Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes about a new paper from Nicola Scafetta.:
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.
…
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Tonyb,
A grumpy face: ☹
or: >:-(
☺
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 @ur momisugly~-,-‘=[
;^)
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).
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..
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.
@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
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.
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.
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].
@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.
“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 🙂
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’.
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.
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
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.
I never thought that his ‘aurora business’ is as reliable as the other relevant and testable data. Since the only way to explain 60 year periodicity is ‘vukcevic hypothesis’ of the Earth being ‘zapped’ more often at a particular heliocentric direction (head or tail), Scafetta has a choice either to pursue the current strategy, or to switch from the auroras to the McCracken’s.
Instead a vague assumptions about the E/J/S magnetospheres within the heliosphere, with a bit of gravitation thrown in, he has a clear cut case with the ‘vukcevic hypothesis’ which can be eventually proven by observations of J/S magnetospheres.
According to JPL ‘The aurora is dynamic on Jupiter, just as it is here on Earth’ and the Saturn auroras appear to be spectacular.
Earth gets zapped 2-3 days after the ejection, Jupiter perhaps 20-30 days later and for Saturn double that; perhaps the reason why they are not correlated before. In any case the Saturn auroras have been observed only in the recent years (notably by Cassini probe).
Hay, even staying in all day and fighting nasty ‘cold or flu’, it ain’t that bad after all, if there is something to do
Time to sign off.
Leif is incorrigible! Leif did not undestand anything!
“A good example of how unreliable the auroral record is, is your Faroe record which shows a high frequency in the beginning of the 20th century when solar activity was very low and a low frequency in the 1940s when solar activity was very high. ”
The number of midlatitude auroras is a function of the planetary configuration that regulate the heliosphee and inversely proportional to the multidecadal decadal activity of solar activity. Everthing is clearly explained in the paper. Mid-latitude aurora are more easily seen during the cold multidecadal periods!
“Regardless, Scafetta’s P1(t) functrion does not match McC’s cosmic ray record”
Leif took a modulation function I created for simulating the modulation of the “temperature” between the time scale of 10 to 60 year which ignores both the fast frequencies and the secular time scales and also includes a lunar cycle that has nothing to do with cosmic ray, and Leif claims that I am wrong because that temperature modulation limited to the multidecadal pattern does not correspond exactly to a McC’s cosmic ray record. However, my multidecadal temperature modulation was NEVER supposed to represent a specific cosmic ray multisecular record deduced from a specific ground proxy!
Other garbage, Leif ? Open your mind, it needs fresh air, Leif !
My paper focuses on a shared frequency set between the aurora records and the temperature and the astronomical oscillations of the solar system. That is the topic of the paper, Leif! please, focus on the topic.
Comments of some of the above readers about Leif’s sophistic way of reasoning:
Ged said (November 11, 2011 at 10:14 am): “But just saying there’s no power spectrum showing 60 seems ignorant, since the paper shows that in several ways, clearly.”
Lucy Skywalker said ( November 11, 2011 at 5:05)
“Rubbish. Scafetta has already showed six different indices in his paper which all show with stunning clarity the formative presence of a 60-year cycle: PDO, AMO, auroras, monsoons, meteorites, and global temperatures (detrended etc). Thus replication has already succeeded so the claim holds so far. The correlations are highly evocative, I don’t know how to quantify them statistically but visually they shout. Thus the likelihood increases that your apparent non-correlations may have other factors at work, that do not disprove the presence of a 60-year cycle.”
Sorry, Leif ! But the above is the truth.