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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
jimmi_the_dalek

Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.

Graeme W

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

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?

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

jimmi, did you read the paper? 😉

George E. Smith;

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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;

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

Correlations are correlations. Cause has to be found.

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.

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.

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.

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

“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

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

“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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

jimmi_the_dalek

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edbarbar

@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

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.

ferdberple

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

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

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.