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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 12, 2011 at 11:14 am
“This is completely irrelevant for solar activity and generation of aurorae which takes place tens of thousands of miles above the Earth..”
=======
With great trepidation I offer the following, from:
http://odin.gi.alaska.edu/FAQ/#altitude
3) What is the altitude of aurora?
The bottom edge is typically at 100km (60 miles) altitude.
The aurora extends over a very large altitude range. The altitude where the emission comes from depends on the energy of the energetic electrons that make the aurora. The more energy the bigger the punch, and the deeper the electron gets into the atmosphere. Very intense aurora from high energy electrons can be as low as 80 km (50 miles). The top of the visible aurora peters out at about 2-300 km (120-200 miles), but sometimes high altitude aurora can be seen as high as 600 km (350 miles). This is about the altitude at which the space shuttle usually flies.
——
I assume Leif’s comment is more about the generation altitude than the visible altitude ?
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Since the only way to explain 60 year periodicity is ‘vukcevic hypothesis’ of the Earth being ‘zapped’
You make the same error as Nicola, namely that your way is the only way. Since the Earth is not zapped your ‘mechanism’ doesn’t work.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Leif is incorrigible! Leif did not understand anything!
The number of midlatitude auroras is a function of the planetary configuration that regulate the heliosphere and inversely proportional to the multidecadal decadal activity of solar activity.
No, it is a function of the magnetic field at Earth times the square of the solar wind speed times the cube root of the solar wind density times a steep function of the angle between the magnetic field in the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field. In particular, it is not inversely proportional to solar activity.
However, my multidecadal temperature modulation was NEVER supposed to represent a specific cosmic ray multisecular record deduced from a specific ground proxy!
So, was NEVER supposed to represent solar activity and auroral frequency. I’ll take note of that admission and stop believing you were talking about solar activity, cosmic rays, and aurorae.
To all readers,
I am sorry but Leif in my opinion is only trying to mislead the readers of this blog.
In my opinion he always twists things, suppresses logic, alters the contents of my paper, switches arguments, mixes data, confounds models and at the end he remains the only one convinced of his own imaginary world.
It is evident that a constructive discussion with Leif is not possible, not for my fault but for his prejudiced hostility agaist every paper and every concept that I write, what ever it might be.
And unfortunately this is a story that is continuing since several years.
Those of you that might be interested in my research, please read my papers. Do not relay only on what Leif says.
Reading carefully my paper is the only way to understand my reasoning and what I have found. Often you may also need to read the refrences if you want to get the big picture.
If you read my papers, please take into account that this paper as well as the other ones are not the end of the story and never it was supposed to be the end of the story. It is very important to understand that science progress one step by time, my paper is not supposed to solve any possible issue in the universe one might think.
This is true for my paper as well as for any other scientific paper.
As a reader said above, science is full of misteries.
So, please consider than science is hard because those who try to do that try to understand nature.
I thank Anthony for this opportunity to discuss my paper here. But I am quite busy so I need now to end my contributions.
Hopefully, in the future we can continue the discussion addressing some other aspect of the big picture.
Thank you very much to all, including Leif, of course.
Nicola Scaffeta;
Though plenty of the discuission was over my head, I for one appreciate your work and look forward to seeing more of it. I find some of the criticisms frankly, obtuse. You’ve demonstrated the ability to both forecast and hindcast from what would appear to be unrelated data with remarkable precision. My expectation is that with more accurate data and additional factors beyond those you have already incorporated, the precision will improve still more. Leif and others may dispute the mechanisms involved, and they may even be right in some cases, but results that are accurate speak for themselves regardless of why it is that they are accurate.
u.k.(us) says:
November 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm
The bottom edge is typically at 100km (60 miles) altitude. […]
I assume Leif’s comment is more about the generation altitude than the visible altitude ?
Yes. the aurora stems from processes far out in the magnetosphere where magnetic reconnection creates electric fields that accelerate particles along field lines to eventually plunge into the upper atmosphere where they excite Nitrogen and Oxygen to glow.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm
It is evident that a constructive discussion with Leif is not possible, not for my fault but for his prejudiced hostility agaist every paper and every concept that I write, what ever it might be.
I criticize every paper, post, or comment that I find flawed. Several posters here can testify to that having been on the receiving end. What makes you think you are any better than those good folks?
All my criticism is, of course, my personal opinion based only on what I know and on analysis I may make of a paper. I’m probably the one person that have analysed your paper and data better than anybody else [including the referees, it would seem]. That should make you glad and proud.
No doubt you’ll find solace in the postings from various people that have expressed gratitude for and delight in your research. Such is life, you win or lose adherents and sycophants one at a time.
@Nicola Scafetta says:
November 11, 2011 at 1:31 pm
“About CET you clealy see maxima around 1940 and 2000. Then the 60-year cycle predicts a maximum in 1880s which is seen in the global temperature data. However CET does see a cooling instead of a warming. This is probably because in the 1880s there was a huge Krakatoa volcano eruption that might have caused a significant cooling in England and disrupted the pattern. Then the 60 year cycle predicts a maximum around 1820 and a minimum around 1790 and these are there. Before 1790 CET is very poor, and the patterns are less clear. So a 60-year cycle may be present in CET although it may be disrupted by some volcano activity in particular in the 1880s.”
Krakatau was in 1883, but 1884 was very warm on CET: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
The worst cold anomalies around then were in 1879-81 and 1885-88. To be really convincing, planetary theory needs to explain these deviations from normals at the scale they are occurring in the weather.
No, it just produces the ASCII sequence. If you want a real image (albeit smallish), try Alt-1 !!
☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
Or Alt-2 if you like reverse contrast:
☻☻
@Stephen Fisher Wilde (November 12, 2011 at 12:28 pm)
The focus on cloud is overly-narrow because too many (perhaps even most) contributors fixate on it without (sufficient) awareness of temperature gradient geometry, mass distribution, equator-pole pressure gradient force, & circulation. (Also, there’s that pesky problem that the data don’t support the over-simplified cloud narrative.)
I appreciate the comments you volunteer to the community and look forward to future refinements & exchanges.
Best Regards.
Leif Svalgaard (November 12, 2011 at 12:50 pm) wrote:
“You try to evade that question […]”
So you falsely assume. I told you I’ll address your request if & when volunteer time & priorities permit over the months & years ahead.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm
………….
Dr. Scafetta
If you bring your work to WUWT do not expect a unanimous admiration, expect to suffer discomfiture of being shown weaknesses and errors in your work, and there are number. Pride has no place in science and the WUWT can be just as testing as I well know, but that does not stop me coming back to ‘face the music’, and there is lot to learn from the experience.
A bit of ‘rough and tumble’ is nature’s and the evolution’s way to sort the strong from feeble, just the old Darwin’s natural selection.
No mysteries in science, just our inability to comprehend.
We’ll look forward to another visit.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 12, 2011 at 12:18 pm
[nobody has reported any effect]
If specific events do take place then in the above context will be noticed for few months every 19.6 and 59.5 years. CME clears solar wind in front, the Earth’s magnetic field may not get ‘zapped’ but effect is there:
The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
is what the McCracken data spectrum shows, the GCR’s periodic ‘wobble’.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/McC.htm
but what is more important it proves that the Sunspot anomaly formula, I published in 2004
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/704882/files/0401107.pdf (page2) and shown here in more detail
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
is firmly embedded in the 10Be data records.
This is result of another cross modulation process within solar activity, which may come to the solar scientists as a bit of a shock, but it is the bread and butter of every day’s existence for a designer of old fashioned analogue electronic circuits.
No mysteries in science then.
You may have enjoyed ‘rubbishing’ my equations for the last 3-4 years, but all three equations published in 2004, not a result of any expertise in solar physics, but just simply recognising cross-modulation patterns are far more than jumble of cosine functions.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
But of course as I’ve reported elsewhere McCracken misinterpreted the 10Be data, which when fully explained it will give science another problem to resolve, the North Atlantic Precursor, the true link between the solar activity and climate variability:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
Notice casual similarity between the natural climate variability (blue line) and the N.A. precursor (red line) against the background of the solar cycles progression, closer to now, closer the correspondence. The r^2 is good!
Sorry Leif, but you are clearly not an expert in this field and your improper comments prove it extensively.
Moreover, your way of reasoning contradicts basic concepts of philosophy and are filled with numerous logical fallacies such as the claim that the physical information contained in one record must be wrong for the simple motivation that the physical information contained in another record, not related to the first one, may be different.
One of the numerous fallacies that you systematically adopt is the “Straw Man” logical fallacy. But there are many more logical fallacies in your reasoning such as false analogy, red herring, ignoratio elenchi, ad hominem (your new insinuations toward the referees of my paper that you do not know) , etc.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed] or over-simplified version of the opponent’s original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent’s actual statement.
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1.Person A has position X.
2.Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including: 1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position.
2.Quoting an opponent’s words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3.Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
In fact, dear Leif, you have not proven that the issue addressed in my paper (that is, the mid-latitude aurora historical records present the same major frequencies of the global surface temperature and of major astronomical oscillations of the heliosphere associated to the movements of Jupiter and Saturn plus some additiona Soli/Lunar frequency) is wrong.
You just skattered around proposing and disproving your own understanding of the world.
@Ulric Lyons
Dear Ulric, in my paper I am not addressing the CET record which is a very local temperature record. What matters is not what happened in central England in the 1880s but what happened in the entire world in 1880s. In the 1880s in central England was apparently anomalously cold for most years, but in the entire world was relatively warm during that same period as predicted by the 60-year cycle: see figure 2A in my paper. Moreover, the model proposed in the paper is not supposed to predict the temperature in specific locations such as central England, central Bulgaria, central Sudan, or central Virginia or central NoWhere, but it gives an estimate of the global patterns. Local patterns do not move exactly like the global average. The world may warm but a specific location may cool, that is normal. Finally the proposed model is not supposed to explain year by year the temperature locally or globally because it has a decadal to 60-year scale resolution and does not contain at this point shorter or longer time scale resolutions.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 12, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Even Dr. Scaffetta just about has a ‘get out of jail card’.
Except he does not believe the cosmic ray record is any good 🙂
Now, we have two different records [14C and 10Be]. Plotting them together: http://www.leif.org/research/14C-10Be-Comparison.png
shows some fair agreement [but also some of the problems].
Interesting graph, trying to understand the implication of it. To do that would help to have the 14C data file, is there one available on line, or would you be willing to upload it for a while?
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Moreover, the model proposed in the paper is not supposed to predict the temperature in specific locations such as central England, central Bulgaria, central Sudan, or central Virginia or central NoWhere, but it gives an estimate of the global patterns.
Dr. Scafetta
That would lead one to assume considerable ignorance on your part.
To understand climate you need to understand the CET, which is not just Central England, it is the North Atlantic basin, the home of the AMO, the most influential variable on the so called ‘global temperatures’ as the BEST team tells us that it is so.
The CET is the only long reliable temperature record we have, and as any physicist will tell you ‘global temperature’ is bit of nonsense but that doesn’t stop statisticians having lot of fun adding and subtracting lots of spurious and questionable records, to formulate their hypothesis, which rise from equally spurious computer models.
Learn the CET’s past and you will acquire precious knowledge of the climate system.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Sorry Leif, but you are clearly not an expert in this field
Astrology has never been my strong side, only auroral and geomagnetic physics with some solar physics and orbital mechanics thrown in. But since you don’t address any of those in a satisfactory manner it seems that you are too far out on the fringe for meaningful discussion, so being sorry is perhaps a good attitude to have. Just be glad that I have taken time to look at your paper(s).
In fact, dear Leif, you have not proven that the issue addressed in my paper (that is, the mid-latitude aurora historical records present the same major frequencies of the global surface temperature and of major astronomical oscillations of the heliosphere associated to the movements of Jupiter and Saturn plus some additiona Soli/Lunar frequency) is wrong.
You have this a bit backwards, you have not shown that your ideas are right or even plausible. Put is differently, I may have a higher bar for what is good science than you have, but there is a continuum all the way from that down to outright quackery. Too bad that some [but not all] journals are sliding downwards on that slope.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 12, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Interesting graph, trying to understand the implication of it. To do that would help to have the 14C data file, is there one available on line, or would you be willing to upload it for a while?
http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-Mueschler-McCracken.xls
Some comments: the 14C is from Raymod Mueschler [personal communication] and the 10Be is from Ken McCracken [personal communication] (corrected for glitch around 1950 – Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base ). The units are converted to HMF B nT, but the scales are really arbitrary. The only things of value are the relative variations. There are differences, but also substantial agreements. What you are looking at is in a sense ‘the state of the art’. We hope in Bern next year to have ironed out the differences and to converge on something we all can agree to (or at least put error bars on).
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Sorry Leif, but you are clearly not an expert in this field
You can learn more about the relationship between aurorae and geomagnetic activity here:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/index.html [see also http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/ for current conditions]. From the link: “Being able to see the Aurora depends mainly on two factors, geomagnetic activity (the degree of disturbance of the earth’s magnetic field at the time) and your geographic location”. To see aurora below 55N you need a K-index of at least 7. The geomagnetic indices tell you when that happens so are a very correct and sensitive and objective measure of auroral activity [better than auroral sightings that are unreliable and uncalibrated]. And geomagnetic activity [when we have good and unambiguous records] since the 1840s shows no 60-year cycle. In my book that is enough to show me that your claim is spurious.
Leif Svalgaard says: November 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm
No, it is a function of the magnetic field at Earth times the square of the solar wind speed times the cube root of the solar wind density times a steep function of the angle between the magnetic field in the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field. In particular, it is not inversely proportional to solar activity.
Is it possible that BOTH of you carry elements of verifiable hypothesis here? ie there is a factor of “inverse proportionality to solar activity” but also the functions Leif mentions? It seems to me perfectly plausible that while the 60-year cycle shines through, there are also other factors at work – and that Leif may, just may, have a handle on those.
From the POV of climate science, the question is, what factor or combination of factors best corresponds to climate data? Volker Doorman’s work also looks interesting (though not conclusive) in this respect. And Richard Holle’s. And of course the Russian scientists don’t have the same coyness (or ignorance and rudeness) about planetary
influencescorrelations that we inherit in the “West”.Leif Svalgaard says:
November 13, 2011 at 1:46 am
Thanks, copied the file.
I know how to get around scaling.
@Nicola Scafetta says:
November 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm
“Dear Ulric, in my paper I am not addressing the CET record which is a very local temperature record. What matters is not what happened in central England in the 1880s but what happened in the entire world in 1880s. In the 1880s in central England was apparently anomalously cold for most years, but in the entire world was relatively warm during that same period as predicted by the 60-year cycle:”
The global mean was falling through the 1880`s:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1930
The peaks at 1878/9, 1885/6 and 1888/9 are El Nino events, the first and last being strong events.
To properly appreciate the detail in the global average, one has to aware that El Nino events are brought on by falling and lower solar wind speeds (less aurora if you prefer that measure), and so can tend to run contrary to negative monthly/seasonal land temperature deviations occurring during lower SW speeds.
The colder months on CET are all there across Europe too:
http://members.multimania.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/centraleuropetempupd.gif
and mostly agree with US temperature series (see graphs):
http://www.climatestations.com/chicago/
so are not a local phenomena, but a response to short term solar variations.
Ulric Lyons says:
November 13, 2011 at 5:53 am
correction: peak at 1877/8
Lucy Skywalker says:
November 13, 2011 at 2:46 am
Is it possible that BOTH of you carry elements of verifiable hypothesis here? ie there is a factor of “inverse proportionality to solar activity”
No, there is no factor of ‘inverse proportionality’. The number of aurorae is directly proportional to solar activity as has been known for more than 150 years. “Auroral displays are more likely around the time of the solar activity maximum (2000-2001 in the current cycle).” http://www.pfrr.alaska.edu/aurora/index.html
@Nicola Scafetta (November 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm) [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/#comment-795634 ]
You raise a weighty issue. Costs exceeding benefits are unsustainable. From years of experience running online forums, a minor but strategic modification of communication guidelines is a prudent work-around where personal self-restraint of a small number of disruptive participants is failing and creating a “wasteland of tangled messages” (to quote a former student whose potently concise & accurate diagnosis critically motivated decisive action that solved the problem permanently).
Looking at it from a private sector perspective: Everyone should be replaceable. Being held hostage by dependency is neither a sensible nor tolerable long-term strategy. Any talented volunteer recruiters?
Nicola: Thank you for stimulating appreciation of nature rather than attempting to smother it. And sincerest thanks for stopping by.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 13, 2011 at 1:46 am
We hope in Bern next year to have ironed out the differences and to converge on something we all can agree to (or at least put error bars on).
I hope you have lot of fun, not that you would agree but my ‘expertise’ of the North Atlantic Oscillations would be of some help when you try to persuade the panel that Svalgaard & Cliver may have superior reconstruction particularly in the contentious parts of the 19th century.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA.htm
I left the sections where the North Atlantic disagrees. In the space age area there is only a sporadic agreement, so I also left it out too, that should be ringing bells loud on the Bern Münster (Bern Cathedral of St Vincent). If it comes to a violent disagreement, take note of:
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/switzerland/images/bern/munster/resized/d80_a_174.jpg
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 13, 2011 at 9:17 am
I hope you have lot of fun, not that you would agree but my ‘expertise’ of the North Atlantic Oscillations would be of some help when you try to persuade the panel that Svalgaard & Cliver may have superior reconstruction particularly in the contentious parts of the 19th century.
Thanks for your kind offer, which I’ll decline as I don’t think there is any value to be had.
Hi doc
My data are real measurements based on the daily recorded values, which have been scrutinised by many scientists. The stuff they dug out from the ice and snow of Greenland is ‘junk’ or science is grossly mistaken about many things, either way ‘science’ has no clue what is going on. I suggest save the graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA.htm