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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
795 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jimmi_the_dalek
November 10, 2011 1:55 pm

Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.

Graeme W
November 10, 2011 2:10 pm

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?

edbarbar
November 10, 2011 2:10 pm

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?

November 10, 2011 2:11 pm

No this astronomy, and is therefore science, Jimmi_the-dalek.
Astrology is something entirely different.

November 10, 2011 2:11 pm

jimmi, did you read the paper? 😉

George E. Smith;
November 10, 2011 2:13 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 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.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN.png

vboring
November 10, 2011 2:16 pm

jimmi_the_dalek, are you being obtuse or are you new here?
The physical mechanism is cosmic rays creating cloud nucleii. Clouds change the amount of energy entering the system.
Svensmark’s summary paper on the subject from 2007:
http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf

MarkW
November 10, 2011 2:17 pm

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?

November 10, 2011 2:18 pm

This is certainly a new area of science that might give us some insight into the workings of the PDO which is so critical to understanding global climate trends.
I have a review on this paper along with a link to the full paper at:
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/233

GeologyJim
November 10, 2011 2:21 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 2:22 pm

Here is complete .pdf version
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-auroras.pdf
I read it earlier this afternoon and I am not overly impressed, but that is only matter of judgment, not a detailed knowledge of the data presented.

Editor
November 10, 2011 2:31 pm

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

Mark ro
November 10, 2011 2:34 pm

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;

November 10, 2011 2:36 pm

Frequency and phase analysis instead of statistics! Now we’re getting somewhere!

November 10, 2011 2:38 pm

Correlations are correlations. Cause has to be found.

November 10, 2011 2:41 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 2:53 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 2:56 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 2:57 pm

For once, something other than carbon dioxide is causing “climate change”. I admit I cringed at the notion of planetary cyclicity…!

November 10, 2011 3:00 pm

“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.

crosspatch
November 10, 2011 3:09 pm

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.

moptop
November 10, 2011 3:11 pm

“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.

Theo Goodwin
November 10, 2011 3:16 pm

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?

jimmi_the_dalek
November 10, 2011 3:27 pm

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.

JeffT
November 10, 2011 3:29 pm

Richard Mackey had a paper released in the Journal of Coastal Research, on Rhodes Fairbridge’s The Solar system regulates the earth’s climate.
In this paper he also references Scafetta et al 2004 and Scafetta and West 2009 amongst others.
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

November 10, 2011 3:30 pm

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:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/comnispa_ghi4n_9.jpg
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/comnispa_vs_x.jpg
High resolution (month) profiles need eleven objects.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_jux2.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_hadcrut3.gif
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.

November 10, 2011 3:43 pm

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.

ken Methven
November 10, 2011 3:46 pm

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”.

Archonix
November 10, 2011 3:56 pm

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.

jimmi_the_dalek
November 10, 2011 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 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.

kwik
November 10, 2011 4:00 pm

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…..

Archonix
November 10, 2011 4:09 pm

Ahem. I meant early 17th century before. Whoops. 🙂

jimmi_the_dalek
November 10, 2011 4:11 pm

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.

Ellen
November 10, 2011 4:17 pm

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.

Legatus
November 10, 2011 4:25 pm

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.

Philip Bradley
November 10, 2011 4:40 pm

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.

Paul Vaughan
November 10, 2011 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?

November 10, 2011 4:54 pm

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.

Paul Vaughan
November 10, 2011 5:04 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
November 10, 2011 5:05 pm

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!

pat
November 10, 2011 5:06 pm

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

Mark ro
November 10, 2011 5:08 pm

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?

jorgekafkazar
November 10, 2011 5:17 pm

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.]

AJB
November 10, 2011 5:19 pm

Too much information, so let’s just keep it simple.

edbarbar
November 10, 2011 5:23 pm

@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.

Manfred
November 10, 2011 5:43 pm

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.

ferd berple
November 10, 2011 5:44 pm

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.

jimmi_the_dalek
November 10, 2011 5:45 pm

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.

LazyTeenager
November 10, 2011 5:46 pm

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.

Editor
November 10, 2011 5:49 pm

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

ferd berple
November 10, 2011 6:00 pm

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.

ferd berple
November 10, 2011 6:07 pm

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.

ferd berple
November 10, 2011 6:15 pm

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.

DocMartyn
November 10, 2011 6:16 pm

“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.

Brian H
November 10, 2011 6:19 pm

Dang, CO2 fluctuations cause the Northern Lights. Huda thunk?
/reverse logicification.

clipe
November 10, 2011 6:23 pm

Moon Jupiter and Uranus?
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/kevster1346/uranusspeck.jpg
Sony cybershot point and shoot.

AusieDan
November 10, 2011 6:23 pm

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.

AJB
November 10, 2011 6:37 pm

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 🙂

Mark ro
November 10, 2011 6:45 pm

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.

jimmi_the_dalek
November 10, 2011 6:47 pm

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

Mike Hollinshead
November 10, 2011 6:51 pm

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

Stephen Wilde
November 10, 2011 7:00 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
November 10, 2011 7:02 pm

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?

Ian Hoder
November 10, 2011 7:15 pm

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.

jimmi_the_dalek
November 10, 2011 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. 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?)

gene
November 10, 2011 7:19 pm

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.

Mark ro
November 10, 2011 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 😉

crosspatch
November 10, 2011 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.

Eric Barnes
November 10, 2011 7:33 pm

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.

Mark ro
November 10, 2011 7:35 pm

jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Do we worry about the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on the Sun? No?
The International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/

jimmi_the_dalek
November 10, 2011 7:37 pm

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 ;);)

November 10, 2011 7:39 pm

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.

jimmi_the_dalek
November 10, 2011 7:40 pm

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.

jimmi_the_dalek
November 10, 2011 7:46 pm

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

Philip Bradley
November 10, 2011 7:48 pm

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.

Editor
November 10, 2011 7:52 pm

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:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N0YfHOqFsY&w=640&h=360]
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

November 10, 2011 8:01 pm

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.

Werner Brozek
November 10, 2011 8:10 pm

“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.

Mark ro
November 10, 2011 8:24 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
November 10, 2011 8:28 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
November 10, 2011 8:41 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
November 10, 2011 8:51 pm

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.

Eric Barnes
November 10, 2011 8:51 pm

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.

Pete H
November 10, 2011 8:54 pm

I wonder what Peirs Corbyn has to say on this?

November 10, 2011 8:56 pm

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.

Eric Barnes
November 10, 2011 8:58 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 9:03 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 9:15 pm

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.

Editor
November 10, 2011 9:20 pm

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;
http://www.megakastro.gr/weather_agro/solar_modulation_files/image007.jpg
this one is from 1831 to 2001;
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/54556main_nmppath2001_med.gif
and this one is 1900, through current and projected:
http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/poles/figs/pole_ns.gif
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?

anna v
November 10, 2011 9:29 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 9:51 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 9:53 pm

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.

Manfred
November 10, 2011 9:54 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 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?

AlaskaHound
November 10, 2011 10:10 pm

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!

November 10, 2011 10:13 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 10:24 pm

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.

Editor
November 10, 2011 10:28 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 10:29 pm

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

Mmmmmmmmmmm… just like Gravity 🙂

November 10, 2011 10:35 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 10:48 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 10:57 pm

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)

November 10, 2011 11:19 pm

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.

JJ
November 10, 2011 11:23 pm

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?

November 10, 2011 11:41 pm

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.

November 10, 2011 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.

November 10, 2011 11:51 pm

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

November 10, 2011 11:58 pm

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_jux2.gif
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’.

andyd
November 10, 2011 11:59 pm

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.

P. Siolar
November 11, 2011 12:13 am

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.

Editor
November 11, 2011 12:17 am

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

November 11, 2011 12:19 am

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.
If one adds a 60-yr wave: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-2011-plus-60yr-wave.png one does get a strong peak near 60 years: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Ap-1844-2011-plus-60yr-wave.png , but since the original data does not have such a period, no peak is seen for that.

Richard111
November 11, 2011 12:29 am

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

November 11, 2011 12:33 am

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.
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
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

November 11, 2011 12:44 am

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

Editor
November 11, 2011 1:18 am

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

November 11, 2011 1:27 am

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…

November 11, 2011 1:37 am

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.

November 11, 2011 1:38 am

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

November 11, 2011 1:53 am

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:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_hadcrut3.gif
V.

November 11, 2011 2:13 am

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”.

November 11, 2011 2:14 am

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.

November 11, 2011 2:56 am

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.

Barney Frank! The Musical
November 11, 2011 3:14 am

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

John Marshall
November 11, 2011 3:32 am

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

Editor
November 11, 2011 4:10 am

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

Editor
November 11, 2011 4:40 am

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…

J.H.
November 11, 2011 4:45 am

An Electric Universe…… Why not?

November 11, 2011 5:32 am

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.

Editor
November 11, 2011 5:59 am

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.

JJ
November 11, 2011 6:42 am

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?

Ian W
November 11, 2011 6:47 am

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. 😉

November 11, 2011 6:54 am

@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”

A. C. Osborn
November 11, 2011 6:55 am

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?

Paul Vaughan
November 11, 2011 7:33 am
November 11, 2011 7:52 am

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.

Kermit
November 11, 2011 7:55 am

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.

November 11, 2011 7:57 am

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.

November 11, 2011 8:18 am

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.

November 11, 2011 8:37 am

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.
And there is also no 60-yr cycle in the cosmic ray flux during the last 10,000 years: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-10Be.png

November 11, 2011 8:41 am

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?

November 11, 2011 8:43 am

November 11, 2011 at 8:37 am
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.
And there is also no 60-yr cycle in the global temperature during the last 2,000 years: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Loehle-Temps.png

November 11, 2011 9:03 am

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.

Pamela Gray
November 11, 2011 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.

Paul Vaughan
November 11, 2011 9:09 am

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:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn4.png
(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.

Editor
November 11, 2011 9:12 am

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

Editor
November 11, 2011 9:16 am

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

davidmhoffer
November 11, 2011 9:28 am

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?

November 11, 2011 9:28 am

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).

Paul Vaughan
November 11, 2011 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.

pochas
November 11, 2011 9:56 am

Nicola,
Perhaps you might explain why FFT does not show a 60 year cycle but MEM does.

November 11, 2011 9:58 am

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:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN.png
and in the CET natural variability waveform
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
and if you whish in the geomagnetic field.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 10:06 am

Paywalls suck. I’d love to read the discussion of possible physical mechanisms.

JJ
November 11, 2011 10:07 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
And there is also no 60-yr cycle in the global temperature during the last 2,000 years: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Loehle-Temps.png

If there were, one could not hope to see it in the log graph that you link to.

Ged
November 11, 2011 10:14 am

@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.

Werner Brozek
November 11, 2011 10:14 am

“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.

Paul Vaughan
November 11, 2011 10:44 am

Dave Springer (November 11, 2011 at 10:06 am) complained:
“Paywalls suck.”
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

November 11, 2011 10:58 am

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.

November 11, 2011 11:00 am

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

November 11, 2011 11:19 am

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.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 11:20 am

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.

Paul Vaughan
November 11, 2011 11:22 am

Vukcevic, can you tell us whY?…
AnimKEhfv
http://i41.tinypic.com/8zenb7.png

November 11, 2011 11:25 am

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?.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_had1960.gif
It is.
I’m off.
V.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 11:34 am

I don’t understand the objections to the 60-yr cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg
The friggin’ Atlantic ocean SST record has it clear as a bell. This shows up in the “global” instrument record although not quite as obvious but you can still see it.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 11:51 am

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

November 11, 2011 12:11 pm

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?

November 11, 2011 12:14 pm

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

Editor
November 11, 2011 12:14 pm

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

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 12:46 pm

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…

November 11, 2011 12:54 pm

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.

November 11, 2011 1:08 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm
……
Hi doc
You might find this disturbing, but I do agree with the above post.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 1:24 pm

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.

November 11, 2011 1:31 pm

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CET_Full_Temperature_Yearly.png
But the issue is that global accurate records needs to be used, the local one are just “local”

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 1:38 pm

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.

November 11, 2011 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.
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

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 1:57 pm

@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.

Ged
November 11, 2011 2:02 pm

@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.

davidmhoffer
November 11, 2011 2:14 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
November 11, 2011 2:18 pm

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.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 2:30 pm

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.

jimmi_the_dalek
November 11, 2011 2:36 pm

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…

Paul Vaughan
November 11, 2011 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).

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 2:46 pm

@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. 🙂

Paul Vaughan
November 11, 2011 2:51 pm

M.A.Vukcevic (November 11, 2011 at 12:11 pm) requested:
“Could you be more specific?”
You draw attention to N-S geomagnetic Y-asymmetry here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
Curious to hear if/how you see it connected to this:
AnimKEhfv: http://i41.tinypic.com/8zenb7.png

jimmi_the_dalek
November 11, 2011 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.
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.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 3:00 pm

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.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 3:24 pm

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.

jimmi_the_dalek
November 11, 2011 3:29 pm

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.

Werner Brozek
November 11, 2011 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.

davidmhoffer
November 11, 2011 3:40 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
November 11, 2011 3:42 pm

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.

Philip Bradley
November 11, 2011 3:43 pm

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.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 3:46 pm

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!

jimmi_the_dalek
November 11, 2011 3:55 pm

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?

Paul Vaughan
November 11, 2011 3:57 pm

@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.

November 11, 2011 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.
@ 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).

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 4:13 pm

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.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 4:42 pm

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.

Walter Horsting
November 11, 2011 4:47 pm

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.

November 11, 2011 5:05 pm

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.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 5:07 pm

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.

November 11, 2011 5:26 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
November 11, 2011 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.

November 11, 2011 5:30 pm

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. ☺

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 5:33 pm

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.

November 11, 2011 5:55 pm

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.

November 11, 2011 6:02 pm

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!

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 6:08 pm

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.

jimmi_the_dalek
November 11, 2011 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.

jimmi_the_dalek
November 11, 2011 6:34 pm

Ooops …. in 1991 that should have been!

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 7:13 pm

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:

davidmhoffer
November 11, 2011 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.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 7:27 pm

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.

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 7:36 pm

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?

Dave Springer
November 11, 2011 7:42 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
November 11, 2011 7:51 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
November 11, 2011 8:02 pm

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.

November 11, 2011 8:58 pm

@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.

Ursus Augustus
November 11, 2011 9:38 pm

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?

November 11, 2011 10:59 pm

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.

Stephen Wilde
November 11, 2011 11:41 pm

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.

November 12, 2011 12:17 am

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.

November 12, 2011 12:25 am

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.

November 12, 2011 2:17 am

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]

November 12, 2011 5:20 am

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.

November 12, 2011 5:40 am

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.”

November 12, 2011 6:12 am

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.

November 12, 2011 6:52 am

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.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/gmi_1.gif
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:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_6000.gif
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.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_had1960.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_hadcrut3.gif
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.

November 12, 2011 8:39 am

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.

November 12, 2011 8:47 am

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.

Editor
November 12, 2011 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 🙂
A ‘humble’ face would probably be very little used.
tonyb

November 12, 2011 9:42 am

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.

November 12, 2011 9:55 am

Tonyb,
A grumpy face: ☹
or: >:-(

davidmhoffer
November 12, 2011 10:12 am

Tonyb etc
happy face 🙂
a winking face 😉
sad face 🙁
surprised face :-0
happy face but wearing glasses 😎
wearing glasses, and has a moustache 8-{)
glasses, moustache, and a beard 8-{)>
and for that special lady, a rose @~-,-‘=[
;^)

Paul Vaughan
November 12, 2011 10:42 am

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
http://i53.tinypic.com/2r5pw9k.png
AnimPrecipitableWater
http://i52.tinypic.com/9r3pt2.png
Anim2mT
http://i55.tinypic.com/dr75s7.png
AnimNetSurfHeatFlux
http://oi54.tinypic.com/334teyt.jpg
AnimVerticalVelocity
http://i54.tinypic.com/2ch4x28.png
AnimOmega700hPa
http://i53.tinypic.com/28tvqt1.png
AnimHeating
http://i55.tinypic.com/317jchy.png
AnimWaterVaporFlux_
(column integrated water vapor flux with their convergence)
http://i51.tinypic.com/126fc77.png
AnimMSLP
http://i54.tinypic.com/swg11c.png
AnimWind10m
http://i44.tinypic.com/28rgyzo.png
AnimWind850hPa_
http://i52.tinypic.com/nlo3dw.png
AnimPolarWind850hPa
http://i54.tinypic.com/29vlc0x.png
AnimKEhfv
http://i41.tinypic.com/8zenb7.png
AnimWind200hPa
http://i52.tinypic.com/zoamog.png
AnimPolarWind200hPa
http://i52.tinypic.com/cuqyt.png
AnimWind550K
http://i56.tinypic.com/14t0kns.png
AnimWindZonal
http://i51.tinypic.com/34xouhx.png
AnimTempZonal
http://i56.tinypic.com/1441k5d.png
AnimTropCycloneDays
http://i44.tinypic.com/9thc8j.png
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
http://i52.tinypic.com/auw1s0.png
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).

November 12, 2011 11:14 am

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..

November 12, 2011 11:37 am

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.

Paul Vaughan
November 12, 2011 11:44 am

@Leif Svalgaard
EOP indicate clearly that your conceptualization is fundamentally flawed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/05/why-is-20-years-is-statistically-significant-when-10-years-is-not/#comment-794143

November 12, 2011 11:49 am

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.
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
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.

November 12, 2011 11:59 am

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.

November 12, 2011 12:18 pm

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].

Paul Vaughan
November 12, 2011 12:28 pm

@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.

Stephen Wilde
November 12, 2011 12:28 pm

“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 🙂

November 12, 2011 12:49 pm

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’.

November 12, 2011 12:50 pm

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.

November 12, 2011 1:12 pm

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]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-Function-vs-Cosmic-Rays.png

November 12, 2011 1:53 pm

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.

November 12, 2011 2:13 pm

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 choic