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.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 13, 2011 at 10:27 am
My data are real measurements based on the daily recorded values, which have been scrutinised by many scientists.
As long as there is no description of how exactly the data is produced it has no value.
REPLY: I’ll second that. Give a procedure. – Anthony
Dear Leif,
if everybody analize and understand physical data as you do, science will never progress.
About the aurora records, first I am studying the historical mid-latitude aurora (<55N), not any kind of aurora such as those in Alaska at (60N-70N) and at high latitude monitoring stations that you reference in your link.
Second. the mid-latitude aurora records present a decadal oscillations approximately correlated to the 11-year solar cycle as you expect that would happen. However, the 60 year cycle that the middle latitude aurora records present is clearly negative-correlated to solar activity, as Figure 2 shows. So, as you have brillantly noted, we have a lot a mid-latitude auroras during the 1900-1910 when the multidecadal solar activity was at a minimum. All these things are clearly explained in my paper and justify the qualitative mechanism I propose in section 2 and 7.
So, mid-latitude formations clearly have multiple physical causes, not just the one that you understand.
So, please do not continue in your logical fallacy arguments by mixing and confounding things around. This time yours is also an ignoratio elenchi logical fallacy. You start assuming that a phenomenon has only one single cause (the one that you know), then you mistake one record (polar auroras in Alaska 60-70N and equivalent latitudes) for another (mid-latitude aurora at <55N that I use) and you assume that all auora records at all latitudes must behave in the same identical way.
Then you claim that because the data that I use do not show what you expect and, you deny the data and my analysis instead of questioning your initial reductionistic assumption and mistaken reference record that refers to a phenomenon different from that I analyzed (=the Straw Man logical fallacy argument).
Sorry, Leif ! This is not how people understand Nature, Leif !
@ur momisugly Vukcevic and Ulric Lyons about CET.
As I have explained above, in the paper I am addressing the global surface temperature and the things correlate well. Then I study some proxy models all over the world (AMO, PDO, Monsoon: see figure 3) and I show that an agreement with my theory is found. The same refers to several other data discussed in my citations.
On the contrary the CET refers only to the Cental England region. It is sensitive to local weather oscillations and local events (also thermometers that break or are re-located) and may be strongly effected by vocano effecs. I have explained above that CET too seems to me to be approximately compatible with my theory if you take into account the volcano activity that disrupt the patterns, for example. However, because CET is not the topic of the paper, the paper does not address this specific issue. Is it so difficult for you to understand this elementary point fact?
When I will publish a paper with the title "Analysis and implications of the Central England Temperature record" we can discuss your points.
Anothe paper of mine addresses the NAO index which include the CET plus several other hystorical measurement indexes taken all over Europe. This is:
A. Mazzarella and N. Scafetta, "Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change," Theor. Appl. Climatol., DOI 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4 (2011).
And the things correlate well with my hypotheses.
So, what you need to do is first not to imitate Leif, second try to study my paper and its references that discusses several of these issues with calm and interest, if you like.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 13, 2011 at 11:38 am
So, as you have brillantly noted, we have a lot a mid-latitude auroras during the 1900-1910 when the multidecadal solar activity was at a minimum. […]
So, mid-latitude formations clearly have multiple physical causes, not just the one that you understand.
No, we know quite well here the mid-latitude aurorae come from. There is no other physical cause than the one I described. That the 1900-1910 record shows otherwise just shows how unreliable auroral records are [apart from the fact that the Faroe islands are at 62 degrees N and pretty close to the auroral zone and thus are not at ‘mid-latitudes’].
Sorry Leif, you are clearly denying the data. The data is what suggests the mechanisms in physics, not viceversa.
You must prove that the data that I am using are wrong, not claiming that my results are wrong just because you BELIEVE that the data are wrong because they do not fit your imagination!
Another logical fallacy, Leif? In this case it is called Mind-Projection-Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_Projection_Fallacy
Mind projection fallacy, as coined by physicist and bayesian philosopher E.T. Jaynes, occurs when one takes for sure that the way he sees the world reflects the way the world really is despite the contrary evidences.
As I have explained in the paper the Faroe aurora data were included because despite they are located at 62N people expert in aurora records have noted a strong similarity of these auroras with the mid-latitude auroras at <55N (a unique case). So I have analyzed also the Faroe records too and I found the same results found in the Mid-latitude auroras A coincidence, dear Leif?
So, dear Leif, what is your demonstration that both auroras records I analyzed are wrong?
Paul Vaughan says: November 13, 2011 at 9:08 am
…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”…
Thank you Paul, I feel like I finally understand your minimalism.
Nicola: Thank you for stimulating appreciation of nature rather than attempting to smother it. And sincerest thanks for stopping by.
Seconded.
Hi Anthony, Dr. Svalgaard
I am emailing all the details to Dr. Svalgaard (at leif.org and at gmail.com) but if you email me back I will send it to you too. For time being I like to keep it confidential, since if I am correct, it will be part of my long article, which is moving ahead at a snails pace.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 13, 2011 at 11:38 am
When I will publish a paper with the title “Analysis and implications of the Central England Temperature record” we can discuss your points.
Anothe paper of mine addresses the NAO index which include the CET plus several other hystorical measurement indexes taken all over Europe.
That is interesting, I shall look at it as long as it isn’t beyond pay wall.
I just completed a longish article on the AMO-NAO, not on line yet, but the copies are with Dr. Hurrell of UCAR, Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Eric Steig of Washington University.
Next one the CET, AMO, NAO will be finished in a week or two, since the draft is already completed.
I will be putting all online in due course.
Lucy Skywalker says:
November 13, 2011 at 2:46 am
… 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
Hi Lucy Skywalker,
there is a correlation between the inverse Neutron rate (Climax) and the global temperature (Hadcrut3 and UAH).
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_jux5.gif
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.
It seems that hot spots in the range of a year or so are not connected to the GHI background of solar tide functions of synodic couples. This is especially visible in the late fifties and between 2000 and 2010. But several spikes (lack of Neutrons) in the climax spectrum are also visible in the temperature proxies.
There is a clear evidence that the frequency of the sun spot pattern is shifted in both directions from its main frequency of 1/11.196 year^-1 , and this is correlated with increasing temperatures (+f) or decreasing temperatures (-f) like in this year. Maybe it is also a long term tide effect which acts on the surface of the sun; I don’t know.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/sp_shift_vs_proxies.gif
If the Sun has a stable oscillator of f = 1/11.196 years^-1 but surface processes from tides do shift the visible frequency then it seems that it is not out of the question that the heat stream from the Sun to the planets has as well periodical terms from the GHI but also terms from surface processes of the Sun from internal changing of the frequency shift, with no characteristic pattern, with minor effect.
V.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 13, 2011 at 11:38 am
>@ur momisugly Ulric Lyons about CET.
The divergence you note (global versus CET), is not just with CET, and not only in the 1880`s either. It is because land surface temp`s are moving in the opposite direction to ENSO etc at certain scales.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Sorry Leif, you are clearly denying the data. The data is what suggests the mechanisms in physics, not vice versa.
Perhaps a tutorial is in order:
The solar wind pushes part of the Earth’s magnetic field back into a long tail. This stores energy in the tail. There is a boundary between field lines that are swept into the tail [we say they are ‘open’] and those that are not [we say they are closed]. Once in the tail the open field lines can reconnect and become closed again. This accelerates particles towards the Earth along the boundary between open and closed field lines. The particles collide with Nitrogen and Oxygen in the upper atmosphere which make those atoms glow and we observe aurorae. Under normal circumstances aurorae occur all the time at this boundary and we get what is called the ‘auroral oval’ situation near 67 degrees [magnetic] latitude. Once in a while, the solar wind is strongly enhanced by coronal mass ejections. The wind is compressed and the push on the magnetosphere is much stronger and the tail thickens as more and more field is pushed into it. This causes much more energy to stored, and the boundary, the currents, and the auroral oval move equatorward. If the push on the magnetosphere and the energy stored in the field is large enough, the auroral oval can move to mid-latitudes [and in extreme case even to near the equator] and then we record aurorae at mid-latitudes at the same time as strong magnetic activity is observed. The number and push of the CMEs depends on the solar cycle, being largest at solar maximum so the number of aurorae seen at mid-latitude is at a maximum when solar activity is at maximum, and at the same time great magnetic storms occur. Now, actually seeing the aurora depends on many other things than the aurora being there: weather, people’s awareness, number of observers and their motivation and interest. Observing the magnetic storms does not as the observatories record 24/7 all the time. So if a record of aurorae does not show a strong maximum at solar maximum, it simply means that the record is faulty or unreliable. This is well-known and there is no mystery about it.
To repeat myself:
See 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.
Study these links carefully. If you have questions or need clarification, please do not hesitate to ask.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 13, 2011 at 1:10 pm
I am emailing all the details to Dr. Svalgaard
that email also moves at a snail’s pace…
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm
As I have explained in the paper the Faroe aurora data were included because despite they are located at 62N people expert in aurora records have noted a strong similarity of these auroras with the mid-latitude auroras at <55N.
The aurorae may look the same, but their frequency of occurrence is not the same. If you ook at
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/globeNE.html you may note that the auroral zone is over the Faroe Islands for moderate geomagnetic activity [Kp=3]. These aurorae are not visible over Germany and England [for instance]. To see aurorae down there, you need a Kp in excess of 5 or 6. When that happens, the oval move so far south that you can’t even see it from the Faroe islands, so perhaps explaining why you infer the ‘inverse’ relationship. You see, it helps to know a little bit of the physics to understand what is going on, rather than hunting with Google to find explanations of straw men and fallacies. Simply google ‘aurora mid-latitude’ and you’ll find http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/auror1.htm where you can learn more.
Schroeder here specifically reports on mid-latitude aurora in Germany: http://www.geofisica.unam.mx/divulgacion/geofinternacional/iframes/anteriores/2011/04/6_schroder.pdf
His conclusion:
“Here we present a previously unpublished historical observations of 171 auroras in Germany. We confirm that: Most auroras appear for Kp > 5, although some auroras are observed also with low Kp indices of 1 and 2. Maximum auroral occurrence is during the equinoxes and minimum during the solstices. Finally, maximum auroral occurrence is around the sunspot maximum and minimum around sunspot minimum.”
Read and learn.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Sorry Leif, you are clearly denying the data. The data is what suggests the mechanisms in physics, not vice versa.
Aurorae in Denmark [which is mid-latitude; Copenhagen 55deg 40min] follow the sunspot cycle very nicely:
http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/soljord/nordlys_forsk/nordlys_obs.html
Figure 1 [red] sunspot number [blue] number of nights per year with aurora. Note the very large number in 1957. This is partly due to heightened awareness cause by the IGY [International Geophysical Year], showing how careful you have to be to interpret the ‘data’, especially if you don’t know much about the phenomenon they are supposed to describe.
To summarize: mid-latitude aurora are ordinary aurorae that can be seen at latitudes lower than the auroral zone because solar activity [maximizing at sunspot maximum] has perturbed the magnetosphere. The magnetic effects are a very good direct measurement of the auroral acitivity, using a compass needle instead of an eye, but no less direct and a lot more reliable.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 13, 2011 at 5:07 pm
“Here we present a previously unpublished historical observations of 171 auroras in Germany. We confirm that: Most auroras appear for Kp > 5, although some auroras are observed also with low Kp indices of 1 and 2.
This is exactly what Nicola is proposing. A variation in the Earth’s magnetic field that encourages mid latitude auroras at times of low solar output. How would the auroras be possible with a Kp index of 1 or 2?
Aurorae in Denmark [which is mid-latitude; Copenhagen 55deg 40min] follow the sunspot cycle very nicely:
http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/soljord/nordlys_forsk/nordlys_obs.html
Figure 1 [red] sunspot number [blue] number of nights per year with aurora. Note the very large number in 1957.
The Denmark records look to show a 60 year trend as per Scafetta. One must allow for the extreme solar activity during 1957 over riding the background magnetosphere trend. Of interest would be the cloud formation patterns from 1940-1970 during the cool PDO phase if available. The PDO went into positive briefly around 1957 again showing the over riding factor of the extreme SC19, but the background forces still managed to keep the trend negative overall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/aurora.jpg
Geoff Sharp says:
November 13, 2011 at 6:57 pm
“Here we present a previously unpublished historical observations of 171 auroras in Germany. We confirm that: Most auroras appear for Kp > 5, although some auroras are observed also with low Kp indices of 1 and 2.
This is exactly what Nicola is proposing.
This is exactly the opposite of what Nicola claims.
A variation in the Earth’s magnetic field that encourages mid latitude auroras at times of low solar output. How would the auroras be possible with a Kp index of 1 or 2?
Of 171 aurorae, only 4 were at Kp = 1 or 2. And Nature is noisy, so some small departures must always be expected.
The Denmark records look to show a 60 year trend as per Scafetta. One must allow for the extreme solar activity during 1957 over riding the background magnetosphere trend.
The Danish record shows that aurora occurs at maximum solar activity just the opposite of what Scafetta claims. The very large peak in 1957 is an artifact caused by increased awareness of the IGY. I can remember how the papers wer full of this and ask people to watch for and report aurorae.
The PDO has a well-known pattern of 30 cold and 30 warm periods, but that is not the issue. The aurorae, sunspots, and geomagnetic activity have not.
Your mangling of the Danish record http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/aurora.jpg is about the worst I have ever seen, even from you.
The PDO has a well-known pattern of 30-yr cold and 30-yr warm periods,
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 13, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Of 171 aurorae, only 4 were at Kp = 1 or 2. And Nature is noisy, so some small departures must always be expected.
How many auroras where recorded under 7 on the Kp index.?
The PDO has a well-known pattern of 30 cold and 30 warm periods, but that is not the issue. The aurorae, sunspots, and geomagnetic activity have not.
This is where you are perhaps not seeing the big picture. Scafetta has shown the 60 year pattern in the mid latitude aurora, sunspots or solar activity are working in conjunction with the overall modulation of the magnetosphere, so should be seen as a part contributor. The Kp index is only part of the story and does not report on other factors that might control the magnetosphere according to the theory. When looking at the aurora record of Denmark you need to keep this in mind, like other examples in the past where we need to combine solar and PDO records to match the temperature trends.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 13, 2011 at 7:53 pm
How many auroras where recorded under 7 on the Kp index.?
You can read can’t you. Read Schroeder’s paper. The exactly number is not important. A magnetic storm stores energy in the magnetotail, where it is released over the next ~48 hours.
Scafetta has shown the 60 year pattern in the mid latitude aurora, sunspots or solar activity are working in conjunction with the overall modulation of the magnetosphere, so should be seen as a part contributor.
He has shown no such thing. He maintains just the opposite of what observations and theory show. What he has convincingly shown is that his auroral dataset is unreliable.
The Kp index is only part of the story and does not report on other factors that might control the magnetosphere according to the theory.
We have a very good theory for what makes Kp and aurorae. There are no other factors.
where we need to combine solar and PDO records to match the temperature trends.
You don’t need to combine records. They speak for themselves. And nobody is contesting that PDO is temperature related.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 13, 2011 at 7:53 pm
How many auroras where recorded under 7 on the Kp index.?
On average, here is a view of where you can see the aurora as a function of Kp:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/globeNE.html
@Lucy Skywalker (November 13, 2011 at 12:59 pm)
As we used to say when I worked in soil science:
Beware infiltration that waters down content.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 13, 2011 at 9:35 pm
As we used to say when I worked in soil science:
Beware infiltration that waters down content.
Like your comment just now.
Leif,
as usual you are doing a great confusion and change topic everytime.
The aurora record patterns are not equal everywhere.
I am using the MID-LATITUDE full records at latitude <55N that is south of latitude 55N.
The data that I have used is the combination of all major available catalogs and it is here
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/aeronomy/aurorae.html
The record from Denmark that you are using for supporting your claims is out of range. Denmark is northern than latitude 55N not southern of it ! See here
http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/country/denmark.html
Do not change the data as you wish. When you go norther than latitude 55N you start to see aurora strongly correlated to the solar activity, but the mid-latitude aurora visible at latitude lower than 55 behave differently.
Get it!
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 13, 2011 at 5:07 pm
The aurorae may look the same, but their frequency of occurrence is not the same. … Schroeder here specifically reports on mid-latitude aurora in Germany: http://www.geofisica.unam.mx/divulgacion/geofinternacional/iframes/anteriores/2011/04/6_schroder.pdf
His conclusion:
“Here we present a previously unpublished historical observations of 171 auroras in Germany. We confirm that: Most auroras appear for Kp > 5, although some auroras are observed also with low Kp indices of 1 and 2. Maximum auroral occurrence is during the equinoxes and minimum during the solstices. Finally, maximum auroral occurrence is around the sunspot maximum and minimum around sunspot minimum.”
There is a negative (inverse) correlation of he Kp index (activity) to the measured (Climax) Neuton flux.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/climax_schroder.gif
There is no frequency visible of the Sun spot cycle^-1 in the hadcrud3 data, but a clear visible enhancement of the hadcrut3 temperature pattern in the time interval of the Sun spot number maximum, in respect to a pattern, which is in harmony with the solar tide spectrum from summarised synodic periods of planet couples.
This leads to refine the GHI from the solar tide functions with a fraction of the inverse Neutron flux. But this is still a minor and temporary effect in the forecast of the global climate function. The main impact for the terrestrial climate comes from the synodic frequencies of couples much slower that the sun spot cycle:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_jux2.gif
An important argument in the discussion of global warming and its nature, is the fact that the main global pattern of temperature proxies can be verified from well known solar tide geometries time coherent with the complex cycle of 2/1827 years^-1.
Today we are on one maximum of three that is slightly cooling since 1997 until 2063 and it will warm up until 2138 on a higher level than now. The begin of the next cool LIA will then be reached in 2704:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_23_2500m.gif
The importance leads from the recognition that the event of the LIA is a phase of a climate frequency which is well known also from Bond et al. (2001) for about 10 ky and is identified by me as a geometry from real moving objects in our solar system.
This recognition is different from all that stuff extrapolating short term parts of that long cycle with math functions out of the math books. And it is the beating argument against people who do extrapolate the global warming from human CO2 output curves.
These solar system geometries may simple lead to a precise climate forecast, but behind that geometries are still hidden processes, about the heat generation and the heat current from the Sun. But there are hints from the Neutrino capture rate from Homestake, and Japan that the fusion process in the Sun shows FFT frequencies, which are related to the planets.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/snu_rss_ghi8_2b.gif
Neutrinos are of interest, because they have no time delay trough the big Sun; this is in contrast to the photons, they need up to ~190 ky from the center of the Sun to the surface. And it may help to unterstand the physics behind this celestial heat system.
V.
Nicola Scafetta, regardless of the merit of your claims, I agree 100% that Leif Svalgaard is patently not communicating in good faith.
“[…] H. Fritz. This author was already aware that the occurrence of aurorae in mid and low geographic latitudes was a qualitatively different phenomenon, that the very frequent occurrence of aurorae at latitudes of over 55 degrees would not characterize the level of activity of the actual causal source of aurorae, which were already known then, that the occurrence of aurorae at latitudes below 55 degrees is connected with geomagnetic storms at mid-latitudes and it is quite frequently time-related to the occurrence of extensive sunspot groups on the solar disk. “
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.txt.rev
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.dat.rev
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/solar_activity.gif
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 13, 2011 at 10:48 pm
I am using the MID-LATITUDE full records at latitude <55N that is south of latitude 55N.
The data that I have used is the combination of all major available catalogs and it is here
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/aeronomy/aurorae.html
Your source has this: “the occurrence of aurorae at latitudes below 55 degrees is connected with geomagnetic storms at mid-latitudes and it is quite frequently time-related to the occurrence of extensive sunspot groups on the solar disk”
The record from Denmark that you are using for supporting your claims is out of range. Denmark is northern than latitude 55N not southern of it !
The Faroe Island record is not mid-latitude. and the occurrence of aurora does not change abruptly at 55N. And part of Denmark is actually below 55N [the southernmost is Gedser point at 54° 33′ 35″]. I am from Denmark and worked at the very Institute that compiled the data which I know very well. There is no sudden reversal of frequency right at 55° 00′ 00″. As you move from North to South the aurorae become rarer and you need more solar activity to see them. Here is a nice piece about aurorae in Denmark [and Iceland, Greenland]: http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/tr08-08.pdf some of the paintings shown in the article hang in my office. On page 86 you can see the oval and how it extended over Denmark during the famous Halloween magnetic storm in 2003.
Do not change the data as you wish. When you go norther than latitude 55N you start to see aurora strongly correlated to the solar activity, but the mid-latitude aurora visible at latitude lower than 55 behave differently.
It is just the other way around. Mid-latitude aurora are strongly dependent on the solar activity; at higher latitude that is no longer the case [at the auroral oval, aurorae are always present], at very high latitudes aurorae are even anticorrelated with solar activity as the auroral oval moves south. Let me quote Schroeder again on MID-LATITUDE aurorae in Germany:
“maximum auroral occurrence is around the sunspot maximum and minimum around sunspot minimum”.
Apparently you did not bother to consult and read the links I gave you on this. Your completely wrong assertion that mid-latitude aurorae are inversely related to the solar cycle undermines your paper and demolishes any scientific credibility you might claim. A good rule: “when in a hole, stop digging”.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 13, 2011 at 10:48 pm
..but the mid-latitude aurora visible at latitude lower than 55 behave differently.
Get it!
~
Yep, I think I get it.
Let’s see..
Location of magnetic pole
Strength of Earth’s magnetic field at the time, for instanance is it in a recovery state from a recent solar incursion.
Stength of solar storm or wind stream or CME.
Earth’s N. Pole is negative so the IMF’s field polarity or direction when it tears a hole in the magnetosphere.
Solar cycle is it max or min.
And our old friend EQUINOX ha
One more thing ..Kp