I noted “Fritz [and I and everybody else who knows anything about this] say that there are more mid-latitude aurorae at high solar activity. Scafetta claims that at low solar activity there are more mid-latitude aurorae.”

    So, do you disagree with the provider of your data that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle, with higher activity meaning more aurorae?

    Sorry, Leif. About my figure 2B both records are upside-down. So, no Mann’s trick there.
    Oh yes, because the Faroe data is anomalous as you realize with:
    So, dear Leif, there is an anticorrelation with the smooth trending of the sunspot number during that period about the Faroes auroras.

    Apparently, You are reasoning on the base of a theory that may be only partially correct.
    The data, the data, shows that there is no anticorrelation for mid-latitude regions. And the theory was worked out 40+ years ago and has been confirmed by all observations since. You can study the theory here: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf

  274. Leif Svalgaard says:
    Number of comments to Vukcevic
    …….
    Respectfully disagree.
    -Your other Danish friends Svensmark and Christiansen also say that local cloud formation depends on the impact of cosmic rays at all latitudes.
    – Friends Manoj & Maus from Potsdam not to mention Ryskin from Northwestern University, advise that there is a strong component of geomagnetic field generated by ocean currents, which along the Faroe bank are among strongest anywhere in the world, counter-gmf, directly affecting velocity of the warm currents across the nearby Greenland- Scotland ridge, and hence controlling surface temperature of nearby seas, to which local cloudiness/visibility would directly respond.
    Non scientific person due to ignorance would dismiss most of those, but those scientifically inclined wouldn’t unless of course there is a particular reason to cloudy the issue.

    Anything new on june-HMB?

  275. Sorry, Leif

    You are still missing the point. The issue is that your concerpt of “high activity” is relative, not absolute. A “high activity” of what?

    I do not discuss the origin of the auroras and their spacial distribution at the different locations.

    About the Faroes auroras you are missing the point.

    Let us for example suppose that the apparent anticorrelation observed between the Faroes auroras with the trending of the sunspot record is due to an incredible error of the guy that collected the data, and that the data need to be flip up-down so that the record fits better your theory.

    The fact that you do not understand, dear Leif, is that even if you flip up-down the Faroe data record its power spectrum would show exactly the same peaks at about 10, 20 and 60 years and that these peaks are found in the temperature records. This is what really matters for my argument that the 10,20 and 60 year oscillations that we find in the temperature are not just an internal variability of the climate system but are due to astronomical forcings related to the oscillations of the solar system.

    The fact is that whatever record of aurora you use even if you flip it up-down will approximately show frequency peaks at 10, 20 and 60 year if sufficiently accurate and long. Although the actual patterns may be in phase or out of phase with some trending of the sunspot number, which appears to be a fact that depends on the location of observation.

    In other words,. dear Leif. you are not understanding the focal point of my paper whose title is “A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature”

    I am looking at the frequencies, Leif. Do you get it now?

  276. Hell, if that doesn’t fit your theories, change the data!

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 14, 2011 at 9:15 am
    pochas says:
    November 14, 2011 at 7:54 am
    I don’t see that Fritz (as quoted above) and Scafetta conflict.
    Then look. Fritz [and I and everybody else who knows anything about this] say that there are more mid-latitude aurorae at high solar activity. Scafetta claims that at low solar activity there are more mid-latitude aurorae. How more opposite can the claims be.

    ~
    Now how can we make more aurora at mid lat with less solar activity.
    Lets weaken the earth’s magnetosphere my immersing it with less pos charges and add more neg charges (solar cycle is in low.) so ionization rate is less and less radially outward into interplanetary space. More interstellar neutrals inside the planetary spheres orbits. During high speed coronal hole wind streams interstellar neutrals and solar produced backwater get bull dozed right into Earth’s magnetosphere and snap, snap, snap then crackle pop. Density enhancement.?

    vivid imaginations

    Those were great aurora pictures DR. S Thanks for the views.

  277. Our most recent RED mid lat. aurora were seen in
    ..”or photographed in more than half of all US states including Alabama, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, Nebraska, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Maryland, New York, Montana, Ohio, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, Arkansas and California. Many observers, especially in the deep south, commented on the pure red color of the lights they saw. These rare all-red auroras sometimes appear during intense geomagnetic storms. They occur some 300 to 500 km above Earth’s surface and are not yet fully understood..”

    http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=25&month=10&year=2011

    NICT movies show sudden increase in solar wind up to500 km/sec, and sudden increase in density at 1800 on Oct.24, 2011.

    http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie.html

    Slower moving eletrons all in RED showing up in the Ozarks. Movies clip at the above spaceweather archive link.

  278. Awards come with correctness. There seems to be a challenge towards the mid latitude aurora data, Dr. Scafetta and the reviewers of the paper. If there is not a 60 year frequency in the data, that needs to be shown clearly by examining the data used in the paper. Otherwise all points are moot.

  279. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 13, 2011 at 11:38 am
    “So, what you need to do is first not to imitate Leif, second try to study my paper and its references that discusses several of these issues with calm and interest, if you like.”

    OK so changes in the solar wind affects surface temperatures, but why use aurora as a measure of that ?
    For how long could a J/S conjunct do something ? maybe for a couple of years while they are in closer conjunct, that is just a blip in 60yrs.
    And why should every 3rd J/S conjunct be so different ?

  280. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 14, 2011 at 11:55 am
    -Your other Danish friends Svensmark and Christiansen also say that local cloud formation depends on the impact of cosmic rays at all latitudes.
    Aurorae are not clouds nor influenced by cosmic rays. So irrelevant.

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 14, 2011 at 12:09 pm
    You are still missing the point. The issue is that your concerpt of “high activity” is relative, not absolute. A “high activity” of what?
    High activity of solar magnetic field, and of electric currents in the magnetosphere and ionosphere.

    I do not discuss the origin of the auroras and their spacial distribution at the different locations.
    You do, e.g. ” A stronger solar or heliospheric magnetic field better screens galactic cosmic ray fluxes. Fewer cosmic rays reaching the Earth imply a weaker ionization of the upper atmosphere. As a side effect, less auroras form in the middle latitudes because a stronger magnetic field and a less ionized ionosphere mostly constrains the auroras in the polar region.”
    I will grant you that the discussion is muddled and displays poor understanding of the physics, so in that respect you are correct: “there is no valid discussion of the origin etc…”

    The fact that you do not understand, dear Leif, is that even if you flip up-down the Faroe data record its power spectrum would show exactly the same peaks at about 10, 20 and 60 years and that these peaks are found in the temperature records. This is what really matters for my argument that the 10,20 and 60 year oscillations that we find in the temperature are not just an internal variability of the climate system but are due to astronomical forcings related to the oscillations of the solar system.
    No, because you add the Faroe data to the end of another series. If you have, say three cycles of sin(t) and you add three more cycles of -sin(t), the resulting series has no single cycle.

    In other words,. dear Leif. you are not understanding the focal point of my paper whose title is “A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature”

    Looking at the frequencies alone is not valid, you have to look at the phase. What is important is that the series vary in phase not that you can find the same frequencies if the series are not stationary and the frequency peaks derive from different parts of the two series.

    But we are losing track of the important point: looking at data is only important if the data is good, and your data is not. That leads you astray and into non-physical speculation. You can begin to do some damage control of your reputation by conceding that mid-latitude aurorae [as all the world agree with] are most frequent as solar maximum and are associated with strong magnetic disturbances. If you cannot do that, there is no hope for you.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    November 14, 2011 at 3:36 pm
    If there is not a 60 year frequency in the data, that needs to be shown clearly by examining the data used in the paper. Otherwise all points are moot.
    If the data is flawed or misinterpreted the whole paper is moot.

  281. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 14, 2011 at 12:09 pm
    even if you flip up-down the Faroe data record its power spectrum would show exactly the same peaks at about 10, 20 and 60 years and that these peaks are found in the temperature records. This is what really matters for my argument that the 10,20 and 60 year oscillations that we find in the temperature …
    No, because you add the Faroe data to the end of another series. If you have, say three cycles of sin(t) and you add three more cycles of -sin(t), the resulting series has no single cycle with a period of 2pi = 6.28. Here is a simple demonstration of that [function on right, power spectrum on left]:

    Bottom line: the auroral, sunspot, and geomagnetic records do not show any consistent 60-yr oscillation, and especially not in the same time period as the climate [1850-2011]. The reviewers did a very poor job on you. Would you care to share their reports with us [if necessary ask their permission first]?

  282. Geoff Sharp, thank you.

    There is no doubt that the data I use in the paper show a 60-year frequency peak. This has been found also by other people as I reference in the paper: so there are several peer reviwed paper talking about a quasi-60 year cycle in the aurora records.

    The problem with Leif is that he uses the word “high solar activity” in a way that differs from what it is intended in the paper.

    Let us see if I can explain it with an example. Let us suppose that the solar activity is made by a perfect and constant 11-year solar cycle. So, solar activity as Leif understand it is given by a perfect and constant cycle. Let us suppose that the top of the cycle is determined by a increased frequency of CMEs.

    How would the aurora record look like? According Leif’s model one would see more aurora when the solar cycle is at its top of the cycle, that is when there are more frequent CMEs, and less auroras when the solar activity is at the bottom of the same cycle. The record of auroras will follow closely the 11-year CME cycle and we would see a perfect 11-year aurora record coupled to that cycle. I can agree with that.

    Let us now add another ingredient to the model. Let us assume that there exists an additional component associated to the relative position of the planets. Let us assume that when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the sun (with a cycle of 60-year) the physical properties of the heliosphere change in such a way that become more difficult or more easy for the aurora to form at a specific location.

    It is evident that in such scenario the aurora record at each location would present an 11-year cycle in phase with the 11-year cycle of CME plus an additional 60 year cycle despite the fact that we are assuming that the solar CME activity is regurated by a perfect and constant cycle.

    Essentially, Leif is thinking only in terms of frequency of CME, while I am thinking at the backgroud properties of the sun, of the heliosphere and of the magnetosphere too that may or may not be correlated to the multidecadal trend of the frequency of CME.

    The major problem with Leif, in my opinion, is that he believes that the backgroud properties of the sun, of the heliosphere and of the magnetosphere are almost perfectly constant, so he does not grasp the point. Leif also believes that the sunspot cycle is a rigorous representation of what ever is happening in the sun, of the heliosphere and of the magnetosphere, while I don’t think so. The Sun and the heliosphere are a more complex system than just the sunspot.

    One way to look at the things is to look at the mid-latitude aurora frequency number during the minimum of the sunspot solar cycle. Of course, during these minima we find less mid-latitude aurora than during the sunspot maxima. However, the mid-latitude records during the suspot solar minimum periods are not constant (as Leif’s solar model that has all minima equal would predict) but reveal a quite strong cyclicity as figure 2 shows. So becaue the number of CME events during the sunspot minima may be constant as Leif says because it may be strongly linked to the sunspot number, the strong cyclicity observed in the aurora is evidently due to a physical change of the solar/heliosperic background activity not elemenary linked to CME events alone.

    My argument is that it is this solar/heliosperic background activity that is regulated by the planets and ultimately regulates the climate, not the CME events alone.

    Of course the exact explanation of the physical mechanisms linking everything was not the topic of the paper. The paper simply stresses the fact that mid-latitude aurora records present the same major frequencies of the solar system and of the temperature. Then I correlate the temperature patterns to the planetary cycle directly, and in references I stress that the best mechanism is a cyclical modulation of the albedo.

  283. Ulric Lyons says:
    November 14, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    For how long could a J/S conjunct do something ? maybe for a couple of years while they are in closer conjunct, that is just a blip in 60yrs.
    And why should every 3rd J/S conjunct be so different ?

    Ulrich, Nicola displays a J/S tidal elongation at Earth diagram in figure 7A in his paper that clearly shows the 60 year oscillation (which happens to align with the PDO). Because Jupiter makes up the greater proportion of tidal influence his graph is also very close to the Sun/Jupiter distance graph that can easily be constructed with JPL data. This is a normal function that has probably been going on for 4.5 billion years.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 14, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    If the data is flawed or misinterpreted the whole paper is moot.

    Well perhaps you may be better off dealing with the data than attempting to give a science lecture. This should be your focus.

  284. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 14, 2011 at 5:07 pm
    However, the mid-latitude records during the suspot solar minimum periods are not constant (as Leif’s solar model that has all minima equal would predict) but reveal a quite strong cyclicity as figure 2 shows.
    Mid-latitude aurorae are very strongly correlated with magnetic activity of which we have a very good record back to 1840s. The Faroe data in Figure 2 are not homogeneous [for whatever reason] and cannot be used as support as you claim. Figure 3 of Silverman 1992 [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf ] show this clearly. As Silverman points out: “The solar activity minima in 1901 ans 1913 are refelcted here in sharp drops in auroral occurrence”. The unfortunate fact is that it is next to impossible to calibrate the auroral record, only the magnetic imprint of the very same currents that are the aurorae give a reliable picture.

    My argument is that it is this solar/heliospheric background activity
    We know now quite well the heliospheric magnetic field back to the 1830s [and the wind speed back to the 1840s] and there is no 60-year cycle in that data, nor in the sunspot number. It is very likely there is a 60-yr cycle in climate, after all the PDO shows one, but it is not caused by anything solar or heliospheric.

    To clarify,please state here for the record that you now fully agree that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records.

    I asked about the reviewers’ reports. Can you produce them?

  285. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 14, 2011 at 5:44 pm
    Well perhaps you may be better off dealing with the data than attempting to give a science lecture. This should be your focus.
    Science lectures are what I do and am good at. The auroral data cannot be dealt with any better than by Silverman in the links I provided and there is not much more that can be done about that at this juncture. We can only hope that hapless researchers become inform themselves or are heeded advice when told about the problems of calibration and homogenization [what Krivksy called the ‘civilization factor’].

  286. @ Leif that says “No, because you add the Faroe data to the end of another series. ”

    It is not fully true Leif. I explain the things in the paper

    In Figure 4 I am showing four power spectra.
    4A is the power spectra of the temperature,
    4C refers to the Mid-latitude aurora alone from 1700 to 1880,
    4D refers to the Faroe aurora alone.
    So, the two records mid-latitude aurora and Faroes are analyzed independly.

    Then in Figure 5 I combine the spectrum of temperature record in 4A with the spectrum of the midlatitude aurora alone in 4C.

    It is true that in 4B I show a spectrum obtained by combining the two aurora records, due to the fact that during the overlapping period from 1872 to 1900 the two records show comparable patterns. So I assumed that a continuity merging could be possible which assumes that the Faroes record could be used as a possible proxy for the mid-latitude record given the strong similarity between the two records from 1872 to 1966.

    You may not like figure 4B, fine. But the argument in the paper was not based on it at all, Leif.

    The aurgument in the paper was based on figure 4A, 4C and 4D and figure 5 that uses only 4A and 4C. I never used 4B to support the aurgument. of the paper. Think, Leif, think.

    So, my argument is perfectly consistent. I am using the mid-latitude aurora record since 1700 and compare it with the temperature frequencies, as the title says. I can eliminatethe Faroes aurora from the paper and nothing would change, not even one augument.

    A referee raised the issue that you are raising, I have explained it and my explanation was accepted because the referee realized that the Faroe record was not at all artificially altering the results, as you are misinterpreting, but was added for checking that the frequencies observed in the Mid-latitude aurora from 1700 to 1900 were also present in another long and more recent record of aurora that extended up to 1966.

    On the contrary, I agree that the result depicted in figure 4B can be considered speculative because I merged the two records under the above continuity assumption that you may not like, but that figure does not change anything in the paper.

    I am sorry Leif, but I believe that your hostility agaist me is so strong that you are trying to find the smallest aurgument in my paper that you may question instead of looking at the general findind and the correct logic of it. You are simply missing the point.

    In conclusion, the Faroe auroras were added not for falsify the result as you are maliciously misinterpreting, but for checking that the same major frequencies found in the Mid-latitude record which ends in 1900, are present also for a more recent and independent long aurora record. That is what emerge from the paper and what the referee correctly understood.

    In any case, Leif if you think that there are so many errors in the paper, or if you have better data why don’t you submit a comment to the journal so that I may properly respond?

  287. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 14, 2011 at 5:44 pm
    “Nicola displays a J/S tidal elongation at Earth diagram in figure 7A..”

    Jeff, that is a slightly varying 11.86 cycle, and does not answer my question, which I was hoping for an answer from Nicola. Meanwhile, have a think about which of the 11.86yr and 19.86yr peaks in 7A/B could possibly be forcing the “cold” portion of this c.60yr cycle.

  288. Hey, Leif

    did you note that also Silverman that you like so much, which of course I referenced in my paper, agrees that a quasi 60 year cycle is present in the mid-latitude aurora record?

    I appreciate that you are reading some of the references that I add in the paper.

    Have you noted that Silverman analyzed the period 1500-1948 in figure 4 and found a rougth 55 year cycle (probable error +/-5 years).
    However, note that before 1700 the data are very poor and he merged the mid-latitude catalog I used with another record (New England data base) to arrive to 1948 , which correspond to the arond 55N geomagnetid coordinate, so is at the border of the 55N.

    He also found a rougth 83 year cycle. (Jupiter and Uranus 84 year resonance cycle?,what do you think?)

    Then he wrote:

    “The peak at 55 years had also been proposed by
    Wolf [seeF ritz, 1893] as a prominent period.A definite and
    clearly significant peak is found in the present data set at 33
    years (that is my about 30 year cycle). CharvdtovaJakubcoevt [1988] have reported
    periods in the range 60-100, 43-47, 34-37, and 30-31 years
    in less well resolved spectra based on an auroral data set
    coveting the interval 1001-1900 and the subintervals 1001-
    1500 and 1501-1900. Except for the peak in the 43-47 year
    period these are consistent with the present results.”

    And I would say that Silverman’s results are compatible with mine too.

    Are you convinced, Leif, that a quasi 60-year cycle in the aurora record was not observed by me only?

    Of course the data are poor, but that is what we have.

  289. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 14, 2011 at 6:05 pm
    So, my argument is perfectly consistent. I am using the mid-latitude aurora record since 1700 and compare it with the temperature frequencies, as the title says. I can eliminate the Faroes aurora from the paper and nothing would change, not even one argument.

    The point is that the auroral record is generally too poor for this, as it is not possible to calibrate it in a reasonable way. But it is also not necessary as the magnetic record is far better, directly giving us a measure of the electric currents in the upper atmosphere. And the magnetic record and the sunspot record do not show the 60-year period. Since the climate very likely does [PDO] it follows that that period must have other sources, if not just a random fluctuation.

    In conclusion, the Faroe auroras were added not for falsify the result as you are maliciously misinterpreting
    maliciously? that is a bit over the top, don’t you think?

    your hostility against me is so strong…
    I’m not aware of any hostility on my part. I have given your paper more analysis and thought than most and found it wanting. My beef is with the paper, not with the person. Try to count the number of negative words in your posts and mine and perhaps report here what you find in order to back up your assertion. If not, one can take that as admission that you have been too emotional and not quite polite.

    In any case, Leif if you think that there are so many errors in the paper, or if you have better data why don’t you submit a comment to the journal so that I may properly respond?
    If you think you have not responded properly here, I might just do that to give you a second chance. As a prelude to that and so that we don’t waste ink on it, please state here for the record that you now fully agree that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records in concert with the generally accepted view of auroral physics and all the modern data our marvelous space-based monitors have provided us with.

  290. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm
    did you note that also Silverman that you like so much, which of course I referenced in my paper, agrees that a quasi 60 year cycle is present in the mid-latitude aurora record?
    He notes that just about every period you can think up has been found by somebody at some time. “Scientists around the turn of the 19th century were busy looking for connections between aurora, weather, meteors, astronomical positions, and just about everything else.” I’m sure that you could find somebody claiming just about any period in the data. About the peaks he found he notes “The peaks here are, unfortunately, not sufficient well resolved to provide definitive information either to define the period with exactitude or for significance

    Are you convinced, Leif, that a quasi 60-year cycle in the aurora record was not observed by me only?
    Everybody analyzing the same crappy data one might hope will find similar things. That, as Silverman observes, cannot even be tested for significance.

    Of course the data are poor, but that is what we have.
    No, that is not the only thing we have. We have very good modern data for the past almost 200 years and they show no 60-yr period. Period.

    Again: please state here for the record that you now fully agree that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records in concert with the generally accepted view of auroral physics and all the modern data our marvelous space-based monitors have provided us with.

  291. Ulric Lyons says:
    November 14, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    Jeff, that is a slightly varying 11.86 cycle, and does not answer my question, which I was hoping for an answer from Nicola. Meanwhile, have a think about which of the 11.86yr and 19.86yr peaks in 7A/B could possibly be forcing the “cold” portion of this c.60yr cycle.

    The theory is quite simple Ulric, greater gravitational/magnetic influence is directed towards our magnetosphere when the J/S position is closer to Earth, there can be no doubting of the JPL data. Nicola speculates that a change in cloud cover brought about by a density change in cosmic rays brings changes to temperature. If so I would not be surprised if this cloud cover change has an impact on spatial SST formations in the North Pacific (PDO) which have been shown to influence ENSO which is a contentious issue for some. A lot of correlations and perhaps the missing accurate data (cosmic rays/cloud cover) making the process harder but none the less worthy of investigation.

  292. Leif, the link between the aurora records and the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records is “approximate” and needs to be well understood.

    Note that our marvelous space-based monitors do not really exisisted when the aurora records used in the paper were recorded which also goes fur beyond the geomagnetic activity records. Moreover, what our marvelous space-based monitors record from the space may not be exactly identical to what people see or have seen from the ground as I wrote in the paper

  293. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 14, 2011 at 7:29 pm
    Leif, the link between the aurora records and the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records is “approximate” and needs to be well understood.
    It is very well understood, especially between auroral activity and geomagnetic activity. That you don’t understand it can be rectified. There are several good texts available. I can recommend ‘Exploring the Secrets of the Aurora’ by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, ISBN 1-4020-0685-3. It is very accessible and written by one the men who helped introduce the idea and concept of the auroral oval and how it is formed and moves.

    Note that our marvelous space-based monitors do not really exisisted when the aurora records used in the paper were recorded which also goes for beyond the geomagnetic activity records. Moreover, what our marvelous space-based monitors record from the space may not be exactly identical to what people see or have seen from the ground as I wrote in the paper
    What the modern data does is to show us that the theory is very well understood. What people have seen from the ground is, of course, unreliable: http://www.leif.org/research/Aurora-1570-01-12.png
    The geomagnetic record is exquisite since the 1840s. It shows us directly the intensity of the currents in the ionosphere and even allows us to determine the properties of the solar wind with considerable precision. You can get a feeling for this by studying http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf

    Again: please state here for the record that you now fully agree that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records in concert with the generally accepted view of auroral physics and all the modern data our marvelous space-based monitors have provided us with.

  294. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 14, 2011 at 8:17 pm
    Leif, I have already responded. Do not be petulant.
    Your response was weak and ambiguous, try again with a YES or NO:

    Again: please state here for the record that you now fully agree that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records in concert with the generally accepted view of auroral physics and all the modern data our marvelous space-based monitors have provided us with.

  295. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 14, 2011 at 7:22 pm
    “The theory is quite simple Ulric, greater gravitational/magnetic influence is directed towards our magnetosphere when the J/S position is closer to Earth,,”

    Not quite that simple, here is what he said:

    “The strength of the magnetosphere is regulated by the sun (whose activity changes in synchrony with the planets), but perhaps the strength of the Earth’s magnetosphere is also regulated directly by the gravitational/magnetic forces of Jupiter and Saturn and the other planets whose gravitational/magnetic tides may stretch or compress the Earth’s magnetosphere in some way making it easier or more difficult for the Earth’s magnetosphere to deviate the cosmic ray.

    So, when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the Sun, they may do the following things: 1) may make the sun more active; 2) the more active sun makes the magnetosphere stronger; 3) Jupiter and Saturn contribute with their magnetic fiend to make stronger the magnetic field of the inner part of the solar system; 4) the Earth’ magnetosphere is made stronger and larger by both the increased solar activity and the gravitational and magnetic stretching of it caused by the Jupiter and Saturn.”

    All a bit confused really, but the point is that these astronomical configurations (eg when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the Sun) only last briefly, and so are to short lasting to physically represent the cause of the main warmer section of a 60yr cycle. And who is to say the tidal consideration (fig 7A) is valid anyway ?
    From what I can tell, the response of surface temperatures to changes of the solar wind speed seem to be very immediate, the changes in cloud cover are a response to temperature change.

  296. @Nicola Scafetta

    You’ve convinced me to take a look at the data.
    (Only problem: We’re in the busy season in my industry. 4 times the normal workload… I’ll keep reading what you write here though – have time for that.)

  297. @ Ulric Lyons:

    The actual mechanisms are not fully understood yet, nor they were supposed to be the main topic of the paper. In the paper I propose some conjectures, not detailed physical proves of the chain of all single mechanisms. As somebody said above, science is full of misteries, and in this topic there are a lot of misteries yet. This is perfectly normal in science.

    What the paper shows is that there are 60-year oscillations in the solar system. In the paper I focuses on three observable: one is related to the speed of the Sun relative to the center of mass of the solar system, one is related to the tidal envelop and another is a geometrical orientation. Thus, a lot of other observables would have such harmonic. These oscillations match with the observed climate oscillations.

    So, we know that a 60-year modulation exists in the solar system. However, at the moment a full theory of how this oscillation is translated exactly into a forcing of the climate is not yet clear.

    One of the topics of the paper was to show that even if we may not know the physical details of all involved mechanisms we can try to forecast climate change using astronomical cycles.

    This is what people actually do for forecasting the ocean tides. Not all involved mechanisms are fully understood yeat about the ocean tides and people use harmonic model based of astronomical harmonics for overcome our ignorance.

  298. Ulric Lyons says:
    November 14, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    All a bit confused really, but the point is that these astronomical configurations (eg when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the Sun) only last briefly, and so are to short lasting to physically represent the cause of the main warmer section of a 60yr cycle. And who is to say the tidal consideration (fig 7A) is valid anyway ?
    From what I can tell, the response of surface temperatures to changes of the solar wind speed seem to be very immediate, the changes in cloud cover are a response to temperature change.

    I was also confused initially but see it pretty clearly now after Nicola pointed out the magnetosphere is affected by the planets as well as the Sun. I think you are getting confused about the brief period when J/S have their greatest effect. Yes there is a point of greatest modulation but it takes 30 years to reach that point before turning back to a baseline position 30 years later. It is not all about the min and max positions as any point in the 60 year period will be in front or behind the average.

    Solar wind speed IMO does not have enough variation over the cycle as I have shown you previously.

    Putting albedo changes after temperature could be one theory but I suspect you might be out on a limb, plus the earthshine project does seem to follow Nicola’s logic.

  299. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm
    So, we know that a 60-year modulation exists in the solar system.
    Since 1600 there has not been a 60-yr period in sunspot numbers and therefore
    Since 1600 there has not been a 60-yr period in cosmic rays.
    Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in geomagnetic activity and therefore
    Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in auroral activity.
    Since 1835 there has not been a 60-yr period in the heliospheric magnetic field.
    Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in solar wind speed.
    So, your assertion that a ’60-year modulation exists in the solar system’ does not refer to any of the above.

  300. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm
    So, we know that a 60-year modulation exists in the solar system.
    Since 1600 there has not been a 60-yr period in sunspot numbers and therefore
    Since 1600 there has not been a 60-yr period in cosmic rays.
    Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in geomagnetic activity and therefore
    Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in auroral activity.
    Since 1835 there has not been a 60-yr period in the heliospheric magnetic field.
    Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in solar wind speed.
    So, your assertion that a ’60-year modulation exists in the solar system’ does not refer to any of the above for the time periods listed.

  301. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 14, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in auroral activity.

    Should that read “Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in mid-latitude auroral activity.” ?
    If so you may need to show that by challenging the data properly. There is more than one paper that disagrees with you.

  302. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 14, 2011 at 9:35 pm
    Since 1600 there has not been a 60-yr period in sunspot numbers and therefore
    […]
    Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in solar wind speed.

    Here is how the scientific method works: You present a hypothesis based on some ideas and some data. The hypothesis predicts or posits the behavior of several related data sets. A crucial step is now to check if that behavior is, in fact, observed. If not, your hypothesis is either falsified or overreaching into domains where it is not valid. The cases listed above provide such a test with the outcome being failure.

  303. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:03 pm
    Should that read “Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in mid-latitude auroral activity.” ?
    If so you may need to show that by challenging the data properly.

    If you want I can restrict it to that, but that is a red herring because there has not been any no matter what the latitude is. The data is challenged by noting that auroral activity which is notoriously difficult to calibrate is just a visual aspect of the underlying electric currents which are easy to measure via their magnetic effect. That is the proper procedure: decouple from the unreliable and unreproducible auroral sightings [why do you think the various auroral datasets stop shortly after 1960? because we realized it was not worth collecting that unreliable stuff, now that we have figured out the physics] and use the measurements of the currents.
    There is more than one paper that disagrees with you.
    If they are on the same shaky ground as Scafetta’s quantity does not matter. But, anyway, find me one that shows a 60-yr period in geomagnetic activity 1844-2011 and I’ll have a look.

  304. Pamela Gray says:
    November 11, 2011 at 9:03 am
    Massive weaknesses in this paper. The suggested physical mechanism, as presented in this paper, of cosmic rays and clouds is NOT validly or reliably accomplished. Plausibility (IE the mechanisms well-reasoned details) is entirely lacking in the paper. Mechanisms MUST be girthed with plausibility when being thrown into a paper focused on solar/climate cycle matching. In my opinion, Scafetta’s paper is mortally wounded by such a failing.

    ====================================

    It’s only mortally wounded by your own “hopey-changey” orthodoxy in your belief system, Pamela.

    You just JUMP to find ways to disprove anything out of the system of Earth’s biosphere….you do this every time without fail and without even remote question.

    There may be “multiple weaknesses” in this paper….but there are equally multiple weaknesses in your premature jumping to conclusions.

    I have been your champion on here as I admire your logic and commitment to the truth. But your prejudices against anything beyond Earth, are unmistakably skewed.

    As to your point on the physical mechanism of “cosmic rays and clouds” as being not “validly and reliably accomplished”…please demonstrate as to why that is so.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  305. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    If you want I can restrict it to that, but that is a red herring because there has not been any no matter what the latitude is.

    The mid-latitude aurora is what Nicola is representing which you conveniently omitted, which has been the pattern of your hand waving exercise. It is far from a red herring, more the elephant in the room. This is not a restriction, more the meat of the paper.

    If they are on the same shaky ground as Scafetta’s quantity does not matter. But, anyway, find me one that shows a 60-yr period in geomagnetic activity 1844-2011 and I’ll have a look.

    You could start with the data behind Nicola’s paper and if needed I am sure Nicola could provide other papers as referenced in his paper.

  306. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 14, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    Mid-latitude aurorae are very strongly correlated with magnetic activity of which we have a very good record back to 1840s. The Faroe data in Figure 2 are not homogeneous [for whatever reason] and cannot be used as support as you claim. Figure 3 of Silverman 1992

    [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf ]

    show this clearly. As Silverman points out: “The solar activity minima in 1901 ans 1913 are reflected here in sharp drops in auroral occurrence”.

    Again summing up solar tide functions of 11 couples from Mercury to Quaoar, one can identify a positive correlation between the number of auroras Silverman has published in Fig. 3 on a log scale and in comparison the square function of the GHI, what is visible in this graph:

    Because this summation only takes heliocentric tide functions of synodic well known 11 couples in our solar system, it means, if there is a correlation that the amount of solar tides related to the planets is connected with the amount of terrestrial aurora for the past 500 years, and as Silverman has pointed out that ‘drops in the auroral occurrence’ are connected to times when more solar nip tides occurred than solar spring tides.

    Moreover, because the low frequencies of the slow moving synodic couples have obvious the greatest impact on the terrestrial auroras, temperatures etc. , the time length the tide configuration is present must have a relevant meaning in this mechanism of activity in the solar gas ocean on its moving surface.

    A blow up of the hadcrut3 data 100 years ago do show also a drop in the global temperature and is corresponding to the solar tide function of six synodic couples (GHI6++ – Jupiter and outer planets):

    Seems arguments are not allowed if they do not fit with traditional views.

    V.

  307. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 15, 2011 at 3:06 am
    The mid-latitude aurora is what Nicola is representing which you conveniently omitted, which has been the pattern of your hand waving exercise. It is far from a red herring, more the elephant in the room. This is not a restriction, more the meat of the paper.
    The mid-latitude aurora is well represented by the observations from Denmark, which fully qualifies as mid-latitude [Scafetta even includes the Faroe Islands at 62N]. And what is there to say about this, except that they show what even Nicola claims he now understands, namely that the mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle closely.

    You could start with the data behind Nicola’s paper and if needed I am sure Nicola could provide other papers as referenced in his paper.
    The data is of poor quality compared to the geomagnetic record of the electric currents of which the auroral sightings are but unreliable proxies. I know that auroral data very well, the records being stored in my very office at the Danish Meteorological Institute. We stopped recording the sightings in the late sixties because it was realized how useless an exercise it was now that we had the much better magnetic records. Here are the sightings record for several stations in the North Atlantic: http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-DMI-Nord.png . Note how dissimilar they are although looking at the same aurorae. Now, Scafetta claims that the auroral data after 1900 don’t matter for his paper, so they can hardly be any elephant in his room.

  308. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 15, 2011 at 3:06 am
    The mid-latitude aurora is what Nicola is representing
    And he uses the Faroe Islands data as representative of that. The data from Germany collected here shows the very close relation between auroral sightings and geomagnetic activity:

    http://www.geofisica.unam.mx/divulgacion/geofinternacional/iframes/anteriores/2011/04/6_schroder.pdf

    Returning to the Faroe Islands, note that the number of auroral nights at the height of the second largest solar cycle in 1947 is on par with those reported for some of the deepest solar minima, showing how unreliable the data is. Stations north and south of the Faroes show almost no aurorae at these minima. Silverman [his Figure 3] has compiled whatever data there is from mid-latitudes. His conclusion is plain: the decades 1900-1920 have very few aurorae in agreement with the geomagnetic record, so, effectively demolishing any claims to the contrary.

    But, I think you have lost track of the issue, which is whether auroral sightings at mid-latitudes follow the solar cycle [as I and everybody else claim] or not [as Nicola claims].

  309. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 15, 2011 at 3:06 am
    I am sure Nicola could provide other papers as referenced in his paper.
    In fact, he does cite Silverman. Here is the Silverman data [Fig.3] since 1800. http://www.leif.org/research/Silverman-Fig-3.png . Combined with what we know to be large auroral activity after 1950, it is clear that if there is any ‘cycle’ it is a 100-year cycle. So, no 60-yr cycle in mid-latitude aurora.

  310. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 15, 2011 at 3:06 am
    I am sure Nicola could provide other papers as referenced in his paper.
    He does, in fact, cite Silverman, who has compiled the most complete list of all, some 45,000 observations. Here is the past 200 years of Silverman’s data about mid-latitude aurorae: http://www.leif.org/research/Silverman-Fig-3.png . Combined with our knowledge that the cycles after 1950 [19, 21,22] were large and thus had lots of aurorae, you can see there is not a 60-yr cycle, but, if any, a 100+ year cycle. So, that takes take of that elephant.

  311. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 6:56 am
    ………..
    Here is the first of three (two to follow) articles:

    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/64/12/35/PDF/NorthAtlanticOscillations-I.pdf

    Currently only in a ‘document technical validation’; dissect it for the ‘not so good, bad and ugly’ bits, so I can move it forward .
    If Anthony is about, please have a go too, if you are so inclined.
    I better say thank you before you respond, but I can take it, do your ‘worst’, the only way to find out if something is any good (I am still learning how to attach the ‘sad face’). Tnx.

  312. “I think you are getting confused about the brief period when J/S have their greatest effect. Yes there is a point of greatest modulation but it takes 30 years to reach that point before turning back to a baseline position 30 years later.”

    Nonsense, what about the other two J/S synods in this supposed 60yr cycle ? Draw a 60yr sign wave and plot the other two synods and see how they fall on the negative portion of the wave. Now there is no logical reason why those two would be negative and the third one producing the whole positive portion of the cycle. And what of the 3 J/S oppositions within the 60yrs, is only the middle one more negative somehow ?
    So how do we define “when Jupiter and Saturn are close to the Sun” ? IMO giving it as much as a 3yr window around the synod is stretching it.

    “Solar wind speed IMO does not have enough variation over the cycle as I have shown you previously.”

    Now that is a problem as solar wind speed it has a direct impact on auroras.

  313. Ulric Lyons says:
    November 15, 2011 at 8:35 am
    Now that is a problem as solar wind speed it has a direct impact on auroras.
    Mid-latitude aurorae only occurs during geomagnetic storms and those depend very little on solar wind speed. The real factors that determine the strength of a storm are the compression of the solar wind magnetic field and density combined with the occurrence of the field pointing southwards.

  314. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 15, 2011 at 8:25 am
    Currently only in a ‘document technical validation’; dissect it for the ‘not so good, bad and ugly’ bits, so I can move it forward .
    In order to get you on track early on, you should not calculate R^2 from moving averages. That is not statistically sound. If you have 100 data points, you can compute a moving average over say 5 points, which will give you 96 ‘data points’, but they are not independent, so R^2 [and various other tests for significance] is meaningless [much too high]. You can compute R^2 [and significance] from the 20 averages you would get from grouping the original data points into 20 consecutive intervals of 5 points. Any referee would reject the paper right here because of this, so don’t do this.

  315. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 9:16 am
    In order to get you on track early on, you should not calculate R^2 from moving averages.
    Which is what you do as far as I can see, but I could be wrong. So, specify clearly if the R^2s are calculated from the single data points or the moving averages. You should also bear in mind that too many [and too detailed] Figures tend to obscure your message [counter-intuitive, but a fact] and that Journals often have limitations on the number of Figures for that reason. Finally, we should not hijack this thread to discuss your missive.

  316. Leif Svalgaard says:
    …….You are unusually restrained, but thanks for now (smiley face here).
    -It is not going into paper print, just electronic version (.pdf file), so number and size of Figures is no problem.
    – Yes it is R^2 with moving averages, but that is necessitated by the nature of the data, one refers to atmospheric pressure (very volatile) already heavily smoothed, the other is oceans surface temperature, which again is made of thousands averaged elements.
    Nearest you can get to a reasonable data is shown in Fig.11

    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/64/12/35/PDF/NorthAtlanticOscillations-I.pdf

    for which only trends are calculated (unexpectedly exact opposite).
    The message :
    – the IPCC is hugely deficient in the AMO-NAO relationship stakes, none of the stuff in the numbered graphs is known to climate scientists, including Dr. Mann, the expert authority on the AMO.
    – degree of predictability based on the historical records correlation.

  317. Ulric Lyons says:
    November 15, 2011 at 8:35 am
    Now that is a problem as solar wind speed it has a direct impact on auroras.
    Mid-latitude aurorae only occurs during geomagnetic storms and those depend very little on solar wind speed. The real factors that determine the strength of a storm are the compression of the solar wind magnetic field and density combined with the occurrence of the field pointing southwards.

    And the number of storms [which determines the number of nights with mid-latitude aurorae] does not depend on the solar wind speed but on the number of CMEs [which depends directly on the number of sunspots]. So, solar wind speed is ‘not a problem’ in this.

  318. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 15, 2011 at 9:57 am
    - Yes it is R^2 with moving averages, but that is necessitated by the nature of the data, one refers to atmospheric pressure (very volatile) already heavily smoothed, the other is oceans surface temperature, which again is made of thousands averaged elements.
    The underlying data is not smoothed as moving averages in time, so their smoothing does not matter. Repeat: any referee would reject the paper right here. If you need to smooth, calculate averages over adjacent [but non-overlapping] intervals. Do not correlate moving averages, that is a sure cause for rejection. I’m just saving you grief to come. But, as I said, no more discussion on the thread. Post it as a separate article.

  319. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 9:58 am
    “Mid-latitude aurorae only occurs during geomagnetic storms and those depend very little on solar wind speed.”

    Well maybe Scafetta should have looked at polar auroras and land temperatures alone instead, it is clear that the “abrupt discontinuities” here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf
    correspond regularly to episodes of very low land temperatures.

  320. Ulric Lyons says:
    November 15, 2011 at 10:46 am
    it is clear that the “abrupt discontinuities” here:
    Most of those are observational problems [‘civilization’ bias, reporting issues, rise of newspapers, etc] not real changes in solar input or actual auroral occurrence.

  321. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 14, 2011 at 8:33 pm
    Again: please state here for the record that you now fully agree that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records in concert with the generally accepted view of auroral physics and all the modern data our marvelous space-based monitors have provided us with.
    ~
    Will perhaps mostly due?

    I still take issue with the penetration of interstellar neutrals crossing the orbital paths of the planets within the heliosphere, in particular whilst entering and exiting the frontal nose direction of the indented heliosphere bubble at equinox.
    Image A in this IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) image set.

    In the image you see the Oxygen trailing the helium in our orbit around the sun.

    And speaking of oxygen and those slower alot slower moving electrons visible in the Ozarks in the next image.
    Oct 25, 2011

    Lot of stuff hitting the upper atmosphere over a rather extended area of the northern hemisphere hey there.
    Density changes ..

  322. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 14, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    The Faroe data in Figure 2 are not homogeneous [for whatever reason] and cannot be used as support as you claim. Figure 3 of Silverman 1992 [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf ] show this clearly.

    There are power peaks shown in this paper of S.M. Silverman and he has identified the frequencies and the and the time periods from 5.6 years to ~83 years in Fig 4 and Fig 5.

    The frequencies [1/years] of the aurora can be assigned to harmonic frequencies or synodic frequencies in the solar system of the planets Jupiter, Saturn, Chiron, Uranus, Neptune and Quaoarm, but also to the main frequency of the sun spot cycle of 1/11.196 y:

    Period[y] f[1/y]
    84 0.011903 = 0.011903 = 84y
    UR
    55.6 0.01797 = 0.011903 + 0.00606832 = 0.01797 = 55.6y
    UR + NE
    33.3 0.03003 = 0.033947 – 0.00403089 = 0.029916 = 33.426y
    SA - PL
    24.45 0.0408998 = 0.033947 + (2*0.0034749)= 0.0408968 = 24.452y
    SA + (2*QU)
    18.2 0.054945 = 0.033947 + (6*0.0034749)= 0.054793 = 18.2y
    SA + (6*QU)
    14.81 0.067522 = 2*0.033947 = 0.067894 = 14.72y
    (2*SA)
    12.904 0.07775 = 0.084317 – (2*0.0034749)= 0.077367 = 12.92y
    JU - (2*QU)
    11.39 0.087796 = 0.084317 + 0.0034749 = 0.087792 = 11.39y
    JU + QU
    10.17 0.098328 = 0.084317 +(4*0.0034749) = 0.098216 = 10.18<y
    JU + (4*QU)
    9.41 0.106269 = 0.084317 + (2*0.0119032)= 0.108123 = 9.249y
    JU + (2*UR)
    8.60 0.11625 = 0.084317 + 0.033947788 = 0.118265 = 8.455y
    JU + SA
    8.0808 0.12375 = 0.084317 + (2*0.019700) = 0.123718 = 8.083y
    JU + (2*CH)
    5.56 0.1798 = (2*0.08931) = 0.17863 = 5.598y
    (2*SS)

    It is remarkable that the power of the slow moving synods is high, while the power of the synodic frequencies with the faster Jupiter are small. Also the half frequency of the object Chiron fits in this scheme.

    This must not mean that there must be a mechanism were these couples of planets are involved, but it is remarkable that there are these relations, it links again the aurora periods to the planets in the solar system.

    V.

  323. Ulric Lyons says:
    November 15, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Nonsense, what about the other two J/S synods in this supposed 60yr cycle ? Draw a 60yr sign wave and plot the other two synods and see how they fall on the negative portion of the wave.

    I think you will find it is not all about the J/S synod, you will notice a rough 10-11 year frequency in the peaks of Nicola’s figure 7A. When considering tidal forces Saturn is about 5% of Jupiter’s tidal force, thus the shape of Jupiter’s orbit can be more important than the J/S conjunction. Nicola and I differ on the orbital mechanics involved at this point but the data is still the same (JPL). I am of the view that both the Earth and Jupiter have the Sun as their orbit axis point and the Jupiter perihelion is controlled solely by planet perturbations with Saturn making up the majority of influence. My Jupiter/Sun distance graph shows that perihelion can occur at J/S conjunction and J/S opposition, which I think proves my point, but you may need to get clarification from Nicola.

  324. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 7:24 am

    The Schroder paper clearly shows that mid latitude aurora occur during times of low solar output. Of 171 aurorae 23% were observed with a Kp index lower than 5. You may prefer to rely on magnetic readings but it is clear there can be a disconnect, which is Nicola’s point.

    Your claim that there is NOT a 60 year period in the mid-latitude aurora is still yet to be shown. I can see you will not analyze the data, so your claims will continue to be hand waving.

  325. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 15, 2011 at 3:05 pm
    “I think you will find it is not all about the J/S synod..”

    I think I will find it`s got nothing to do with Jupiter`s tidal effects on Earth`s magnetosphere either.

    “My Jupiter/Sun distance graph shows that perihelion can occur at J/S conjunction and J/S opposition..”

    They precess over 40 synods: http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/keplerastrolmed.jpg
    The last times the syzygies were closest to Jupiter perihelion was in 1702 and 1762. You may well find it was warmer around the 1730`s and 1790`s in that century.

  326. The Silverman paper is interesting and backs up the Scafetta paper. Importantly it is necessary to only look at the data covering mid-latitudes. Two graphs in particular covering from 1700-1948 which cover the New England data (20,000 records taken over several hundred locations 41-45N) and the Fritz data that appears to be >55N show a clear 60 year period (the Dalton minimum has to be allowed for). The graphs agree with fig 2B in Scafetta’s paper.

    Clearly the mid-latitude aurora record mentioned does NOT follow the sunspot or aa record of the era (with the exception of the Dalton).

  327. Ulric Lyons says:
    November 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    You are missing all the points Ulric and making no sense. I tried but invariably failed, I will leave you to it.

  328. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 15, 2011 at 6:01 pm
    “You are missing all the points Ulric and making no sense.”

    Quite the opposite, I showed you the points you had missed, and why the idea that a 60yr cycle could arise from these configurations makes no sense.

  329. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 15, 2011 at 5:54 pm
    Clearly the mid-latitude aurora record mentioned does NOT follow the sunspot or aa record of the era (with the exception of the Dalton).
    Since today we know the physics and we have excellent data and therefore know that the aurorae follow very well the sunspot record, you can conclude that if an auroral record does not agree with this, then that record is faulty and unreliable. This is the point you and Nicola are missing.

  330. I presume this is the data file

    aurorae.dat.rev

    which is located here

    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE

    Using R to histogram the years between 1700-1900 and then plotting the probability density, eye balling it, I get 3 gaussians 60 +- 10 years wide at half height.

    $breaks
    [1] 1700 1720 1740 1760 1780 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900

    $counts
    [1] 136 497 243 530 1017 135 628 1325 757 109

    The peak values are located at roughly 1720, 1780, and 1850 years.

    The ratios of the peak values are roughly 1:2:3 (from right to left which is odd.)

    The histogram is similar to figure B.

    If you stand on your head and squint, you can see the 3 gaussians in figure B.

  331. Agile Aspect says:
    November 16, 2011 at 1:05 am
    The peak values are located at roughly 1720, 1780, and 1850 years.
    But then the relation breaks down, because at the next 60 year mark, in 1910, solar activity [and hence auroral activity] was at a very deep low. This is the usual fate of spurious relationships.

  332. Mid latitude aurora are part of the magnetic reconnection process.
    Makes you wonder if Jupiter or Saturn, both have polar Aurora and vortex, ever experience mid latitude aurora?
    Now I have to wonder if the heliosphere experiences a quasi aurora of sorts.
    Here’s why;
    M. A. Dayeh et al. 2011 ApJ 734 29 doi:10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/29

    SPECTRAL PROPERTIES OF REGIONS AND STRUCTURES IN THE INTERSTELLAR BOUNDARY EXPLORER (IBEX) SKY MAPS
    M. A. Dayeh1, D. J. McComas1,2, G. Livadiotis1, R. W. Ebert1, H. O. Funsten3, P. Janzen4, D. B. Reisenfeld4 and N. A. Schwadron1,5

    We study the spectral properties of different regions and structures in the energetic neutral atom (ENA) maps at energies from ~0.5 keV to ~6 keV from the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) mission. We find that (1) an ankle-shaped break (spectrum hardens) between ~1 keV and ~2 keV characterizes the polar spectra and the right flank, while a knee-shaped break (spectrum softens) describes the ribbon, nose, and the front region spectra; (2) the spectral indices across full latitudinal range (tail and poles) comprise a dependence reflecting a knee break at mid latitudes and an ankle break at high latitudes. This latitudinal evolution has inflection points at ~40°S and ~36°N, and is strongly correlated with the solar wind speed structure obtained by the Ulysses/SWOOPS instrument during its fast latitude scan in 2007. Our study confirms that the ecliptic latitude predominantly orders the spectral signatures of ENA distributions. This ordering may reflect the average solar wind properties that vary characteristically with latitude around solar minimum. We report on the spectral analyses of six regions and two structures in the IBEX maps. We also discuss the spectral asymmetries between the north and the south polar regions, their correlation with solar wind measurements, and the implications of these observations. Thus, we show detailed connections between the IBEX energy spectra and latitudinal properties of solar wind.

    Talk about vivid imaginations and wild ideas about the reconnection process, (not even I would have thunk this one). D McComas was on this team.

    Local Interstellar Cloud -Local Bubble boundary as a possible source for the IBEX Ribbon
    Grzedzielski, Stan; Bzowski, Maciej; Czechowski, Andrzej; Funsten, Herbert; McComas, David; Schwadron, Nathan A.
    38th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 18-15 July 2010, in Bremen, Germany, p.7
    The brightest and most surprising feature in the first all-sky map of Energetic Neutral Atoms (ENA) emissions (0.2 -6 keV) completed by the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) is an almost circular ribbon of a ˜ 140° opening angle, centered at (l, b) = (33° , 55° ) galactic coordinates and covering the part of the celestial sphere with the lowest column densities of the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC). We propose a novel interpretation of the IBEX results based on the idea that the ribbon ENAs are produced by charge-exchange between the neutral H atoms at the nearby edge of the LIC and the hot protons of the Local Bubble (LB) rather than due to interaction of the heliosphere itself with the local interstellar medium. These ENAs from the LIC-LB interaction should be able to reach the Sun’s vicinity because of the thinness of the intervening LIC material. We show that a slightly curved interface layer of contact between the LIC H atoms (nH = 0.2 cm-3 , T = 6000 – 7000 K) and the LB protons (np = 0.005 cm-3 , T ˜ 106 K) might explain both the almost-circular shape of the ribbon and its observed ENA intensities, provided that the edge is < {500, 2000}AU distant, the LIC proton density (correspondingly) < {0.04, 0.01} cm-3 , and the LB contains ˜ 1% of non-thermal protons in the IBEX energy range. Secondary ENAs, which originate from a hierarchy of multiple charge exchange interactions between the energetic H atoms reentering the LIC from the LB and the LIC plasma should form an omni-directional globally distributed ENA flux which may be responsible for at least part of the high-energy signal observed by IBEX. The new ideas presented here about the LIC-LB sources of ENAs are totally independent of the existing heliospheric models. If these ideas are correct, IBEX may provide a way to determine the distance to the LIC edge and a means to determine the plasma conditions in the LB.

    I wisht the planetary theorists would take alook at the bigger picture.

  333. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    Since today we know the physics and we have excellent data and therefore know that the aurorae follow very well the sunspot record, you can conclude that if an auroral record does not agree with this, then that record is faulty and unreliable. This is the point you and Nicola are missing.

    There are 20,000 records from several hundred stations behind just one of the graphs listed. These are not derived from news paper clippings but from a much more reliable source according to Silverman.

    Data for New England were taken from a compilation by
    S. M. Silverman based on several sources (for a description
    of observational systems from the end of the eighteenth cen-
    tury to 1870, see Fleming [1990]). The primary source used
    here was the meteorological registers kept by voluntary ob-
    servers in the network established by the Smithsonian Insti-
    tution and continued, primarily, by the Army Signal Service
    and the Weather Bureau. Observations were also published
    in the Monthly Weather Review and in the series, Climato-
    logical Data of the United States. Some additional data for
    individual locations were also used, as, for example, the
    observations of Bentley in Jericho, Vermont, from 1881 to
    1931 [Silverman and Blanchard, 1983]. Some data were also
    taken from the auroral catalogs published by Lovering [ 1866-
    1871] and Fritz [1873]. The New England data base com-
    prised about 20,000 records, from 1741 to 1948. Some scat-
    tered records prior to 1741 exist but are not utilized here.
    Altogether several hundred locations are involved. Their geo-
    graphic coordinates range from about 41 ø to 45 ø , and the
    corresponding corrected geomagnetic coordinates from about
    53 ø to 57 ø .

    An aurora at mid latitude should stand out like a sore thumb, but I am open to your ideas why the record is not reliable?

  334. Carla says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:31 am
    Our study confirms that the ecliptic latitude predominantly orders the spectral signatures of ENA distributions. This ordering may reflect the average solar wind properties that vary characteristically with latitude around solar minimum.
    This is as expected as the mass flux is largest near the equatorial plane [makes no difference if you use ecliptic latitude instead]. So a prediction will be that the ribbon will disappear in a couple of years when we are just past maximum and the solar wind is much more uniform in latitude.
    Now, all of this has no impact on the sun, solar cycle, earth, climate, etc.

  335. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:51 am
    There are 20,000 records from several hundred stations behind just one of the graphs listed. These are not derived from news paper clippings but from a much more reliable source according to Silverman.
    That is so for the records after about the 1880s, but not before.

    An aurora at mid latitude should stand out like a sore thumb, but I am open to your ideas why the record is not reliable?
    It would, but there is no guarantee that it will be recorded correctly. The major argument about the unreliability of the auroral record is that aurorae have a magnetic signature which is objective and observable 24/7. We have good magnetic records back to the 1830s and those clearly show great discrepancies with the auroral records, testifying to the unreliability of the latter. Apart from the disagreements between the individual auroral records. The magnetic record on the other hand never has any disagreement between stations as magnetic storms are worldwide. As we learned about the connection between aurorae and magnetism [discovered in 1740s] and figured out the physics after the IGY in the 1950s and 60s, we stopped keeping track of the aurorae as it was realized that such a record could not be made reliable, and was now not needed any longer as the it was just a poor proxy of the magnetic record. In spite of your statement of being open to this, I don’t think you really are, as you have already been shown many examples and explanations of why the record is no good.

  336. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 8:43 am
    An aurora at mid latitude should stand out like a sore thumb, but I am open to your ideas why the record is not reliable?
    As Silverman points out, even an imperfect and flawed record can be useful for times where we have no other data, as we often will be able to correct or compensate for the flaws [based on our modern understanding of the physics behind the record]. E.g. as Krivsky and Pejml did with their ‘civilization factor’. But to use the raw record will often get you in trouble, like Scafetta got, when he was speculating on why there should be more aurorae at solar minimum [there aren’t].

  337. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 8:43 am

    It would, but there is no guarantee that it will be recorded correctly. The major argument about the unreliability of the auroral record is that aurorae have a magnetic signature which is objective and observable 24/7. We have good magnetic records back to the 1830s and those clearly show great discrepancies with the auroral records, testifying to the unreliability of the latter. Apart from the disagreements between the individual auroral records.

    Because one record doesn’t agree with another is no reason to call one unreliable. The aurora record as seen can occur when Kp values are low, there is probably a valid reason which Nicola has touched on that may have other downstream effects on climate etc. If one portion of the planet experiences an aurora while the planet average Kp value is low may just mean that portion of the planet is experiencing a localized phenomenon. What if that area of the planet was a large area in the North Pacific that stayed cloudless for an extended period of time? Perhaps the beginning of an understanding of why the PDO occurs? Agreed the evidence is flimsy right now, but certainly worth investigating.

  338. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 16, 2011 at 2:18 pm
    Because one record doesn’t agree with another is no reason to call one unreliable.
    Lots of good reasons. They are both unreliable. Even a single record can show its unreliability [even if it is an average of many stations]. A single look at Silverman’s record for 1800-1948 shows this so clearly: http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1800-1948.png
    The green ovals outline particularly crass discrepancies between the sunspot number [red] and the auroral record. Critical here is, of course, that aurorae follow the sunspot cycle, but that we know they do from modern observations.

    The aurora record as seen can occur when Kp values are low
    No, not at mid-latitudes. In the very few cases that occurs, there was a magnetic storm the day or two before and it can take a few days for the effects to die down. So, the monthly or yearly count will still show a strong relationship between Kp and mid-latitude aurorae.

    If one portion of the planet experiences an aurora while the planet average Kp value is low may just mean that portion of the planet is experiencing a localized phenomenon.
    Mid-latitude aurorae only occur as a global phenomenon. They are the result of particles accelerated tens of thousands of km above the Earth and the magnetic effects from the currents are world-wide. Here are magnetograms from stations all over the world [the map shows where they were] during the great storm of 2003 that created widespread aurorae: http://www.leif.org/research/Halloween-Storm-Magnetograms.png

    What if that area of the planet was a large area in the North Pacific that stayed cloudless for an extended period of time?
    This has nothing to do with the aurora.

  339. @ Leif

    you are making a lot of confusion.

    Arguing that the data are wrong just because they do not fit your personal theory is a quite weak argument. All historical aurora records that we have are sufficiently correct for the purpose of my paper.

    However, there is no disagreement among the records as you claim. The fact that some of them present a reciprocal negative correlation on the multidecadal scale is perfectly normal and in perfect agreement with what I say in the paper.

    Your confusion is just due to the fact that in the paper I address only the Mid-latitude auroras from Europe and Asia plus the Faroes ones that match with the Mid-lat aurora. I did not discuss in details the other northern and american records because it would have made the paper much longer and it was useless for the purpose of the paper. The resason is because according to the resoning on my paper they could present a reciprocal behavior, if you think well.

    About your argument based on magnetograms, it is naive. Tell me, when there is a Earthquake does everybody on the Earth notice it with his senses? Of course all machines around the world notice it. The same is with the aurora, everywhere the machines detect a signal , but only in specific regions the aurora can be see from the surface.

    Sorry Leif.

  340. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm
    The same is with the aurora, everywhere the machines detect a signal , but only in specific regions the aurora can be see from the surface.
    Let us try this from a different angle: you agree that if a strong aurora is seen in mid-latitude over Europe and Asia, there will be a magnetic signal everywhere. This means that such a strong magnetic signal is a good indicator of an aurora in that region [actually in any mid-latitude region – but let that slide for now] and that therefore the magnetic record is an objective, reliable indicator of mid-latitude aurorae, right?

  341. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 16, 2011 at 3:22 pm
    This may come as a bit of disappointment
    ~
    Been reading some IBEX articles mostly abstracts. I believe one of the models for the “Ribbon” at the heliosphere nose. Of which there were 6 now 7 model for what the interaction might be that creates that ribbon. Geeez that ribbon is long like a portion of coil spring boingggg..heh
    But the idea that instead of a draping over the nose of the heliosphere, the ”interstellar magnetic field” it PASSSES THROUGH??
    Now that might be a tangled mess but..solar system wide..whoaaa
    ~
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 8:32 pm
    .. that therefore the magnetic record is an objective, reliable indicator of mid-latitude aurorae, right?
    ~
    Yes, for the most part.
    Geoff said sometimes the Kp is not there as an indicator yet the mid lat aurora are. Takes lots more particles in the uppper atmospere to light up that much more area..

  342. One more aurora comment in vivid imagination mode..

    It is said that the energetic particles bouncing around in the atmosphere that we seee when viewing aurora are bouncing between magnetic field lines, outlining or defining the field line.
    Perhaps the Energetic particles IBEX sees is doing the same.. Defining field lines..

  343. Carla says:
    November 17, 2011 at 5:31 am
    Geoff said sometimes the Kp is not there as an indicator yet the mid lat aurora are. Takes lots more particles in the uppper atmospere to light up that much more area..
    Of 171 recorded aurora, only 4 were at low Kp at the time of the aurora, but the day before there was a geomagnetic storm, so Kp is still the indicator in all cases.

  344. Carla says:
    November 17, 2011 at 5:31 am
    But the idea that instead of a draping over the nose of the heliosphere, the ”interstellar magnetic field” it PASSSES THROUGH??
    The interstellar magnetic field cannot pass through the outward flowing solar wind.

  345. Carla says:
    November 17, 2011 at 5:52 am
    It is said that the energetic particles bouncing around in the atmosphere that we seee when viewing aurora are bouncing between magnetic field lines, outlining or defining the field line.
    Perhaps the Energetic particles IBEX sees is doing the same.. Defining field lines..

    The particles follow field lines, don’t make the magnetic field lines. So ‘defining’ has to be thought of more precisely.

  346. Carla
    I devised the North Atlantic precursor more than a year ago, and havn’t written anything yet. Reason is that it in some parts it ‘follows’ closely the shape of the solar output, but only if it is delayed by number of years. Found similar with fluctuations of the Arctic magnetic field.
    Only conclusion could be an external force (for both sun and the Earth) acting on the core, but in the case of the sun it takes much longer to propagate to the surface.
    Hey doc, I hope that brings smile to your stern face, you need to be a bit more cheerful.
    Not everything we think we know qualifies as ‘the knowledge’.

  347. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 17, 2011 at 6:41 am

    Carla says:
    November 17, 2011 at 5:31 am
    Geoff said sometimes the Kp is not there as an indicator yet the mid lat aurora are. Takes lots more particles in the uppper atmospere to light up that much more area..
    ——————————————————
    Of 171 recorded aurora, only 4 were at low Kp at the time of the aurora, but the day before there was a geomagnetic storm, so Kp is still the indicator in all cases.

    23% of all 171 records in Schroder’s study occur when Kp index is less than 5 (ie 4 and under) The records are taken all over Germany which has a latitude less than 55. I have included a link to the original table so those interested can see how many of those records occur just after high activity. Leif has stated that mid latitude aurora only occur at a Kp index of 7 or above which is clearly wrong, he also stated the low Kp values with aurora are directly after high Kp days which is also mostly wrong. I encourage people to look for themselves. It is obvious that the Kp value is not the only value important when dealing with mid latitude aurora.

  348. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 17, 2011 at 6:23 pm
    23% of all 171 records in Schroder’s study occur when Kp index is less than 5 (ie 4 and under) The records are taken all over Germany which has a latitude less than 55.
    The smaller the latitude the higher must Kp be for aurora to occur.
    The Kp=7 value comes from http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/globeNE.html
    It is obvious that the Kp value is not the only value important when dealing with mid latitude aurora.
    It is not that Kp creates the aurora, but that statistically high Kp and midlatitude aurorae go together.

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/#kpmaps

    Magnetic Latitude Kp
    66.5 0
    64.5 1
    62.4 2
    60.4 3
    58.3 4
    56.3 5
    54.2 6
    52.2 7
    50.1 8
    48.1 9

    The Northern part of Germany has magnetic latitude 50 degrees, so Kp needs to be 8 or greater to have an aurorae overhead, but because of the great heights aurorae go to, you can now and then see one several hundred kilometers [several degrees] to the Nord. So, occasionally, a very extended aurora can be seen at somewhat lower Kp. You are misinterpreting Schroeder’s result. Read his last line: ” Finally, maximum auroral occurrence is around the sunspot maximum and minimum around sunspot minimum.” and “Figure 2 and Table 2 show that maximum numbers of auroras were observed around the maximum sunspot number years: 1947 and 1957-58. Minimum numbers of auroras were observed around the years of minimum sunspot numbers: 1952-54 and 1963-64; moreover, these events were mostly faint and short-lived. Thus, even in case of low solar activity, auroras may appear, but their occurrence frequency is very low.” That is the important point. “The connection between the appearance of auroras and geomagnetic activity (represented in the present report by the Kp-index), is well known (e.g Newell et al., 2009). There is an experimentally confirmed relation in the sense
    that in the case of a higher Kp-index, auroras can be observed at more southern regions”.

    So, bottom line: auroral activity at mid-latitudes follow the sunspot number and geomagnetic activity. This becomes even more apparent if yearly counts of the aurorae are used, as the inevitable noise decreases.

  349. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 17, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    So, bottom line: auroral activity at mid-latitudes follow the sunspot number and geomagnetic activity. This becomes even more apparent if yearly counts of the aurorae are used, as the inevitable noise decreases.

    Your arguments have not proven to be substantiated.

    1. Mid latitude aurora do not follow a 60 year period. FALSE.
    2. Mid latitude aurora only occur above 7 Kp. FALSE.
    3. Mid latitude aurora appear at low Kp only when a geomagnetic storm is experienced the previous day. FALSE.
    4. Mid latitude aurora follow the sunspot number. FALSE.

    Nicola’s research is vindicated and displays that all is not known when it comes to mid latitude aurora.

  350. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 17, 2011 at 10:43 pm
    “So, bottom line: auroral activity at mid-latitudes follow the sunspot number and geomagnetic activity. This becomes even more apparent if yearly counts of the aurorae are used, as the inevitable noise decreases.”
    Your arguments have not proven to be substantiated.

    This is not my argument, but the result of decades of work by many scientists. Some of the [few] cases you have brought up are just the noise in the system. Schroeder again:
    “Finally, maximum auroral occurrence is around the sunspot maximum and minimum around sunspot minimum.” and “Figure 2 and Table 2 show that maximum numbers of auroras were observed around the maximum sunspot number years: 1947 and 1957-58. Minimum numbers of auroras were observed around the years of minimum sunspot numbers: 1952-54 and 1963-64; moreover, these events were mostly faint and short-lived. Thus, even in case of low solar activity, auroras may appear, but their occurrence frequency is very low.” That is the important point. “The connection between the appearance of auroras and geomagnetic activity (represented in the present report by the Kp-index), is well known (e.g Newell et al., 2009). There is an experimentally confirmed relation in the sense
    that in the case of a higher Kp-index, auroras can be observed at more southern regions”.

    Nicola’s research is vindicated and displays that all is not known when it comes to mid latitude aurora.
    His claim that mid-latitude aurorae occur most frequently at low solar activity is nonsense. Both observation and theory show this.

  351. @ Leif

    Sorry Leif . You are competely misinterpreting my point.

    First, I never denied in the paper and above that the aurora records present a decadal cycle in positive correlation with the decadal solar cycle. If you read above the initial comment to the article I clearly wrote

    “During the solar cycle maxima the magnetosphere gets stronger so the aurora should be pushed toward the poles. However, during the solar maxima a lot of solar flares and highly energetic solar explosions occurs. As a consequence you see an increased number of mid-latitude auroras despite the fact that the magnetosphere is stronger and should push them toward the poles.

    Which may not be very elegantly written, but clearly implies that I am saying the Mid-latitude aurora present a decadal cycle in positive correlation with the decadal solar cycle.

    On the contrary my point is different and regards the 60-year modulation. Above I wrote “On the contrary, when the magnetosphere gets weaker on a multidecadal scale, the mid-latitude aurora forms more likely, and you may see some mid-latitude auroras even during the solar minima as Figure 2 shows.”

    Second, Now let us look closely at your german record

    http://www.geofisica.unam.mx/divulgacion/geofinternacional/iframes/anteriores/2011/04/6_schroder.pdf

    This record covers the aurora from 1946 to 1964 and cover two solar cycles. Now you need to understand that from 1940 to 1970 my 60 year cycle was decreasing. According to what I wrote in the paper you need to look mostly at what is happening during the solar minima. From the paper of above the solar minima periods 1951-1954 and 1961-1964 where almost equivalent about the sunspot number. Also the aa index was almost equal during these two periods.

    According your understanding of this phenomenon the two periods should be approximately equivalent about the aurora events. And aurora could be seen only at Kp>=8.

    However, according my understanding of this phenomenon, because the 60-year cycle was in its decreasing trend, the solar minimum period 1961-1964 should have recorded more auroras than the previous solar minimum period 1951-1954. Moreover, the solar minimum period 1961-1964 should have recorded more aurora with a lower Kp index than the previous period 1951-1954.

    Now, let us see the data to see which theory (yours or mine) is confirmed.

    These are the recorded aurora from 1951 to 1954
    Xp
    01/05/51 7
    02/05/51 7
    25/09/51 8
    07/10/51 8
    28/10/51 9

    These are the recorded aurora from 1961 to 1964
    Xp
    08/01/61 4
    04/02/61 7
    17/02/61 6
    26/05/61 4
    17/07/61 6
    11/08/61 5
    11/10/61 4
    28/10/61 3
    10/01/62 6
    29/06/62 3
    28/07/62 4
    24/10/62 5
    29/07/63 3
    30/07/63 5
    03/10/64 4

    As you can easily see from the above numbers, the data agree with my expectations, not with yours. In fact, not only in 1961-64 we see much more german aurora than during the period 1951-1954 as my model predicts, but we often see them also with a very low Xp index 3, 4, 5 and 6 and always below Xp=8 which do not fit at all your theory of Xp>=8 for Germany (not even with the several hundred kilometer hypothesis jump, which should be more than 1500 Km to cover the 10 necessary degrees).

  352. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 17, 2011 at 11:07 pm
    “During the solar cycle maxima the magnetosphere gets stronger so the aurora should be pushed toward the poles.
    No, that is not the expectation. First, what do you mean ‘magnetosphere gets stronger’? Second, during maxima the auroral zone should be pushed towards the equator by the geomagnetic storms [as observed].

    However, during the solar maxima a lot of solar flares and highly energetic solar explosions occurs. As a consequence you see an increased number of mid-latitude auroras despite the fact that the magnetosphere is stronger and should push them toward the poles.
    Here you repeat the wrong physics.

    Which may not be very elegantly written, but clearly implies that I am saying the Mid-latitude aurora present a decadal cycle in positive correlation with the decadal solar cycle.
    It is dead wrong, rather than not just very elegant. Since that implies that geomagnetic activity shows the same solar cycle, the aurorae should follow geomagnetic activity [as they do] which therefore becomes as good indicator of aurorae [as observed].

    On the contrary my point is different and regards the 60-year modulation. Above I wrote “On the contrary, when the magnetosphere gets weaker on a multidecadal scale, the mid-latitude aurora forms more likely, and you may see some mid-latitude auroras even during the solar minima as Figure 2 shows.”
    Except that the ‘magnetosphere does not get weaker’, it contains more energy at solar maximum, and now you between to contradict yourself. From the above one concludes that you think that at solar minimum the magnetosphere ‘gets weaker’ [since it gets stronger at maximum] and that therefore mid-latitude aurora forms more likely. The opposite is observed, there are very few and weak mid-latitude aurorae at solar minimum

    This record covers the aurora from 1946 to 1964 and cover two solar cycles.
    The same pattern is seen in all solar cycles, not just those two. The number of aurorae during the minimum years are so low that you cannot make any meaningful statistics on them. The meaningful comparison is between the low number of aurorae at minimum vs. the high number at maximum. This fact is observed in every cycle and is well-understood. Schroeder emphasizes that repeatedly: “Finally, maximum auroral occurrence is around the sunspot maximum and minimum around sunspot minimum.” and “Figure 2 and Table 2 show that maximum numbers of auroras were observed around the maximum sunspot number years: 1947 and 1957-58. Minimum numbers of auroras were observed around the years of minimum sunspot numbers: 1952-54 and 1963-64; moreover, these events were mostly faint and short-lived. Thus, even in case of low solar activity, auroras may appear, but their occurrence frequency is very low.” That is the important point. “The connection between the appearance of auroras and geomagnetic activity (represented in the present report by the Kp-index), is well known (e.g Newell et al., 2009). There is an experimentally confirmed relation in the sense that in the case of a higher Kp-index, auroras can be observed at more southern regions”.

    And this is not my theory. It is everybody’s theory, and a generally accepted FACT. Figure 3 of Silverman shows this clearly. BTW: You keep evading my question:
    Again: please state here for the record that you now fully agree that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records in concert with the generally accepted view of auroral physics and all the modern data our marvelous space-based monitors have provided us with

  353. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 17, 2011 at 11:07 pm
    “During the solar cycle maxima the magnetosphere gets stronger so the aurora should be pushed toward the poles.”
    Progress is slow because comments are too long. So, let us take a slower pace. Start with that statement of yours. ‘magnetosphere gets stronger’. What is that? Which magnetosphere? How is ‘strength’ measured or defined? and why ‘should aurorae be pushed towards the poles”?
    Just answer this and nothing else in order not to gum up the process.

  354. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 12, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    If the planetary theory is to be taken seriously [as a major driver] it must work at all times. If the theory is only a weak modulation with almost no effect, one can allow intermittent failures.

    We’re only talking of a ~1% variation in surface temperature over periods of many thousands of years. The causes and their periodicities are quite subtle and hard to tease out of the noise. One man’s “weak modulation” is another’s strong evidence.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    For 1700-1900 there is a weak 60-yr period [in the red box] and Scafetta picked that up, but the point is that the relation fails outside of the red box while the planets just cycle on with no failures. So, the claim of planetary cycles determining cosmic ray flux [or solar activity or aurorae etc] is spurious

    Longer term cycles will alter the appearance of the interaction of shorter term cycles as they manifest in various indices. This does not mean they ‘disappeared’ outside certain timeframes.
    Nicola Scafetta is wise to study a broad spectrum of phenomena. Nature moves in many mysterious ways.

  355. Jimmi writes “Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.”

    The really big discoveries come not from incremental discovery but from the left field and an unexpected and particularly close correlation is worthy of a detailed study. Not to say this is one of them, but by arbitrarily dismissing it as you have done is scientific arrogance at its worst.

  356. tallbloke says:
    November 18, 2011 at 2:02 am
    We’re only talking of a ~1% variation in surface temperature over periods of many thousands of years.
    That variation is due to the change of the Earth’s orbit and not due to solar activity in any form.

  357. Leif,
    I am sorry. Your German record confirms the results of my paper.

    I repeat the point that you missed:

    Second, Now let us look closely at your german record

    http://www.geofisica.unam.mx/divulgacion/geofinternacional/iframes/anteriores/2011/04/6_schroder.pdf

    This record covers the aurora from 1946 to 1964 and cover two solar cycles. Now you need to understand that from 1940 to 1970 my 60 year cycle was decreasing. According to what I wrote in the paper you need to look mostly at what is happening during the solar minima. From the paper of above the solar minima periods 1951-1954 and 1961-1964 where almost equivalent about the sunspot number. Also the aa index was almost equal during these two periods.

    According your understanding of this phenomenon the two periods should be approximately equivalent about the aurora events. And aurora could be seen only at Kp>=8.

    However, according my understanding of this phenomenon, because the 60-year cycle was in its decreasing trend, the solar minimum period 1961-1964 should have recorded more auroras than the previous solar minimum period 1951-1954. Moreover, the solar minimum period 1961-1964 should have recorded more aurora with a lower Kp index than the previous period 1951-1954.

    Now, let us see the data to see which theory (yours or mine) is confirmed.

    These are the recorded aurora from 1951 to 1954 with their Xp index
    ———————Xp
    01/05/51 ——-7
    02/05/51 ——-7
    25/09/51 ——-8
    07/10/51 ——-8
    28/10/51 ——-9

    These are the recorded aurora from 1961 to 1964 with their Xp index
    ———————Xp
    08/01/61 ——-4
    04/02/61 ——-7
    17/02/61 ——-6
    26/05/61 ——-4
    17/07/61 ——-6
    11/08/61 ——-5
    11/10/61 ——-4
    28/10/61 ——-3
    10/01/62 ——-6
    29/06/62 ——-3
    28/07/62 ——-4
    24/10/62 ——-5
    29/07/63 ——-3
    30/07/63 ——-5
    03/10/64 ——-4

    As you can easily see from the above numbers, the data agree with my expectations, not with yours. In fact, not only in 1961-64 we see much more german aurora than during the period 1951-1954 as my model predicts, but we often see them also with a very low Xp index 3, 4, 5 and 6 and always below Xp=8 which do not fit at all your theory of Xp>=8 for Germany (not even with the several hundred kilometer hypothesis jump, which should be more than 1500 Km to cover the 10 necessary degrees).

    Sorry, Leif.
    Science is not done by simply looking at the textbooks, as you understand. Science is done by looking at the data. You continuously claim that when the data contradict your theory, or the textbook theory of your old books, then the data are wrong in some way. And you do this even by using ridiculous claims such as that from central Germany people were able to see auroras happened above Iceland or north Norway, which is what your theory would require to see aurora with XP=3 from Germany!

    About Figure 3 of Silverman you need to understand that Silverman attached the north american New England aurora (1800-1966) to the mid-latitude aurora from Europe and Asia (1500-1800). This operation cannot be done because the north american New England aurora have the same characteristics of the aurora from Iceland which are negative correlated (about the 60-year cycle) to those of central/south Europe.

    If you look only at the mid-latitude auroras the 60-year pattern is not disrupted at all as my figure 2 shows: a fact that it is further confirmed by your german auroras

  358. Error corrige.
    In my above response by error I wrote “Xp” instead of “Kp”. This is the corrected version:

    Leif,
    I am sorry. Your German record confirms the results of my paper.

    I repeat the point that you missed:

    Second, Now let us look closely at your german record

    http://www.geofisica.unam.mx/divulgacion/geofinternacional/iframes/anteriores/2011/04/6_schroder.pdf

    This record covers the aurora from 1946 to 1964 and cover two solar cycles. Now you need to understand that from 1940 to 1970 my 60 year cycle was decreasing. According to what I wrote in the paper you need to look mostly at what is happening during the solar minima. From the paper of above the solar minima periods 1951-1954 and 1961-1964 where almost equivalent about the sunspot number. Also the aa index was almost equal during these two periods.

    According your understanding of this phenomenon the two periods should be approximately equivalent about the aurora events. And aurora could be seen only at Kp>=8 from Germany

    However, according my understanding of this phenomenon, because the 60-year cycle was in its decreasing trend, the solar minimum period 1961-1964 should have recorded more auroras than the previous solar minimum period 1951-1954. Moreover, the solar minimum period 1961-1964 should have recorded more aurora with a lower Kp index than the previous period 1951-1954.

    Now, let us see the data to see which theory (yours or mine) is confirmed.

    These are the recorded aurora from 1951 to 1954 with their Kp index
    ———————Kp
    01/05/51 ——-7
    02/05/51 ——-7
    25/09/51 ——-8
    07/10/51 ——-8
    28/10/51 ——-9

    These are the recorded aurora from 1961 to 1964 with their Kp index
    ———————Kp
    08/01/61 ——-4
    04/02/61 ——-7
    17/02/61 ——-6
    26/05/61 ——-4
    17/07/61 ——-6
    11/08/61 ——-5
    11/10/61 ——-4
    28/10/61 ——-3
    10/01/62 ——-6
    29/06/62 ——-3
    28/07/62 ——-4
    24/10/62 ——-5
    29/07/63 ——-3
    30/07/63 ——-5
    03/10/64 ——-4

    As you can easily see from the above numbers, the data agree with my expectations, not with yours. In fact, not only in 1961-64 we see much more german aurora than during the period 1951-1954 as my model predicts, but we often see them also with a very low Kp index 3, 4, 5 and 6 and always below Kp=8 which do not fit at all your theory of Kp>=8 for Germany (not even with the several hundred kilometer hypothesis jump, which should be more than 1500 Km to cover the 10 necessary degrees).

    Sorry, Leif.
    Science is not done by simply looking at the textbooks, as you understand. Science is done by looking at the data. You continuously claim that when the data contradict your theory, or the textbook theory of your old books, then the data are wrong in some way. And you do this even by using ridiculous claims such as that from central Germany people were able to see weak auroras happened above Iceland or north Norway, which is what your theory would require to see aurora with Kp=3 from central Germany!

    About Figure 3 of Silverman you need to understand that Silverman attached the north american New England aurora (1800-1966) to the mid-latitude aurora from Europe and Asia (1500-1800). This operation cannot be done because the north american New England aurora have the same characteristics of the aurora from Iceland which are negative correlated (about the 60-year cycle) to those of central/south Europe.

    If you look only at the mid-latitude auroras the 60-year pattern is not disrupted at all as my figure 2 shows: a fact that it is further confirmed by your german auroras

  359. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 18, 2011 at 6:39 am
    tallbloke says:
    November 18, 2011 at 2:02 am
    We’re only talking of a ~1% variation in surface temperature over periods of many thousands of years.
    That variation is due to the change of the Earth’s orbit and not due to solar activity in any form.

    That’s one of the reasons for variation, I agree. There are many more though.

  360. tallbloke says:
    November 18, 2011 at 11:24 am
    That’s one of the reasons for variation, I agree. There are many more though.
    Not on the scale of 1% in temperature [which would require a 55 W/m2 change in TSI]. Of course, excepting all the things that don’t happen [asteroid impact, supernova next door, aliens arriving, etc].

  361. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:11 am
    About Figure 3 of Silverman you need to understand that Silverman attached the north american New England aurora (1800-1966) to the mid-latitude aurora from Europe and Asia (1500-1800).
    should read: the New England mid-latitude aurora to the mid-latitude aurora from Europe and Asia.

    This operation cannot be done because the north american New England aurora have the same characteristics of the aurora from Iceland which are negative correlated (about the 60-year cycle) to those of central/south Europe.
    You are claiming here that New England mid-latitude aurora are negatively correlated with those of central Europe [forget south – as there are too few aurorae seen there]. Silverman says [page 340]: “Data for New England, available only from about 1740, show a behavior similar to that of Europe”. And everybody knows [well, it seems, almost everybody] that this is indeed the case. When the oval expands to reach mid-latitudes in Europe during a magnetic storm lasting a day or more, that very same oval is seen in New England six hours later as the Earth rotates under it. Massachusetts is just south of the Kp=7 line [statistically] as is Northern Germany.

    To get a feeling for the situation take a look at the predicted [based on experience] auroral activity for Europe and North America during the geomagnetic storm of 2011/09/26 [Kp reached 6+]: http://www.meteorwatch.org/2011/09/26/auroras-over-the-uk/ Note how New England and Central Europe have very similar probabilities [as they should].

    You do not have a clear picture of the physics, so did not answer this:
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 18, 2011 at 12:29 am
    “During the solar cycle maxima the magnetosphere gets stronger so the aurora should be pushed toward the poles.”
    Progress is slow because comments are too long. So, let us take a slower pace. Start with that statement of yours. ‘magnetosphere gets stronger’. What is that? Which magnetosphere? How is ‘strength’ measured or defined? and why ‘should aurorae be pushed towards the poles”?
    Just answer this and nothing else in order not to gum up the process.

    It is important to probe your understanding of this, so please try to respond the best you can. Thanks.

  362. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:11 am
    However, according my understanding of this phenomenon, because the 60-year cycle was in its decreasing trend, the solar minimum period 1961-1964 should have recorded more auroras than the previous solar minimum period 1951-1954.
    It is amazing you can be so blind [one wonders why?]. Because your ’60-year cycle was in its decreasing trend’ [see your Figure 2], the solar maximum period 1946-1949 show have recorded more aurorae than the 1951-1954 period. Let’s look at the German data: 1946-1949 65 aurorae, 1951-1954 only 5 aurorae. So ‘your understanding’ is clearly grossly lacking.

    Now, as I responded to Vuk with on the ‘Are secular correlations …’ thread:
    M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:01 am
    Correction: The obvious lack of causation cost the top NASA’s solar scientist his reputation.
    There very likely is a causation, it was the correlation that failed [Hathaway picked the wrong peak]. And he has not lost his reputation at all. Making a mistake and acknowledging it is quite OK and does not ruin your reputation. Clinging to a theory long after it has been shown to be a failure and especially if based on shaky physics, is the reputation-killer.

    Something to think about …

  363. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:27 pm
    Correction:
    Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:11 am
    However, according my understanding of this phenomenon, because the 60-year cycle was in its decreasing trend, the solar minimum period 1961-1964 should have recorded more auroras than the previous solar minimum period 1951-1954.
    It is amazing you can be so blind [one wonders why?]. Because your ’60-year cycle was in its decreasing trend’ [see your Figure 2], the solar maximum period 1946-1949 show have recorded less aurorae than the 1951-1954 period. Let’s look at the German data: 1946-1949 had 65 aurorae, 1951-1954 only 5 aurorae. So ‘your understanding’ is clearly grossly lacking.

  364. Leif,

    I am sorry but you do not understand the issues addressed in my paper. You need to be more humble and try to listen carefully and think better without all this ridiculous angriness and obtuseness that you have that makes you blind to the evidences.

    1) I never said that during the 11-year solar cycle maximum we see less aurora than during the 11-year solar cycle minima. This is what you are saying. I am talking about another cycle and mechanism. So, do not twist what I say.

    2) the New England auroras in North America are not compatible to the mid-latitude auroras in central Europe for the simple reason that you need to look at the position of the magnetic north pole which is located north Canada and it was located even more inside Canada 100/200 years ago. So, the north Magnetic pole is and was much closer to Massachusetts than to Germany by at least 10/20 degree which makes Massachusetts auroras compatible with Iceland auroras, as I said in particular in 1800 and 1900.

    In the paper I use the catalog of Mid-latitude auroras from Europe and Asia. which is the appropriate catalog that needs to be used for my purpose, and my figure 2 shows how those data look like. The catalog that I use is an update that occurred “after” Silverman published his work and the data were not mixed with the American New England Catalog for a clear reason: the latter catalog shows an anticorrelation about the 60 year cycle with the European Mid-latitude.

    That is, about the 60 year cycle the American catalog shows a maximum in 1880, while the European Mid-latitude show a maximum in 1850 and a minimum in the 1880s , for example. The same anticorrelation is repeated with the Faroes auroras and the Iceland auroras from 1900 to 1960. So in the data there is an evident dynamics that you do not understand regarding the sensitivity of the upper atmosphere to auroras that changes in time, and it is not constant as you think.

    The catalog of German Auroras that you have referenced confirms in full my expectations and contradicts your theory quite fragrantly. You still need to explain why from Germany a lot of aurora with Kp index of 3 and 4 were seen during the solar minimum 1961-1964.

    So, I cannot but invite you to be more humble on issues that you clearly do not undertstand.

    Because you are also not interested in having an educated and constructive discusssion on this issue (as well as on any issue I need to say), there is no need for me to continue this discussion with you.

    Sorry, Leif.

  365. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 19, 2011 at 11:46 am
    1) I never said that during the 11-year solar cycle maximum we see less aurora than during the 11-year solar cycle minima. This is what you are saying. I am talking about another cycle and mechanism. So, do not twist what I say.
    You are saying that during low solar activity we see more aurora than during high activity. We don’t. E.g. according to our ‘other cycle’ there should be more aurora 1951-1954 [there were 5] than during 1946-1949 [there were 65]. And ‘another mechanism’. There is no other mechanism. Aurorae are well-understood.

    2) the New England auroras in North America are not compatible to the mid-latitude auroras in central Europe for the simple reason that you need to look at the position of the magnetic north pole which is located north Canada and it was located even more inside Canada 100/200 years ago. So, the north Magnetic pole is and was much closer to Massachusetts than to Germany by at least 10/20 degree which makes Massachusetts auroras compatible with Iceland auroras, as I said in particular in 1800 and 1900.
    The magnetic pole that the aurorae are organized by the ‘corrected geomagnetic pole’ and one can calculate magnetic latitude [90-distance from corr. geomagn. pole] for New England and for Germany. In 1800 they were equal [=54 degrees]. in 1900 they were three degrees different. New England was at 55 degrees in 1900, Iceland was at 67 degrees, so not at all the same.

    In the paper I use the catalog of Mid-latitude auroras from Europe and Asia. which is the appropriate catalog that needs to be used for my purpose, and my figure 2 shows how those data look like.
    After 1900 you use data for the Faroes which are at corrected geomagnetic latitude 62 degrees, so not at all mid-latitude.

    New England Catalog for a clear reason: the latter catalog shows an anticorrelation about the 60 year cycle with the European Mid-latitude.
    No, the Mid-latitude New England data does not show a variation different from European Mid-latitude. Silverman [page 340] stresses that “Data for New England show a behavior similar to that of Europe”.

    So in the data there is an evident dynamics that you do not understand regarding the sensitivity of the upper atmosphere to auroras that changes in time, and it is not constant as you think.
    What the data shows is how poor the auroral record is. The sensitivity of the upper atmosphere to aurorae does not change in time as the particles don’t know what time it is. Auroral physics is very well understood.

    You still need to explain why from Germany a lot of aurora with Kp index of 3 and 4 were seen during the solar minimum 1961-1964.
    First, it was not a lot [grand total of 7]. Second according to your ’60-yr’ cycle there should have a lot fewer aurora in 1946-1949, yest there were many more [65 of them]. And as I have pointed out sometimes the aurora appears during a magnetic storm that may last a day or two [not necessarily at the height of the storm], as you can see here http://www.leif.org/research/Kp-1961 where I have marked the few aurorae with Kp less than 5 during 1961..

    So, I cannot but invite you to be more humble on issues that you clearly do not understand.
    When it comes to aurorae and geomagnetic activity I am the expert here. This is my field.

    Because you are also not interested in having an educated and constructive discusssion on this issue (as well as on any issue I need to say), there is no need for me to continue this discussion with you.
    I have patently and carefully discussed the issues [and shown you wrong at every turn so perhaps you don’t want to consider it constructive], which shows my great interest in your work. I don’t think anybody has shown similar or more interest. I can also understand why you throw in the towel.

  366. Sorry Leif,

    You continue to denying the data to defend your prejudices. The data that I used are corrected enougth and show the patterns that I found.

    About the relation between the American New England region and the central mid-latitude central south Europe region you may give a look at the Magnetic Field Total Intensity in 2010

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/data/WMM2010/WMM2010_F_MERC.pdf

    It is evident from the figure that the New England region, which is located between 50000 F and 55000 F, is magnetically equivalent to Iceland, not Germany.

    In 1800 and 1900 the magnetic field lines in america were even deeper toward south because the magnetic pole was much more toward Canada. In fact in 1990 this was the magetic field and you can see

    And trhe lines were lower in America.

  367. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 19, 2011 at 4:45 pm
    It is evident from the figure that the New England region, which is located between 50000 F and 55000 F, is magnetically equivalent to Iceland, not Germany.

    As I explained to Just The Facts November 10, 2011 at 9:20 pm
    why the difference in the locations that you’ve cited versus those in the sources above?
    “Because the concept of the ‘magnetic pole’ is a bit complicated. If you are walking on the ground with a compass or a device measuring the dip of the needle you might find a point where the horizontal force is zero and the magnetic field is vertical, so that is one definition of the ‘magnetic pole’ [and the one your sources show. But that is not the pole the particles that create the aurorae see. That is called the ‘corrected geomagnetic pole’. The reason for the difference is that the small-scale magnetic sources that control the field on the ground disappear or weaken with height, so that out in the magnetosphere the field is simpler and different.”

    You can see this for yourself: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html The center of the oval is not at the ‘magnetic pole’ or where the lines you show for the surface field. Rather it is found in Northern Greenland. Here you can calculate the corrected geomagnetic latitude of any point: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/cgm_vitmo.html also the location of the pole: mark these parameters: North CGM Pole Latitude for surface of the Earth & North CGM Pole Longitude for surface of the Earth.

    If you do, you’ll find that the pole changes very slowly 1990 (79.07N 279.98E), 1900 (81.04N 278.09E). Here is a globe view: http://www.leif.org/research/Mag-Poles-1900-1990.png . The pins show the positions, the pink arrows the distances to Europe and New England, and the cyan arrows to Iceland and the Faroe Islands.

    And the lines were lower in America.
    The lines have little to do with where the aurorae are http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/AnimateN.html
    The aurorae ‘see’ a pole in Northern Greenland because that is where the field lines go out into the middle of the magnetospheric tail tens of thousands km out where the particles that generate the aurorae come from.

    There comes a times when it is time to cut your losses. Now is that time for you. For your own sake.

  368. If you do, you’ll find that the pole position changes very slowly 1800 (78.60N 286.49E), 1900 (79.07N 279.98E), 1990 (81.04N 278.09E).

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 19, 2011 at 4:45 pm
    The data that I used are corrected enougth and show the patterns that I found.
    You find something using inappropriate data splicing disparate datasets as we have seen. The German data shows how wrong you are [1946-1949 vs. 1951-1954]. Inappropriate [and cherry picked] data and ignorance about auroral physics is a fatal combination.

  369. Leif,

    are you done in saying no senses and continuously twisting my research?

    The historical record of mid-lat aurora, that I have studied, say what I found.
    The other records from north America and north Europe, that we have, say the same thing (that is, they show a 60-year cycle) in a complementary way that you do not grasp.

    As the author of my paper I say that you have not understood it. Moreover, in my opinion you have no deep understanding on these topics in general.

    Your behavior proves only the deep personal ostility that you have agaist my research.

    The scientific community will found out in the future whether I am right or wrong, do not worry.

  370. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 19, 2011 at 8:39 pm
    The historical record of mid-lat aurora, that I have studied, say what I found.
    Using data wrongly you find find wrong things. I have shown in detail and point for point where you go wrong. Everything you have brought up has been refuted. Do we really have to go through it point for point again?

    As the author of my paper I say that you have not understood it.
    There are, indeed, things in the paper that I cannot understand. I have asked for clarification and explanation, but you have evaded such, so your paper stays obscure on these points. I’ll try again to see if you offer explanation:
    “Start with that statement of yours. ‘magnetosphere gets stronger’. What is that? Which magnetosphere? How is ‘strength’ measured or defined? and why ‘should aurorae be pushed towards the poles”?

    Your behavior proves only the deep personal hostility that you have agaist my research.
    I shall criticize any paper that is as poor as yours. Nothing personal, just business.

  371. Leif,
    you have proved nothing.
    You just proved that you have not understood the paper, nor the results, nor the data.

    Your argument is simply based on a rejection of the data because you do not grasp the complex dynamics that they show, which is a quite naive argument in physics. I explained the reasons of this complex dynamics in the paper and here, but you did not get it.

    Sorry, Leif.

  372. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 20, 2011 at 5:04 am
    I explained the reasons of this complex dynamics in the paper and here, but you did not get it.
    Your ‘explanation’ is beyond understanding. You still evade this:
    You say “magnetosphere gets stronger”.
    How is ‘strength’ measured or defined? and why ‘should aurorae be pushed towards the poles”?
    which seems to be at the root of your ‘explanation’.

  373. Leif,

    the paper contains sufficient qualitative information and several conjectures on the topic that you are not grasping. A detailed mathematical explanation of the phenomenon is not presented in the current paper and may be the topic of another paper. In the current paper I show the existence of the phenomenon and I argue that even if we do not understand in full the microphysics of it yet, we can adopt the same logic of Kelvin for solving the tides to reconstruct and forecast climate oscillations.

    Research frontier is different from just reading a school textbook where everything looks clear, dear Leif. In research frontier the things move slower. One step by time.

    So, be patient, try to have an open mind and stop thinking that everytime the data do not fit the naive theories written in your old dusty textbooks, the data must be wrong. Who knows, perhaps you too may discover something interesting a day.

  374. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 20, 2011 at 9:12 am
    the paper contains sufficient qualitative information and several conjectures on the topic that you are not grasping.

    I’m not grasping those because their foundation is not correct and conflicts with known physics of the aurorae. You are evading explaining yourself because you know[?] that your foundation is wrong. So, once again:

    You say “magnetosphere gets stronger”.
    How is ‘strength’ measured or defined? and why ‘should aurorae be pushed towards the poles”?

    There are many more steps to go through, but we go slow and take them one at a time. So, please take this first one. If you do not, IMHO, you have forfeited further consideration.

  375. Darned shame to find Lief & Nicola at each other’s throats. Seems to me that they both are telling us that the sun has a significant effect on global climate.

    I guess the devil is in the details!

  376. Leif, sorry you do not understand the issue. As I have explained you many times this is frontier research. I am not trying to explain you something that you can read in your textbooks.

    What I say in the paper is supported by the data I analyze and by my numerous cross verifications. Get it and move on.

    You claim that the data are wrong because they do not fit your understanding: you are free to keep such position if you like.

    I say the data are correct and show an interesting dynamical phenomenon not yet fully understood that can indirectly also explain climate change, as I explain in the paper.

    Does my paper explain every related physical issue? No, it does not yet. It is frontier research, not a high school science project. And many mysteries remain.

    I need to say that in the past, people like you have always opposed any scientific advancement by using as argument that not everything was explained yet and unexplained things remained.

    For example, when Kepler argued that the orbital data were showing that the orbits of the planets were elliptical, people like you opposed him claiming that the data were wrong because the theory claimed the orbits had to be circular. When Newton proposed his force of gravity to explain Kepler’s findings people like you opposed Newton claiming that his force was only a product of his imagination. When Einstein proposed his theory, he was derided and Nazi German collected one hundred scientists thinking like you to disprove him. And there are thousands of other examples like that in the history of science.

    As I said before, be patient, try to have an open mind and stop thinking that every time the data do not fit the naive theories written in your old dusty textbooks, the data must be wrong.

    If you want to think and act in a different way, you are free to do that and keep your prejudices. But in my understanding such a behavior proves only that you have a very narrow understanding of what constitutes science and of how science really progresses.

  377. gallopingcamel says:
    November 20, 2011 at 10:30 am
    I guess the devil is in the details!
    Yes, if you get the details wrong or they conflict with known physics [What Nicola calls ‘old dusty textbooks’] the whole thing is just hand-waving. Now, I’ll grant that ‘hand waves’ are the waves most commonly seen.
    And don’t think I’m at Nicola’s throat. On the contrary I’m patiently and carefully examining his claims and trying to educate him a bit about what is known and how not to mal-treat data just because they seen to support muddled ideas. I have tried to make Nicola explain those ideas, but so far in vain. [prediction: it will continue to be in vain]. You may consider my comments here as a thorough peer-review.

  378. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 20, 2011 at 10:47 am
    I am not trying to explain you something that you can read in your textbooks.
    If you would only explain what you write, it would be progress:
    You say “magnetosphere gets stronger”.
    How is ‘strength’ measured or defined? and why ‘should aurorae be pushed towards the poles”?

    You claim that the data are wrong because they do not fit your understanding
    You treat the [cherry picked] data inappropriately on false premises. My understanding is what is known from all experience up to now, not just my understanding.

    Does my paper explain every related physical issue?
    It does not explain any issue.

    And now you are comparing yourself with Kepler and Einstein…

    Get it and move on
    I thought that your paper will benefit from scrutiny, but evidently you are concerned that too much light will be shone on it and exposing its flaws.

  379. I did a Wordle, which makes a visual display of the the most frequently occurring words in this blog and accompanying comments. The surprising revelation was that the single most common word or phrase is Leif Svalgaard. Much more frequent than Nicola Scafetta, way ahead of aurora or any form of it, or climate, and forget about anything with ‘magnetic’. Here’s the link to the url: http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/4447626/Watts_Up_With_That%3A_Aurora_Borealis_and_Surface_Temp_Cycles_Linked, and here’s the html (in case it’s possible to paste the code into this comment box – Google’s instructions say it is fine to post it wherever I want):

  380. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:09 pm
    you are not understanding the issue.
    There has to be a valid issue for understanding.
    If you would only explain what you write, it would be progress:
    You say “magnetosphere gets stronger”.
    How is ‘strength’ measured or defined? and why ‘should aurorae be pushed towards the poles”?
    That you don’t respond is proof enough that you have no clue. Now, it is OK to admit this, either explicitly [which is the honorable thing to do] or implicitly by being non-responsive.

    Read the paper with open mind.
    I always do. And I find it wanting.

  381. The html didn’t work. But the link does. I didn’t mean to interrupt you, gentlemen, unless it would be helpful to point out that this thread of comments seems to have become a battle between scientists with differing conclusions about what to do with data that most would start any article by mentioning that the relationship between aurorae, geomagnetism, and solar activity isn’t even understood well enough to be an emerging science. Legitimate – no question. Any scientific pursuit it legitimate. Neither of you two have any reason to be accusing (even politely) of the other because there just isn’t enough consensus yet on how best to use the data we have. And there is so much more to discern. Like the aurora borealis, appearing without warning whether we predict it or not, the ‘aha’ moment when (if) this disagreement leads to truth and understanding is something to look forward to with great anticipation. Instead I see contentiousness, accusation, attempted mutual censorship (thinly veiled).

    Meanwhile, having read through as much of this as I can grasp (I am not a scientist, but I was born asking ‘why’ before I even knew how to form the word)…I haven’t found any clues to my personal quest. Sometime between 1972 and 1974 (my best estimation) I witness an aurora borealis display unlike any described here. There are no photos on the web even resembling what I saw. I was on the northern verge of Lake Michigan, with absolutely no city lights to muddle the display. At first the northen third of the sky took on a sheen with a little color to it, then it began to coalesce into a greenish veil. But by 10 pm or so, it was as if dozens of jets had flown over and left their trails in the sky, and then they started swirling, moving to and fro, mixing together in no pattern I (a teenager at the time) could discern. The display spread to the highest point in the sky and then began to fill the southern sky.

    My web searching turned up one blog where someone mentioned seeing something like this on the Keewenaw Peninsula in 1972. But that’s not all, and I guess night photography just wasn’t sophisticated enough to capture it and still be in good condition now, so many decades later. My experience happened during the week of July 4. Then, the following year and one week later, we returned (who could resist?) and – you guessed it – it happened again. I don’t remember if that display had the uncharacteristic swirling going on. But back to your data here. I did look through your solar flare information from the early 60’s, and noticed that there were a number of instances where an important flare event occurred in July or October one year, and in both months, happened again one week later the following year.

    So that’s my contribution to the discussion, and it looks like it would be more useful to Dr. Scafetta, if anyone, to observe that in addition to the 60 yr and 11 yr cycles and other possible patterns we are looking for here, there are actually quite a few instances where auroras, the the solar flares that seem to be connected with them, appear 2 years in a sequence, but the later event is often roughly a week to 10 days later. I’m getting this from your review of the aurorae and their corresponding Kp index (indices?). So, thank you for the information. And may I encourage both of you to find a constructive use for all the mental energy being expended here. I for one, at least got that much out of it. Anyone else?

  382. Leif,
    how many times I need to tell you that my paper was not supposed to address in details any possible issues? This is frontier research, not a textbook well established theory explanation.

    It was not the purpose of the paper to address the issue you are questioning in detailed physical terms and in a rigorous physical mathematical explanation. This is “work in progress”. In the paper I show the existence of the phenomenon.

    So, be patient, try to have an open mind and stop thinking that everytime the data do not fit the naive theories written in your old dusty textbooks, the data must be wrong.

    You are missing the point of my paper. Moreover, you always miss the point of scientific research in general which does not require that every issue be solved at the same time.

    Claiming that a paper is wrong just because it highligths also issues not yet fully understood proves only that you do not understand scientific progress and research.

  383. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 20, 2011 at 4:06 pm
    how many times I need to tell you that my paper was not supposed to address in details any possible issues?
    And how many times do I need to tell you that it is legitimate to ask for clarification of what you wrote. It is simply courteously to respond So again:
    You say “magnetosphere gets stronger”.
    How is ‘strength’ measured or defined? and why ‘should aurorae be pushed towards the poles”?

    This is a key point of your paper:
    “In this paper, we postulate that the annual frequency occurrence of mid-latitude aurora events is a measure of the level of electrification of the global ionosphere, which is mostly regulated by incoming cosmic ray flux variations. When the Earth’s magnetosphere is weaker relative to the surrounding space environment the ionosphere can be highly ionized by cosmic rays, and large auroras would more likely form at the mid-latitudes. This phenomenon would occur because when the upper atmosphere is highly ionized, it would also be electrically quite sensitive to large solar wind particle fluxes and favor the formation of extended mid-latitude auroras. In fact, higher ionization of the atmosphere would mostly occur when the magnetosphere is weaker and cosmic ray as well as solar wind particles can more easily reach the mid-latitudes. Then, the level of atmospheric ionization and of the global electric circuit of the atmosphere should regulate the cloud system. If the above theory is correct, the frequencies of the mid-latitude aurora records should be present in the climate records too.”

    So: ‘When the Earth’s magnetosphere is weaker relative to the surrounding space environment ‘ means what? what is its strength? measured and defined how?

    You say “if the above theory is correct…”. It starts with making a claim about something being weaker. If you cannot explain what you mean, then you have no theory, and then the whole paper is moot. BTW, the rest of the theory is already wrong. Things don’t work anywhere near what you postulate [according to the old dusty textbooks and to all measurements and modern theories]. But we will come to that, once you clarify the foundation of your ‘theory’.

  384. This is a key point of your paper:
    “In this paper, we postulate that the annual frequency occurrence of mid-latitude aurora events is a measure of the level of electrification of the global ionosphere, which is mostly regulated by incoming cosmic ray flux variations”

    This is already completely wrong. Cosmic rays have nothing to do with this. The ionosphere is created by ultraviolet radiation from the sun helped along by particles precipitating from far out in the magnetosphere.
    You can learn more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere

    “The ionosphere is a part of the upper atmosphere, comprising portions of the mesosphere, thermosphere and exosphere, distinguished because it is ionized by solar radiation. It plays an important part in atmospheric electricity and forms the inner edge of the magnetosphere. ”

    So when you say “If the above theory is correct, the frequencies of the mid-latitude aurora records should be present in the climate records too.” you are already in trouble, as the ‘above theory’ is not correct.

  385. Leif,
    do you want to stop to insist on this tred.

    As author of my paper I say that you have not understood it. Moreover, your comments have been severely inappropriate in many ways.

    In my opinion you just want to mislead and disrupt the readers of this blog with your sophistic auguments and not let them to understand nor address the real issues covered in my paper. You need to understand that after a while you get very boring, and many readers of this blog have realized it.

    I can say that my paper has been reviwed by two persons plus the editor. One referee, for what I can understand from his/her detailed comments, is quite familiar with auroras data and the other referee is extremely expert in sun/athmospheric interactions. Both persons have written detailed comments and seem to me far more expert than you on the topics addressed in my paper.

    If you think that my paper contains fatal errors you are very welcome to write an appropriate scientific comment and submit it to the journal. And I will respond to it in the appropriate way.

    However, that you take advantage of the extreme tollerance of Antony Watts in allowing any kind of comments on this blog for continuously jumping and jelling around your personal opinion on everything disrupting it in many ways with your numerous nosenses, is another thing.

    In a regular scientific conference people like you are put out the door after two minutes.

    As Harkness Lives has said above, your presence in this blog surpasses by far the same topic of the paper that herein was supposed to be addressed.

    So, be more educated and do not disrupt a discussion and a topic that you evidently have no interest in undestanding in the appropriate scientific terms nor in the terms addressed by the author.

    Again, if you think that my paper contains fatal errors you are very welcome to write an appropriate scientific comment and submit it to the journal. And I will respond to it in the appropriate way.

  386. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 20, 2011 at 5:44 pm
    I can say that my paper has been reviwed by two persons plus the editor</i?
    Any reviewer that allows the statement "“In this paper, we postulate that the annual frequency occurrence of mid-latitude aurora events is a measure of the level of electrification of the global ionosphere, which is mostly regulated by incoming cosmic ray flux variations” to pass is not worth his/hers salt.

    Again, if you think that my paper contains fatal errors you are very welcome to write an appropriate scientific comment and submit it to the journal. And I will respond to it in the appropriate way.
    You can respond here in an appropriate way. It would be quite ridiculous to write a rebuttal of the above quote [and all the other wrong ones] as it is so obviously wrong, not to speak about the unneeded embarrassment you would suffer.

    I take your inability to answer my question ‘When the Earth’s magnetosphere is weaker relative to the surrounding space environment ‘ means what? what is its strength? measured and defined how? as an admission of your claim being rubbish.

    In a regular scientific conference people like you are put out the door after two minutes.
    Yet, I have recently given numerous invited papers at scientific conferences, so even that claim by you is dubious.

  387. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 20, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 20, 2011 at 5:44 pm
    I can say that my paper has been reviwed by two persons plus the editor
    Any reviewer that allows the statement ““In this paper, we postulate that the annual frequency occurrence of mid-latitude aurora events is a measure of the level of electrification of the global ionosphere, which is mostly regulated by incoming cosmic ray flux variations” to pass is not worth his/hers salt or the reviewers were too superficial.

  388. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 20, 2011 at 5:44 pm
    I can say that my paper has been reviwed by two persons plus the editor
    Another important question: Do you really believe this: “the global ionosphere, which is mostly regulated by incoming cosmic ray flux variations” and what is that belief based on? in view of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere “The ionosphere is a shell of electrons and electrically charged atoms and molecules that surrounds the Earth, stretching from a height of about 50 km to more than 1000 km. It owes its existence primarily to ultraviolet radiation from the Sun.” No cosmic rays here.
    So, do you stand by your statement which is a cornerstone of your ‘theory’?

  389. “”In a regular scientific conference people like you are put out the door after two minutes.”
    Yet, I have recently given numerous invited papers at scientific conferences, so even that claim by you is dubious.””

    Dear Leif, in the scientific conferences you keep an educated and respectful attitude for what I have noted. That is why nobody has put you out one of them yet.

    For example, at the last SORCE meeting in September we were even seated very close to each other and I did not note any inappropriate behavior from your side. At my presentation, for example, you kept a religious silence: before, during and after it. You did not start jumping around, disrupt the presentations, stealing the microphone and pretending to say your opinion on every issue and comment, arguing against everybody etc..

    However, I believe that your behavior in this blog is inappropriate and offensive to those readers who want to know more about these complex issues. And they would like to undersand mostly my views on the issue given that the topic addressed here is about one of my papers.

    The content and how my abstract needs to be understood is explained in the paper extensively, and the referees have understood it extensively and in agreement with the scientific litterature I have referenced. If you do not like my style of writing it is your personal opinion: i do not know what to say.

    Moreover, I have received emails from scientists quite famous and expert on auroras and the electric circuit on the atmosphere who wanted to share their appreciation for the content of the paper, who they have read with open mind. And I have also received several emails from people that have read this blog who are professional physicists and geophysicists who do not understand your unreasonable behavior.

    I do not know what else to say to you.

  390. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 20, 2011 at 7:18 pm
    However, I believe that your behavior in this blog is inappropriate and offensive to those readers who want to know more about these complex issues. And they would like to understand mostly my views on the issue given that the topic addressed here is about one of my papers.
    They could have asked your questions and engaged in discussion with you. Not many, if any, did.
    I seem to be the only one that have asked you specific questions, which you have evaded.

    And I have also received several emails from people that have read this blog who are professional physicists and geophysicists who do not understand your unreasonable behavior.
    They clearly did not have the guts to say it here. Therefore do not count in my book.

    I do not know what else to say to you.
    You can start by answering my questions:
    Another important question: Do you really believe this: “the global ionosphere, which is mostly regulated by incoming cosmic ray flux variations” and what is that belief based on?
    So: ‘When the Earth’s magnetosphere is weaker relative to the surrounding space environment ‘ means what? what is its strength? measured and defined how?

    This is what a reasonable and honorable person would do.

  391. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 20, 2011 at 7:18 pm
    For example, at the last SORCE meeting in September we were even seated very close to each other and I did not note any inappropriate behavior from your side. At my presentation, for example, you kept a religious silence: before, during and after it.
    Other people were taking you to task, so I did not need to.

  392. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 20, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    You made several points against Nicola’s paper that were shown to be false.

    1. Mid latitude aurora do not follow a 60 year period. FALSE.
    2. Mid latitude aurora only occur above 7 Kp. FALSE.
    3. Mid latitude aurora appear at low Kp only when a geomagnetic storm is experienced the previous day. FALSE.
    4. Mid latitude aurora follow the sunspot number. FALSE.

    Instead of leaving it there you now try to attack certain side issue statements in some form of trying to save face. You are not doing yourself any favors here, better to give it up and move on I think.

  393. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 20, 2011 at 10:11 pm
    You made several points against Nicola’s paper that were shown to be false.
    Instead of leaving it there you now try to attack certain side issue statements in some form of trying to save face. You are not doing yourself any favors here, better to give it up and move on I think.

    Well, your list is not correct, so no need to pay attention to it.

  394. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 21, 2011 at 5:05 am

    Well, your list is not correct, so no need to pay attention to it.

    The two papers that you incorrectly used (Silverman & Shroder) in an attempt to bluff and blunder show solid evidence that your 4 points are incorrect. Your credibility is shot.

  395. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 21, 2011 at 5:39 am
    The two papers that you incorrectly used (Silverman & Shroder) in an attempt to bluff and blunder show solid evidence that your 4 points are incorrect. Your credibility is shot.
    Your assessment of my credibility is of no concern. The correct way of dealing with a list of incorrect claims is to dispose with them one at a time and get your acknowledgement that you were wrong on that particular one, then mode on the next, etc. Let us start with the most blatant error, namely your claim that the mid-latitude aurorae does not follow the solar cycle. The Figure in Schroeder’s paper shows that it does. Here is a refutation of that erroneous claim: http://www.leif.org/research/Mid-Latitude-Aurorae-Solar-Cycle.png
    Once you have acknowledged that your claim is wrong we can continue to the next one.

  396. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 21, 2011 at 2:04 pm
    Here is a refutation of that erroneous claim:

    As posted previously two graphs from the Silverman paper that clearly show a divergence of sunspot number and mid latitude aurora. The main point you are still not seeing is the modulation of the aurorae, notice the aurora records do not return to zero during cycle min, also notice the roughly 30 year upswing then 30 year downswing in both graphs. Aurorae will be more prevalent at cycle max but they do not follow the sunspot cycle verbatim (the New England data diverges greatly from the sunspot data, an overlay would show this very clearly), there is modulation on the minimum as even your manipulated cherry picked Shroder/Silverman graph also shows… This is one of the modulations Nicola is referring to.

    Once you have acknowledged that your claim is wrong we can continue to the next one.
    —————————–
    Geoff Sharp says:
    November 15, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    The Silverman paper is interesting and backs up the Scafetta paper. Importantly it is necessary to only look at the data covering mid-latitudes. Two graphs in particular covering from 1700-1948 which cover the New England data (20,000 records taken over several hundred locations 41-45N) and the Fritz data that appears to be >55N show a clear 60 year period (the Dalton minimum has to be allowed for). The graphs agree with fig 2B in Scafetta’s paper.

    Clearly the mid-latitude aurora record mentioned does NOT follow the sunspot or aa record of the era (with the exception of the Dalton).

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/fritz.png (url typo fixed from original post)

  397. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 21, 2011 at 5:07 pm
    As posted previously two graphs from the Silverman paper that clearly show a divergence of sunspot number and mid latitude aurora. The main point you are still not seeing is the modulation of the aurorae, notice the aurora records do not return to zero during cycle min, also notice the roughly 30 year upswing then 30 year downswing in both graphs.
    Those are defects in the records, as it is difficult to calibrate those observations.

    Aurorae will be more prevalent at cycle max but they do not follow the sunspot cycle verbatim (the New England data diverges greatly from the sunspot data, an overlay would show this very clearly), there is modulation on the minimum as even your manipulated cherry picked Shroder/Silverman graph also shows… This is one of the modulations Nicola is referring to.
    Those are artifacts. All our modern data show that. And that is what Scafetta and you refuse to recognize because of confirmation bias. Here is the record from Yerkes observatory [lat =42.6N, long 271.4W]: http://www.leif.org/research/Yerkes-Aurora-1857-1051.png
    So, again, all reliable data shows the simple solar cycle relationship. Claiming anything else just displays ignorance. A paper based on ignorance ain’t worth much.

  398. Fixing typos:
    Here is the record from Yerkes observatory [lat =42.6N, long 271.4W]: http://www.leif.org/research/Yerkes-Aurora-1897-1951.png
    The reporter notes: “These records were stared by E. E. Barnard and continued form 1904 by F. R. Sullivan, consequently we believe that the data are considerably more homogeneous than if they had been made by random observers”.
    So, again, all reliable data shows the simple solar cycle relationship. Claiming anything else just displays ignorance. A paper based on ignorance ain’t worth much.

  399. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 21, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    Those are defects in the records, as it is difficult to calibrate those observations.

    Laughable really. Good data referenced by yourself is now defunct because it has back fired on you. Like I said you have lost all credibility. Any reasonable dialogue with you is impossible.

    Anthony should make you face up to your deception, if a warmist displayed your tactics they would most likely be banned. You have been shown to be incorrect with your own referenced data and refuse to admit it.

  400. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 22, 2011 at 2:26 am
    Good data referenced by yourself is now defunct because it has back fired on you.
    I have shown that what you call ‘good data’ is not reliable by comparing the data with long-term observations by single observers. You should discuss the issues instead of blindly prefer unreliable data just because they confirm your bias.

  401. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 22, 2011 at 2:26 am
    Good data referenced by yourself is now defunct because it has back fired on you.
    I have shown that what you call ‘good data’ is not reliable by comparing the data with long-term observations by single observers. You should discuss the issues instead of blindly prefer unreliable data just because they confirm your bias.

    Reliable data shows that the mid-latitude aurora follows the sunspot number as shown here [lower right]. Scafetta’s curve [red] does not match the auroral record after 1850 [not to speak about before 1700] when we have good climate data. As simple as that: http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-SSN-Silverman.png

  402. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 22, 2011 at 4:46 am

    I have shown that what you call ‘good data’ is not reliable by comparing the data with long-term observations by single observers.

    The SIlverman New England data 1800-1948 consists of 20,000 records from several hundred stations. Multiple records on one day are treated as one.
    —————–
    Data for New England were taken from a compilation by
    S. M. Silverman based on several sources (for a descriptio
    of observational systems from the end of the eighteenth cen
    tury to 1870, see Fleming [1990]). The primary source used
    here was the meteorological registers kept by voluntary ob-
    servers in the network established by the Smithsonian Insti-
    tution and continued, primarily, by the Army Signal Servic
    and the Weather Bureau. Observations were also publishe
    in the Monthly Weather Review and in the series, Climato
    logical Data of the United States. Some additional data for
    individual locations were also used, as, for example, the
    observations of Bentley in Jericho, Vermont, from 1881 to
    1931 [Silverman and Blanchard, 1983]. Some data were also
    taken from the auroral catalogs published by Lovering [ 1866
    1871] and Fritz [1873]. The New England data base com-
    prised about 20,000 records, from 1741 to 1948. Some scat
    tered records prior to 1741 exist but are not utilized here
    Altogether several hundred locations are involved. Their geo
    graphic coordinates range from about 41 ø to 45 ø , and the
    corresponding corrected geomagnetic coordinates from abou
    53 ø to 57 ø .
    ————————
    A pretty comprehensive data set I would have thought. That you choose to go with a single observer over a shorter time frame is your prerogative, but hardly a convincing argument.
    When the Silverman aurora data is overlaid over the SIDC data the disconnect becomes clearly apparent.

  403. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 22, 2011 at 5:13 pm
    The SIlverman New England data 1800-1948 consists of 20,000 records from several hundred stations.
    That is part of the problem. A record from a single observer that observed on every clear day is much to be preferred. This illustrates the problem: http:/www.leif.org/research/Numbers-of-Observers-Influence.png Assume a cycle of constant amplitude [blue curve], but let the number of random observers change with time [or their conditions, e.g increasing city lights] [green curve] then the number of reports [even if multiple are treated as one] will be the product of the two curves [the pink curve], so the envelope is more a reflection of the number of observers. Note how the bottom values follow the same curve and do not go to zero]. This is the problem with the raw data.

    When the Silverman aurora data is overlaid over the SIDC data the disconnect becomes clearly apparent.
    Yes, it clearly shows the problems with the Silverman data. If you overlay the Faroes data, their disconnect with both Silverman and SIDC becomes even more apparent [yet are an eye-catcher on Scafetta’s Figure 2B, and a major claim for the 60-year period – how well they follolw the red sine curve]. To sum up: collections [no matter of how many] of random observers will always have these problems. There are two remedies: (1) use only a few long-running observers that make observations on a regular schedule, and (2) since we know that the number of mid-latitude aurorae goes to almost zero at solar minimum, we can take that into account and calibrate the counts so that this is fulfilled.
    Here you can see how severe the problem is for the Faroe data: http://www.leif.org/research/Faroe-Aurorae-in-Context.png.
    As shown in the yellow rectangle the Faroe Islands are about halfway between Iceland and Denmark and Germany. The two records on the left [Vestmannoe and Berufjord] are from Iceland and agree that the aurorae were rare around 1910. The record from Denmark shows also a paucity of aurorae at that time. Yet the Faroes have a strong maximum from 1890 to 1920 showing that the Faroe Island records [used by Scafetta] do not show the true [low] occurrence. The reason likely explained by the effect illustrated by my graph above.

    We have a very good, quantitative theory for the aurorae worked out decades ago and confirmed by modern measurements every day. Mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle closely [not ‘verbatim’ as you said, because nature is a noisy place] and are clearly present in the geomagnetic record as well. That aurorae tend to occur at the time when sunspot groups pass near the central meridian of the Sun was already noted by Mairan in 1733. It was shown by Carrington, Spoerer and Wolf that the auroral frequency followed the sunspot cycle [‘old, dusty text book’ knowledge] and everything we have observed since with modern, controlled data confirms that. There is no other choice to be had. Aurorae do not behave differently in the past as they do now. The same physics is at work.

  404. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 22, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    That is part of the problem. A record from a single observer that observed on every clear day is much to be preferred.

    You are still not seeing the main point of the divergence between the aurora and sunspot record.

    Even if we use your preferred data or accept your point about more observers there is still a 60 year movement in the aurora recorded at solar minimum (that does return to around zero every 60 or so years), this 60 year trend is also observed in the aurora peaks that can go against the trend in the sunspot record. This trend cant be explained away as you have tried to do. Dont try to line up each hump in the aurora/sunspot record, look at the max/min trends in both records.

    Basically the mid latitude aurora record has a quasi 60 year trend and does not follow the same trend as the sunspot record.

  405. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 22, 2011 at 5:13 pm
    When the Silverman aurora data is overlaid over the SIDC data
    The Ap geomagnetic index is a measure of currents in the mid-latitude ionosphere and generally correlates well with auroral activity. Only the strongest outbreak of currents such as generally found at high solar activity give rise to visible aurorae at mid-latitudes. The high-speed streams often occurring on the declining branch of the cycle are generally not associated with sporadic CME [giving us mid-latitude aurorae], but do increase the Ap-index [at times substantially]. So a combination of SSN and Ap should be a good measure of mid-latitude auroral frequency. I have overlain the Ap-record on your SSN and Silverman overlay: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Ap-Aurorae.png
    Several things are visible: the effect of number of observers, the occasional impact of high-speed streams, the low activity during the first few cycles of the 20th century. This is in contrast to Scafetta’s Figure 2B on which his claim is built: http://www.leif.org/research/Sharp-Overlay-Faroes-Aurora.png
    Scafetta’s sleight of hand slipping the Faroes data was one of my first criticisms and still stands.

  406. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:37 pm
    Basically the mid latitude aurora record has a quasi 60 year trend and does not follow the same trend as the sunspot record.
    That trend comes basically from the use of the unreliable Faroes data as I just showed. The max/min trend is precisely what is influenced by a variable number of observers:

  407. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:37 pm
    Basically the mid latitude aurora record has a quasi 60 year trend and does not follow the same trend as the sunspot record.
    As both the sunspot number and the Ap-index [and perhaps best their combination] are the controlling factors of the auroral record, it is of interest to compute the power spectrum of both:
    http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Ap-1844-2011.png after all, Scafetta claims he is comparing frequencies.
    As you can see for periods above 5 years the two power spectra agree, and there is no hint of any 60-yr period. The interval 1844-2011 for which I have geomagnetic data matches well the 1850-2010 span of climate data, that is used in Scafetta’s paper, so it is very appropriate to compare datasets for that interval.
    It is well-known that there is ~90-year period in both SSN [the Gleisberg cycle] and auroral data, but no 60-yr. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA089iA05p03023.pdf “Eighty-Eight Year Periodicity in Solar-Terrestrial Phenomena Confirmed [Joan Feyman & Paul Fougere].

    BTW, Scafetta’s 60-yr period ‘predicts’ high solar activity the next 30 years.

  408. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:37 pm
    Basically the mid latitude aurora record has a quasi 60 year trend
    Feynman’s conclusion:
    “we have shown that the long cycle in solar terrestrial relations is real and periodic, that it is present in 1000 years of auroral data, and that the period is 88.4 _+0.7 years. “

  409. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 22, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    The max/min trend is precisely what is influenced by a variable number of observers

    That is not a reasonable statement and implies that the number of observers must fluctuate on a 60 year period, even if your theory is right which I am not nearly convinced, the observers would merely be amplifying a trend that is already there. The Ap record is also now showing a similar trend that agrees with the mid latitude aurora record, does it also suffer from over counting?

    Scafetta’s sleight of hand slipping the Faroes data was one of my first criticisms and still stands.

    This is outside the 4 points we are discussing, but I am also wary of the Faroes data and wonder if it was necessary to include in the paper.

    BTW, Scafetta’s 60-yr period ‘predicts’ high solar activity the next 30 years.

    You might need to expand on that one?

  410. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 23, 2011 at 5:41 am
    That is not a reasonable statement and implies that the number of observers must fluctuate on a 60 year period,
    Only for the 19th century.

    even if your theory is right which I am not nearly convinced, the observers would merely be amplifying a trend that is already there.
    No, as http://www.leif.org/research/Numbers-of-Observers-Influence.png shows varying the number of observers CREATES the trend. The blue curve is a cycle with no trend.

    The Ap record is also now showing a similar trend that agrees with the mid latitude aurora record, does it also suffer from over counting?
    The real issue is that Ap is a measure of the currents. At sunspot maximum we get more of the flares that push the aurorae down to mid-latitudes, so a combination of Ap and SSN is really the best if one wants to go past 1st order. The point is that neither Ap nor SSN shows any 60-yr period over the time of the climate record considered by Scafetta:

    I am also wary of the Faroes data and wonder if it was necessary to include in the paper.
    That data is vital for the paper, see Figure 2B.

    “BTW, Scafetta’s 60-yr period ‘predicts’ high solar activity the next 30 years.”
    You might need to expand on that one?

    Figure 2B: when the red curve has minima, the number of aurorae [i.e. solar activity] is highest. The next minimum is about 2030, so that is when there should be most aurorae and solar activity. Compare with 1850s, 1780s, 1730s. Similarly, solar activity should have been large in the 1910s [the blue Faroe curve is picked to ‘prove’ that].

  411. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 23, 2011 at 6:26 am
    The point is that neither Ap nor SSN shows any 60-yr period over the time of the climate record considered by Scafetta:

    http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Ap-1844-2011.png

    But the climate record does show a 60-yr cycle [PDO and all that], both the raw data and the detrended data:

    So much for “A shared frequency set between mid-latitude aurora and global temperature”

    The 11-yr solar cycle peak is clearly in the data as we would expect from the TSI variation. The clear peak at exactly one year is due to the fact that the data is an anomaly over an average yearly curve, and there is variation in the yearly curve from year to year.

  412. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 23, 2011 at 6:26 am

    Your number of observer theory is weak, you have not answered why the Ap record shows the same trend.

    The point is that neither Ap nor SSN shows any 60-yr period

    The SSN record is not important as it diverges from the aurora record. The Ap record needs to be looked at.

    That data is vital for the paper, see Figure 2B.

    Disagree, I think you need to give a bit of slack here. Nicola has identified a quasi 60 year trend in the mid latitude aurora data. A similar trend is also produced in his Jupiter/Saturn tidal elongations. He has only speculated on the physical link but if correct some of the inner planets may also add and take away from the strict 60 year cycle.

    Figure 2B: when the red curve has minima, the number of aurorae [i.e. solar activity] is highest. The next minimum is about 2030, so that is when there should be most aurorae and solar activity. Compare with 1850s, 1780s, 1730s. Similarly, solar activity should have been large in the 1910s

    No, still missing the point. The red curve is the influence on the magnetosphere, not necessarily solar output, in my opinion this is the important factor. The Dalton minimum is a good example of this which should be repeated again in the next 30 years. According to the theory the magnetosphere is shaped by planetary influence which is then subject to the solar output of the day. Grand minima obviously will over ride the red curve.

  413. Leif continues with his misinformation and twisting of data and facts.

    >BTW, Scafetta’s 60-yr period ‘predicts’ high solar activity the next 30 years.

    No, my model predicts a low solar activity the next 30 years.

    Leif also continues to mix the American New England auroras to the mid-latitude auroras from Europe as if they correspond to the same angle relative to the north magnetic pole.
    Leif does not understand that New England is located far norther than central Europe relative to the magnetic north pole.

    For example between 1800 and 1950 the north magnetic pole was located on average at about
    latitude 72N ; longitude -99

    New England is located at about
    latitude 42N ; longitude -73

    Germany is located at
    latitude 51N ; longitude 10

    It is evident from the above that, like Iceland, New England was (and is) far closer to the north magnetic pole than Germany. This is why the 60-year modulation in the two records is negative-correlated: when one increases the other decreases. Try to calculate the angle, Leif!

  414. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:35 am
    “BTW, Scafetta’s 60-yr period ‘predicts’ high solar activity the next 30 years.”
    No, my model predicts a low solar activity the next 30 years.

    In Figure 2B you claim that auroral frequency is largest during the minima of the red sine curve. High auroral frequency is a sign of high solar activity. So since your red curve has a minimum in 2030, that predicts high auroral frequency i.e. high solar activity.

    New England is located far norther than central Europe relative to the magnetic north pole.
    The northern geomagnetic pole is not at “latitude 72N ; longitude -99″, but at 79N, 80W. [ http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/cgm_vitmo.html ]. I showed you the locations already here: http://www.leif.org/research/Mag-Poles-1900-1990.png [also the pole in 1800]. Check the angles [pink arrows] they are the same Your mistake is to believe that the pole on the ground is the pole seen by the aurora and solar wind. That pole is in Northern Greenland at 79N, 80W. You can see that directly here: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/

    Geoff Sharp says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:22 am
    “Figure 2B: when the red curve has minima, the number of aurorae [i.e. solar activity] is highest. The next minimum is about 2030, so that is when there should be most aurorae and solar activity. Compare with 1850s, 1780s, 1730s. Similarly, solar activity should have been large in the 1910s”
    No, still missing the point. The red curve is the influence on the magnetosphere, not necessarily solar output, in my opinion this is the important factor.

    The magnetosphere reacts directly to solar output of flares, CMEs, and other stuff that creates mid-latitude aurorae.

  415. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:49 am
    A more extended comment is here
    Just a rehash of the same old tired arguments that have been shown here to be invalid.

  416. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:35 am
    New England is located far norther than central Europe relative to the magnetic north pole.
    Here is a bit of education for you: http://www.leif.org/EOS/96EO00237_rga.pdf
    “Geomagnetic coordinates are applied universally to organize many types of geophysical data, particularly those for solar-terrestrial and magnetospheric scientists.”
    “For the many scientists not working in geomagnetism and for ordinary citizens, the present magnetic pole marking only leads to a confusion as to what is being located at the given positions. The major global cartographers need to become aware of the modern science of geomagnetism and either improve the accuracy of their maps or remove their dubious “Magnetic Pole” locations altogether.” This goes for you as well.

  417. Sorry, Leif. You are confusing the topic and still not understending the issue. As I said the next 30 year predicts a low solar activity, low magnetic field shielding that yields more low latitude auroras.
    You do not have to think only at he sun, but at the dynamics of the magnetosphere.

    Moreover, the location of the North Magnetic pole is here

    around 1800-1950 (the time of the data in my paper) it was around
    latitude 72N ; longitude 99W.
    Now it is about 82.7° N 114.4° W

    the angle between the north magnetic pole and New England was about 32 degree, the angle between North Magnetic pole and Germany was about 48 degree

    The angle between north magnetic pole and Iceland was about 29 degree, so it was close to New England

  418. Dear Leif
    your own picture at

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html

    clearly shows that the aurora oval is strongly skewed toward north America and New England.

    In fact, all north United States are covered by the aurora oval, while most mid-latitude Europe and Asia regions (from Germany to Italy up to Japan) are not.

    100 years ago the aurora oval was even more skewed toward New England and North United States because the north magnetic pole was even closer to central Canada by 10 degree.

  419. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:06 am
    As I said the next 30 year predicts a low solar activity, low magnetic field shielding that yields more low latitude auroras.
    So you are saying that more low [perhaps you mean mid-] latitude aurorae occur at low solar activity. This places you on the fringe. All data up to now associates high mid-latitude aurorae frequency with high solar activity [Figure 3 of Silverman shows the very low frequency during the Maunder, Dalton, and 1910 solar activity periods]. I think you have now disqualified your theory permanently and ruined your reputation forever.

    You do not have to think only at he sun, but at the dynamics of the magnetosphere.
    Which brings me back to my question:
    How is ‘strength’ measured or defined? and why ‘should aurorae be pushed towards the poles”?
    Which you have evaded, but now must answer.

    Moreover, the location of the North Magnetic pole is here

    http://academic.greensboroday.org/~regesterj/potl/E&M/Magnetism/popup.north.pole1.gif

    You did not take the trouble to study http://www.leif.org/EOS/96EO00237_rga.pdf
    “Geomagnetic coordinates are applied universally to organize many types of geophysical data, particularly those for solar-terrestrial and magnetospheric scientists.”
    “For the many scientists not working in geomagnetism and for ordinary citizens, the present magnetic pole marking only leads to a confusion as to what is being located at the given positions. The major global cartographers need to become aware of the modern science of geomagnetism and either improve the accuracy of their maps or remove their dubious “Magnetic Pole” locations altogether.”

    The ‘magnetic pole’ you show is not the location that organizes the magnetosphere. I could give you many references for this, but since you don’t even read the ones I have given, I think you won’t take the trouble to educate yourself. It is universally recognized that auroral frequency follow lines of corrected geomagnetic latitude [google ‘aurora corrected latitude’ to see more than a million references]

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:32 am
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html
    clearly shows that the aurora oval is strongly skewed toward north America and New England.

  420. Dear Leif
    your own picture at

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html

    clearly shows that the aurora oval is strongly skewed toward north America and New England.

    In fact, all north United States are covered by the aurora oval, while most mid-latitude Europe and Asia regions (from Germany to Italy up to Japan) are not.

    Moreover, if you look carefully the region around England up to the Faroes, region is colored with a dark blue, while the American New England region is colored almost in white. This means that region around England up to the Faroes behaves more like the Mid-latite aurora fron Europe and Asia.

    Finally, note that 100 years ago the aurora oval was even more skewed toward New England and North United States because the north magnetic pole was even closer to central Canada by 10 degree and the patterns were likely clearer in my favor.

    Sorry, Leif, but your own pictures prove you wrong again and again.

    Are you convinced now?

  421. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:54 pm
    your own picture at

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html

    clearly shows that the aurora oval is strongly skewed toward north America and New England.
    No, http://www.leif.org/research/Auroral-Oval.png

    Finally, note that 100 years ago the aurora oval was even more skewed toward New England and North United States because the north magnetic pole was even closer to central Canada by 10 degree and the patterns were likely clearer in my favor.
    Again no: http://www.leif.org/research/Mag-Poles-1900-1990.png

    And you did not read the references [again].

  422. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:06 am
    As I said the next 30 year predicts a low solar activity, low magnetic field shielding that yields more low latitude auroras.
    Conflicts with your Figure 2B:

    But I can see how you got misled by your own trick [the blue Faroes data]

  423. Leif,
    1) you are thinking only in terms of sunspot number and are making a great confusion. Solar activity is not just sunspot number as you think as I also explained above.
    2) the mid-latitude region in Europe ans Asia (the arc from Germany to Italy to Japan) is out your aurora oval as I said.

    Happy Thanksgiving.

  424. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    Leif,
    1) you are thinking only in terms of sunspot number and are making a great confusion. Solar activity is not just sunspot number as you think as I also explained above.
    It is also flares, CMEs, magnetic field, TSI, mid-latitude aurorae, etc, all of which follow the sunspot number. But regardless of that, your own plot http://www.leif.org/research/High-Low-Switch.png shows how the red curve follow the sunspot number and the number of aurora between 1700 and 1900, but that relationship breaks down thereafter. Is this what you are trying to say? That although before 1900 you would claim that there was some correlation, that is no longer the case.

    2) the mid-latitude region in Europe ans Asia (the arc from Germany to Italy to Japan) is out your aurora oval as I said.
    Does not make sense, Italy is way to far south. There are VERY few aurorae reported from Italy. The vast majority comes from Germany, England, and France. And all of these are outside of the oval [including the US], anyway. The blue area is not auroral emission, but just quiet background.

    No, http://www.leif.org/research/Auroral-Oval.png

  425. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 3:50 pm
    Take a rest! Physics is complex.
    There is no physics in your ruminations. It may be hard for you to wiggle out of the pickle you are in.

  426. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    2) the mid-latitude region in Europe ans Asia (the arc from Germany to Italy to Japan) is out your aurora oval as I said.
    Italy and Japan are on the same isochasm [line of equal auroral frequency] as Florida and Cuba, so are not mid-latitude in the auroral sense. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/JZ065i007p01967.pdf

    Vestine has constructed isochasm maps that show this very clearly, also how the aurorae matches geomagnetic disturbances: http://www.leif.org/EOS/TE049i002p00077.pdf
    Of course this is just common and accepted knowledge of the kind you’ll find in old, dusty textbooks. As you never bother to educate yourself by actually reading references, I offer you here a single Figure with the Isochasms drawn by Fritz: http://www.leif.org/research/Fritz-Isochasms.png
    Note Italy having a frequency 10-50 times less than Germany and New England. The counts from Italy and Japan make no dent in the total.

  427. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    2) the mid-latitude region in Europe ans Asia (the arc from Germany to Italy to Japan) is out your aurora oval as I said.
    Italy and Japan are on the same isochasm [line of equal auroral frequency] as Florida and Cuba, so are not mid-latitude in the auroral sense. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/JZ065i007p01967.pdf

    Vestine has constructed isochasm maps that show this very clearly, also how the aurorae matches geomagnetic disturbances: http://www.leif.org/EOS/TE049i002p00077.pdf
    Of course this is just common and accepted knowledge of the kind you’ll find in old, dusty textbooks. As you never bother to educate yourself by actually reading references, I offer you here a single Figure with the Isochasms drawn by Fritz: http://www.leif.org/research/Fritz-Isochasms.png

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:54 pm
    Finally, note that 100 years ago the aurora oval was even more skewed toward New England and North United States because the north magnetic pole was even closer to central Canada by 10 degree
    Note that Vestine [and Fritz] knew that the Magnetic North Pole [green] is not the same as the Geomagnetic North Pole [red], the latter determining where the aurorae go: http://www.leif.org/research/Fritz-Isochasms.png

  428. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:49 am

    A more extended comment is here

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/response-from-nicala-scafetta-on-his-new-paper-on-astronomical-oscillations-and-climate-oscillations/

    Thanks Nicola, one paragraph in particular gives more insight into why you chose the Faroe data set.

    “Where the 60-year cycle in the Faroes is negative correlated to the 60 year cycle in the temperature while the 60-year cycle in Iceland is positive correlated to the 60 year cycle in the temperature from 1880 to 1940. The same complementary dynamics exists between the mid-latitude European/Asian auroras (which are explicitly studied in my paper) and the American New England auroras (which occupy a northern region relative to the magnetic north pole despite their geographical latitude) for the 1800-1900 period.”

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 23, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    The blue area is not auroral emission, but just quiet background.

    Would the blue area become active during times of higher solar activity or weaker magnetosphere that might influence mid latitude aurora?

  429. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 23, 2011 at 5:01 pm
    Thanks Nicola, one paragraph in particular gives more insight into why you chose the Faroe data set.
    And at the same time explains his grave mistake, stemming from his not knowing that the Magnetic North Pole is not the Geomagnetic North Pole which controls where the aurorae are. Even Fritz and Vestine knew this, and now you and Nicola should know it too.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 23, 2011 at 3:36 pm
    “The blue area is not auroral emission, but just quiet background.”
    Would the blue area become active during times of higher solar activity or weaker magnetosphere that might influence mid latitude aurora?

    At higher solar activity the oval expands in all directions and the emission moves south to cover the blue background. The ‘weaker’ magnetosphere is nonsense. I have asked Nicola to explain what he means by that, but he evades/refuses/has no clue/whatever to provide an answer. Perhaps you could provide one?

  430. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 6:05 pm
    Take a rest! please.
    If my results are wrong, the future will tell.

    We don’t need to wait for the future. You are wrong already now, actually from 16 October, 2011.

  431. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 6:57 pm
    Ok, Leif. That is your opinion.
    Which I have documented extensively and shown to be based on sound physics, valid data, and modern theoretical understanding, while enduring various slings and arrows. One may have a forlorn hope that this has been educational for you and potentially helpful for your further research.

  432. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:58 pm
    But I remain with my ideas that the things are more complex and interesting than what you believe.
    Progress in science happens when complexity is conquered and the essentials extracted and expressed in simple ways. The complexity in auroral, magnetospheric, and solar physics is vast, but we have managed to unravel the simpler physics underlying it all. Speculation is always interesting, but when it leaves the terra firma of valid analysis and solid science it can become counter-productive.

  433. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 23, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    And at the same time explains his grave mistake, stemming from his not knowing that the Magnetic North Pole is not the Geomagnetic North Pole which controls where the aurorae are. Even Fritz and Vestine knew this, and now you and Nicola should know it too.

    Nicola has outlined why the New England data should not be associated with the European data which I now see I did incorrectly. Your referenced links also support his reasoning that show the two areas are subject to different strengths of the auroral oval. It would be beneficial if auroral data from Europe at a latitude less than 55 deg was available after 1900 to ensure a reliable record. In the absence of such data Nicola has substituted the Faroe data from 62 deg because remarkably it has the same frequency signal compared to the European data prior to 1900. This may not be ideal but it explains the process. I note in Shroders paper that has a limited data range from 1946 to 1964 from Germany that the auroral data does not follow the sunspot record as you may expect. Cycle max of SC18 displays a max reading per year of 41 while the highest sunspot cycle in our history SC19 only recorded 29 aurorae. There is sufficient data including the 23% of aurorae that occur at a Kp value of 4 or less that demonstrate mid latitude aurorae of Europe are not solely dependent on solar output.

    At higher solar activity the oval expands in all directions and the emission moves south to cover the blue background. The ‘weaker’ magnetosphere is nonsense. I have asked Nicola to explain what he means by that, but he evades/refuses/has no clue/whatever to provide an answer. Perhaps you could provide one?

    So your referenced diagrams support Nicola’s logic.

    Nicola does not provide a mechanism for a weaker/stronger magnetosphere, but my understanding is the interaction from planetary bodies on our magnetosphere is one proposal.

  434. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 23, 2011 at 8:20 pm
    Nicola has outlined why the New England data should not be associated with the European data which I now see I did incorrectly. Your referenced links also support his reasoning that show the two areas are subject to different strengths of the auroral oval.
    On the contrary, the two areas have the same distance from the Corrected Geomagnetic Pole: http://www.leif.org/research/Mag-Poles-1900-1990.png
    and the same dependency on magnetospheric conditions (measured by the Kp needed for an overhead aurorae, the area between the yellow and red lines):

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/globeNE.html

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/globeNW.html

    It would be beneficial if auroral data from Europe at a latitude less than 55 deg was available after 1900 to ensure a reliable record.
    The Danish record is good for this. There is nothing magical about the latitude of 55N [and part of Denmark is south of 55N).

    In the absence of such data Nicola has substituted the Faroe data from 62 deg because remarkably it has the same frequency signal compared to the European data prior to 1900.
    That is just cherry picking of bad data. The Faroe Islands are halfway between Iceland and Denmark and must show data that is at least between those two areas [e.g. that activity was low from 1900 to 1920, but does not, so is no good: http://www.leif.org/research/Faroe-Aurorae-in-Context.png

    Cycle max of SC18 displays a max reading per year of 41 while the highest sunspot cycle in our history SC19 only recorded 29 aurorae
    There were 65 aurorae in SC18 and 90 in SC19. Breaking it down by single year does not enough statistical significance.

    There is sufficient data including the 23% of aurorae that occur at a Kp value of 4 or less that demonstrate mid latitude aurorae of Europe are not solely dependent on solar output.
    An aurora is a measure of magnetospheric output which is powered by the Sun. The distribution of Kp-values for Schroeder’s data http://www.leif.org/research/Kp-Distribution-Schroeder.png shows [each color a different column plus their sum] a broad plateau from Kp=5 to Kp=9 with a median of Kp=7 consistent with http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/globeNE.html
    The spread is just ordinary counting statistics. As a strong aurora extends ~500 km in height it will be visible more than 2000 km away [or ~20 degrees]. Even if we allow that it will only be noticed if at some altitude in the sky, 1000 km distance is reasonable, so a strong aurora in Norway may still be visible from Germany.

    “At higher solar activity the oval expands in all directions and the emission moves south to cover the blue background. The ‘weaker’ magnetosphere is nonsense. I have asked Nicola to explain what he means by that, but he evades/refuses/has no clue/whatever to provide an answer. ”
    So your referenced diagrams support Nicola’s logic.

    No, as it expands in all directions and if the oval expands to New England it also expands to Germany and vice versa, so you will not get opposite occurrences.

    Nicola does not provide a mechanism for a weaker/stronger magnetosphere, but my understanding is the interaction from planetary bodies on our magnetosphere is one proposal.
    The notion of weaker/stronger magnetosphere is nonsense. Not even the Sun changes the ‘strength’ of the magnetosphere under any reasonable definition of ‘strength’. Nicola refuses to explain what he means with ‘strength’ so this notion is void until he does. The planetary influence on our magnetosphere would do what? The particles in the magnetosphere where the aurorae come from are transient and comes and goes on a time scale of hours. His discussion involving cosmic rays regulating the ionosphere is incoherent and wrong. The ionosphere is created and maintained by ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. Particles accelerated in the magnetotail can precipitate into the ionosphere and heat it, but that is all.

  435. There were 65 aurorae in SC18 and 90 in SC19. Breaking it down by single year does not enough statistical significance.
    Miscounted. There were 79 in SC18 and 92 in SC19. The +/-counting error on random events is about the square root of the number of counts.

  436. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 23, 2011 at 9:21 pm

    On the contrary, the two areas have the same distance from the Corrected Geomagnetic Pole

    This is a critical point. It is not about distance but about what band of the auroral oval each area belongs too. Is there anything wrong with the purple and blue dots I have placed on your referenced auroral oval isochasms.

  437. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 23, 2011 at 10:09 pm
    Is there anything wrong with the purple and blue dots I have placed on your referenced auroral oval isochasms.
    The blue dot is at a bit too high latitude. Most data came from Boston, not from Maine. And in any case the difference is so small that to talk about a reversal of behavior is nonsense and grasping for straws. A strong aurora is visible over an area several hundred kilometers across anyway so make your dots much larger. To have opposite behavior the locations must be of the order of a thousand km or more apart, because if not, south of the oval you would see an aurora in the north, but north of the oval [which itself is some hundreds km wide], you would see that same aurora to the south [thus the count will be the same]. So, there is no way one justify that the bahavior would be with different phases. Now, Nicola doesn’t know this [or pretends he doesn’t] as he measures from the wrong pole. But you know better now, right?

  438. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 23, 2011 at 10:30 pm

    But you know better now, right?

    What I know is you are trying to deceive. It is plainly obvious that New England is in a totally different band to Germany/Europe <55 and would be subject to a very different auroral record. Why have you persisted with distance when you know the zonal position is of importance?

    Nicola had good reason not to use the New England data with the European data. You have still made no headway on the 4 points.

  439. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:19 pm
    What I know is you are trying to deceive.
    I’m trying to explain and educate.

    It is plainly obvious that New England is in a totally different band to Germany/Europe <55 and would be subject to a very different auroral record. Why have you persisted with distance when you know the zonal position is of importance?
    The zonal position is a function of the distance. Here is another view of the positions:

    Nicola had good reason not to use the New England data with the European data.
    Nicola has not been quite honest with you. He claims to use the Krivsky and Pejml [1988] data and that that data comes from central Europe. This is, however not the case. You can get the data here ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.dat.rev and from the description of the sources here ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.txt.rev you can see that Nicola thoroughly mixes Central Europe and North America, because Krivsky and Pejml did. There is no separation of the data into regions. They are all lumped together.

    You have still made no headway on the 4 points.
    Great strides, I would say.

  440. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:19 pm
    Nicola had good reason not to use the New England data with the European data.
    Nicola has not been quite honest with you. He claims to use the Krivsky and Pejml [1988] data and that that data comes from central Europe. This is, however not the case. Of the 5381 aurorae in the K&P catalog he used since 1700, more than half, 2372, was from North America. That sinks the his and yours arguments.

  441. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 24, 2011 at 12:01 am

    I’m trying to explain and educate.
    The zonal position is a function of the distance. Here is another view of the positions:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Auroral-Oval2.png

    You are kidding me right?
    What sort of amateur attempt is that diagram. You have been found out wanting. Zonal position is a condition of the auroral oval shape and position from the auroral central position. You have sunk to new lows.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 24, 2011 at 12:17 am

    Nicola has not been quite honest with you. He claims to use the Krivsky and Pejml [1988] data and that that data comes from central Europe. This is, however not the case. Of the 5381 aurorae in the K&P catalog he used since 1700, more than half, 2372, was from North America. That sinks the his and yours arguments.

    Sinking to further lows here. You had better read the explanation text again. The American data is used as a backup reference. When the American backup data is used (as backup for verification) with the Europe data of the same day, the American reference is used.The Euro data is still the catalyst.

  442. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 24, 2011 at 1:04 am
    You are kidding me right?
    What sort of amateur attempt is that diagram. You have been found out wanting. Zonal position is a condition of the auroral oval shape and position from the auroral central position. You have sunk to new lows.

    Well it is from http://odin.gi.alaska.edu/FAQ/#altitude from the amateurs at the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. I thought I would let them explain to you what it looks like.

    Sinking to further lows here. You had better read the explanation text again. The American data is used as a backup reference. When the American backup data is used (as backup for verification) with the Europe data of the same day, the American reference is used.The Euro data is still the catalyst.
    Where is that text?
    The reference Nicola gives http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/aeronomy/aurorae.html
    has this link ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.txt.rev to the explanatory text, where it says: ” A supplemental list of data found in “Supplement of the Catalogue of Polar Aurorae less than 55N in the Period 1000-1900″ and text were added to the original list.”.
    “This supplement presented contains corrections and new data about occurrences of north polar aurorae (<55 degrees). New data are based predominantly on the two Catalogues, i.e. of Loomis (LOO) and of Schroder (SC2). In the Catalogue LOO are collected the aurorae which were observed in North America. New data sources with their abbreviations are referenced.”

    The data list is here:
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.dat.rev
    and contains the total merged lists of 5381 entries of which 2372 are from North America.
    Scafetta’s Figure 2B shows for 1850 about 136 aurorae. The list has indeed 136 entries and 87 of those are LOO, i.e. from North America.

    Well, who has sunk to new lows here?
    Time to wash your mouth out with strong soap, isn’t?

  443. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 24, 2011 at 1:04 am
    Sinking to further lows here. You had better read the explanation text again.
    Your text does not make sense. Did you just make it up? Following your procedure an aurora only seen in North America [perhaps it was cloudy in Europe] would not be counted. But it doesn’t matter as the ‘text’ is out of thin air.

    However, it is worse than we thought:
    I have plotted the data separately and compared with Scafetta’s plot:

    You can see that Scafetta commits a deadly sin: adding the two records from North America [blue] and Europe+Asia [pink] over the whole of the interval 1700-1900. This is only allowed if both regions had data throughout, but the North America record only begins ~1776. The correct analysis would have to average the two series [gray stippled curve] and not adding them. Another example of invalid analysis.

  444. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 24, 2011 at 1:27 am

    Geoff Sharp says:
    Sinking to further lows here. You had better read the explanation text again. The American data is used as a backup reference. When the American backup data is used (as backup for verification) with the Europe data of the same day, the American reference is used.The Euro data is still the catalyst.
    —————————-
    Where is that text?

    Your performance here is embarrassing. The peer reviewers of Nicola’s paper are obviously in a different league to yourself. You have failed to be convincing on any single point.

    I think you owe Nicola an apology…… if you are man enough?

    “The authors adopted the occurrences of aurorae on the basis of the following
    criteria: possible recurrence after roughly 27 days, roughly since 1792 (and
    partly also before) auroral data were adopted provided there was guarantee
    that they were simultaneously observed in a larger geographical region. i.e.
    provided they were recorded at a number of stations in Region I or II (i.e.
    Europe), or in Region I or II and at the same time in Region IV (i.e.
    America). Fritz’s [2] division into regions is as follows: I – south of 46,
    II – between 46 and 55 , III – from 55 to the polar circle, IV – America
    south of 60 , V – high latitudes. If the source of an auroral observation
    given by H. Fritz [2] was also given by another author, the latter has been
    mentioned.

  445. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 24, 2011 at 4:11 am
    If the source of an auroral observation given by H. Fritz [2] was also given by another author, the latter has been mentioned.
    This is quite different from what you said as the American data just being a backup [the backup idea just made up out of thin air]. And from the “Euro data still the catalyst”. The original list had 3878 entries. If the new data [2372 North America] were just changing a Fritz entry to an American entry, then the number of entries would not have changed. Yet the combined list has 5376 entries. Take the year 1850 for example. It has 136 entries of which 87 were American [LOO] and 46 were Fritz [with 3 more European]. So the combined data for that year was predominantly American and not European.

    For the period of the Loomis [North American] data 1776-1872, there are 4175 entries in the combined list of which 2344 were from LOO and thus American and the rest, 1831, Euro+Asia. Soooo, as I said, the list for those crucial ~100 years were predominantly American, and in total the list was a good mixture of both regions. Thus, as I said, Scafetta is not correct in claiming [or is it you who is the originator of that claim: “Nicola had good reason not to use the New England data with the European data] that his data was European, because the North American were ‘different’. And it is still not correct to add the two series for the whole interval. So, there is still the deadly sin. Nothing has changed.

    You still need that soap.

  446. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 24, 2011 at 4:11 am
    The peer reviewers of Nicola’s paper are obviously in a different league to yourself.
    Yes, Indeed, they did not catch that elementary error Scafetta made nor his erroneous claim that the data were not American. That certainly places them rather low on the ladder, down there [as you say] in the different league. They did not do a good job and have led the public down.