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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
795 Comments
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

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;

polistra
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.

1 2 3 32