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.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:45 am
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. “
In the auroral zone, aurorae are always present, regardless of solar activity. What Fritz showed was that at mid-latitudes aurorae occur at high solar activity. What Scafetta claims is just the opposite, namely that mid-latitude aurorae occur at low solar activity.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:45 am
“[…] H. Fritz. This author was already aware that the occurrence of aurorae in mid and low geographic latitudes was a qualitatively different phenomenon,
Fritz knew that the occurrence of aurorae in mod and low latitudes was qualitatively different, not that the aurorae were due to a different source. So, to summarize, Fritz knew that the occurrence of aurora at mid-latitude was contingent on high solar and geomagnetic activity. This is the opposite of what Scafetta claims. Perhaps we can get Nicola to confirm that Fritz was correct? That would a sign that he [Nicola] finally got it. My prediction is that Nicola will not do so, as this would invalidate his paper.
I don’t see that Fritz (as quoted above) and Scafetta conflict. Apparently at low solar activity magnetic shielding is weak so that particles from the occasional CME can more easily enter the magnetosphere and cause low-latitude aurorae. Scafetta apparently observes a 60 year cycle in these sightings.
Hell, if that doesn’t fit your theories, change the data!
pochas says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:54 am
I don’t see that Fritz (as quoted above) and Scafetta conflict.
Then look. Fritz [and I and everybody else who knows anything about this] say that there are more mid-latitude aurorae at high solar activity. Scafetta claims that at low solar activity there are more mid-latitude aurorae. How more opposite can the claims be.
Apparently at low solar activity magnetic shielding is weak so that particles from the occasional CME can more easily enter the magnetosphere and cause low-latitude aurorae. Scafetta apparently observes a 60 year cycle in these sightings.
The magnetic shielding is provided by the Earth’s magnetic field which does not vary with solar activity, so the number of mid-latitude aurorae depends on the number of CMEs. At solar max there are five CMEs per day. At solar minimum there is one CME every five days. So, a lot fewer and hence a lot fewer auroral sighting as observed. If Scafetta says otherwise, he is ignorant, mislead, cherry-picking, or worse. He is apparently using the same trick as Mann, making a composite time series [his Figure 2B] of data where some of the data is upside-down. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and ascribe this to ignorance. This does invalidate his paper.
Leif Svalgaard
and
pochas
In the mid latitudes the Earth’s magnetic field has changed great deal between 1600 and 2000. The greatest change has taken place across Central Europe.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Polar(45).gif
This would have an impact on the number of observations.
Leif Svalgaard
and
pochas
And what about the Faroe Islands magnetic field change?
Here is that too:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FaroeIslGMF.gif
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 14, 2011 at 9:39 am
In the mid latitudes the Earth’s magnetic field has changed great deal between 1600 and 2000. The greatest change has taken place across Central Europe.
The number of aurorae does not depend on the local magnetic field, but on the global field seen by the solar wind. And would not have any effect, anyway, on cycles shorter than ~100 years. The best description of auroral sightings over the last 500 years is that given by my friend Sam Silverman in http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf written in 1992. He comments on the ~100-yr period [low activity near every century change]and notes [page 350] that “these observations imply that the Sun will probably shortly undergo a change in regime”, which the Sun apparently is doing. His Figure 1 is revealing. About periods he notes that very many peaks can be found in the power spectrum and that many of them are simply multiples of 11 years. Even mentions the disfavored planetary theory.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 14, 2011 at 10:10 am
And what about the Faroe Islands magnetic field change?
is irrelevant as the aurorae are not generated locally, but is a global phenomenon, generated way out in the magnetotail. If you carefully place yourself on both ends of a magnetic field line in the North and the South, you’ll very often see precisely the same aurora [part of the same current] at the same time.
my friend Sam Silberman
Apologies to Sam for hitting the ‘b’ next to the ‘v’. Silverman it is.
[Well, not bad; consider that spellcheck tries to make it Lieberman …. 8<) Robt]
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 14, 2011 at 10:10 am
And what about the Faroe Islands magnetic field change?
the aurorae are not generated locally, but is a global phenomenon, generated way out in the magnetotail. If you could carefully place yourself on both ends of a magnetic field line in the North and the South, you’ll very often see precisely the same aurora [part of the same current] at the same time.
This is nicely illustrated in this youtube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7jFoW7G344
Which also shows how the aurora moves equatorwards into mid-latitudes when solar activity goes up.
Leif,
sorry but you are still mixing things.
Firts, the mid-latitude aurora records that I am using refer to latituie BELOW 55N. This include the aurora that were seen from North Africa to Germany, from Europe to Japan. Denmark is out this range.
I explained already why I also added the Faroe island record. Howeve, my claim was not based on that localized record, but on the mid-latitude aurora record that cover an extremely large region.
About the relation with the sunspot cycle and the temperature I have already explained that here we have two different patterns. The pattern related to the 11-year sunspot cycle to which the mid-latitude aurora annual frequency are usually positive correlated (and are positive correlated with the temperature) but a general correlation between the aurora data and sunspot numbertrend varies according the location and period: sometime they are positive correlated and sometime they are negative correlated about the smooth trending.
About the 60-year pattern the mid-latitude aurora record that I use appear to be negative correlated with the temperature 60-year pattern, as clearly shown in Figure 2.
Note that the things are quite different from your expectations. The things are complicated.
For example in 1880 the sunspot number cycle maximum was quite small the aurora number was not just small but extremely small, but the temperature on the Earth was at a maximum as predicted by the J/S conjunction. On the contrary in 1850 the sunspot number was at its maximum, but the climatic indexes were at a minimum. The same in 1960 when the sunspot number was at its maximum, but the temperature was decreasing since 1940 and in the 1960 was approcing its 60-year minimum.
As I clearly state in the paper several times there is also the possibility, that you are complitely ignoring in your reasoning, that solar irradiance and other solar/heliospheric indexes relevant for the temperature on the Earth do not follow exactly the sunspot cycle and your theories, as you are dogmatically supposing.
So, your definition of “low” and “high” solar activity defined on the sunspot number record is “relative” and not “absolute”. The above is a key point that you need to understand for not misinterpeting my reasoning and twisting my reasoning.
As I said before the data of the auroras are plotted in the figure 2 and the pattern is clear. We see three 60-year cycles from 1700 to 1900 and these cycles are negative correlated to the 60-year temperature cycle. Se also figure 3 that dates back to 1700 for climatic proxy models.
What matters for my paper is the common frequency set between aurora and temperature and the frequencies of Jupiter/Saturn orbits which implies the astronomical origin of the temperature oscillations. However, in the paper I am not arguing about a direct linear or monotonic positive correlated relashioship between the Aurora record and the temperature, I am just talking of a not well defined “link” between the aurora records and the temperature. Indeed, I am arguing about a more direct relashioship between the J/S configuration and the temperature, when J/S are closer to the Earth the temperature goes up and apparently the mid-latitude Aurora tend to go down: see also figure 7 in comparison with figure 2 and read section 5 and 6. I argue that when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the Sun, less cloud form which cause a warming.
You are essentially mistaking my argument which is based of the aurora “frequencies” with an argument based on the aurora amplitudes and phases as if I am claiming that it is the aurora that cause the warming/coling cycles, that is not my reasoning, but your misinterpretation of it. So, try to understand my paper before misinterpreting it. A good starting point may be reading the title and the abstract.
Sorry, Leif. About my figure 2B both records are upside-down. So, no Mann’s trick there.
This is from the paper describing the Faroes data:
“Examination of the trends shows an initial decline to about 1877, a minimum period till about
1890, then an increase till about 1910, followed by a decline to about 1942, and an increase to 1960…..during the prolonged solar activity minimum from 1900 to about 1916 we get a maximum in auroral occurrence. …..The spectrum for the Faroes is very similar to that of mid latitude stations.”
So, dear Leif, there is an anticorrelation with the smooth trending of the sunspot number during that period about the Faroes auroras.
The things are more complicated than what you think, dear Leif!
Apparently, You are reasoning on the base of a theory that may be only partially correct.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:45 am
“[…] 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/solar_activity.gif
The rel. simple function of the bottom graph, showing >polar aurora homogenized< from the year 1000 AD to 1900 AD, can easy simulated with the help of Mr. Excel, using only four solar tide functions of four couples, i.) Uranus/Neptune, ii.) Uranus/Pluto, iii.) Neptune/Pluto, and iv.) Pluto/Quaoar:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi4_vs_aurora.jpg
The job is to sum up the four normalized tide functions from the file
http://volker-doormann.org/ghi4z.txt
weighted by the empirical factors: i.) 1.286, ii.) 1.0, iii.) 4.3, and iv.) 3.2 divided by 6 to fit in the plot range of the shown four single synodic tide functions.
Because the tide functions of this four couples are given from 3000 BC to 3000 CE, these data can be used to calibrate 14C data or other sample data of fewer accuracy than the astronomical data.
I think this reduces the science of climate forecast to a simple summation of the well known and published NASA ephemerides. The (war of the) heliocentric climate world view is opened.
“It’s one thing not to see the forest for the trees, but then to go on to deny the reality of the forest is a more serious matter.”
(Paul Weiss)
V.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 14, 2011 at 9:15 am
Leif:
“The magnetic shielding is provided by the Earth’s magnetic field which does not vary with solar activity,”
Then why do cosmic ray counts and geomagnetic indices vary with solar activity?
Leif:
“so the number of mid-latitude aurorae depends on the number of CMEs.”
among other things.
Leif:
“At solar max there are five CMEs per day. At solar minimum there is one CME every five days. So, a lot fewer and hence a lot fewer auroral sighting as observed. ”
Accordingly, the five CME’s at solar max do not show up as mid-latitude aurorae, but the one per five days at solar minimum does, and the counts at solar min show a 60 year cycle. I agree that this is a remarkable claim, but if that’s what the data shows…
Nicola, if you’re still here and I’ve got any of this wrong, please spank me.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf
“He detected abrupt discontinuities
near the years 1766, 1796, 1838, 1868, and 1895. The
first of these corresponds to the activity minimum proposed
here as about 1765, the second is at about the beginning of
the minimum around the beginning of the nineteenth century,
the last precedes by a few years the beginning of the minimum
at the beginning of the twentieth century, the third
(1838) follows shortly after the end of the minimum. The
fourth, in 1868, may be identified as preceding the decline
in activity which occurred about 1879, which, in turn, may
be identified with a minimum in the number of originated
spot groups in Kopeck,’s decomposition.”
There are some mighty cold winters in those years, as well as others given in the pdf.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 14, 2011 at 11:05 am
First, the mid-latitude aurora records that I am using refer to latitude BELOW 55N. This include the aurora that were seen from North Africa to Germany, from Europe to Japan. Denmark is out this range.
The range overlaps with Denmark, but that is not really the issue. The character of aurora occurrence in Denmark is not different from locations south of it. As I noted “Fritz [and I and everybody else who knows anything about this] say that there are more mid-latitude aurorae at high solar activity. Scafetta claims that at low solar activity there are more mid-latitude aurorae.”
So, do you disagree with the provider of your data that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle, with higher activity meaning more aurorae?
Sorry, Leif. About my figure 2B both records are upside-down. So, no Mann’s trick there.
Oh yes, because the Faroe data is anomalous as you realize with:
So, dear Leif, there is an anticorrelation with the smooth trending of the sunspot number during that period about the Faroes auroras.
Apparently, You are reasoning on the base of a theory that may be only partially correct.
The data, the data, shows that there is no anticorrelation for mid-latitude regions. And the theory was worked out 40+ years ago and has been confirmed by all observations since. You can study the theory here: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
Number of comments to Vukcevic
…….
Respectfully disagree.
-Your other Danish friends Svensmark and Christiansen also say that local cloud formation depends on the impact of cosmic rays at all latitudes.
– Friends Manoj & Maus from Potsdam not to mention Ryskin from Northwestern University, advise that there is a strong component of geomagnetic field generated by ocean currents, which along the Faroe bank are among strongest anywhere in the world, counter-gmf, directly affecting velocity of the warm currents across the nearby Greenland- Scotland ridge, and hence controlling surface temperature of nearby seas, to which local cloudiness/visibility would directly respond.
Non scientific person due to ignorance would dismiss most of those, but those scientifically inclined wouldn’t unless of course there is a particular reason to cloudy the issue.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FaroeIslGMF.gif
Anything new on june-HMB?
Sorry, Leif
You are still missing the point. The issue is that your concerpt of “high activity” is relative, not absolute. A “high activity” of what?
I do not discuss the origin of the auroras and their spacial distribution at the different locations.
About the Faroes auroras you are missing the point.
Let us for example suppose that the apparent anticorrelation observed between the Faroes auroras with the trending of the sunspot record is due to an incredible error of the guy that collected the data, and that the data need to be flip up-down so that the record fits better your theory.
The fact that you do not understand, dear Leif, is that even if you flip up-down the Faroe data record its power spectrum would show exactly the same peaks at about 10, 20 and 60 years and that these peaks are found in the temperature records. This is what really matters for my argument that the 10,20 and 60 year oscillations that we find in the temperature are not just an internal variability of the climate system but are due to astronomical forcings related to the oscillations of the solar system.
The fact is that whatever record of aurora you use even if you flip it up-down will approximately show frequency peaks at 10, 20 and 60 year if sufficiently accurate and long. Although the actual patterns may be in phase or out of phase with some trending of the sunspot number, which appears to be a fact that depends on the location of observation.
In other words,. dear Leif. you are not understanding the focal point of my paper whose title is “A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature”
I am looking at the frequencies, Leif. Do you get it now?
Hell, if that doesn’t fit your theories, change the data!
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 14, 2011 at 9:15 am
pochas says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:54 am
I don’t see that Fritz (as quoted above) and Scafetta conflict.
Then look. Fritz [and I and everybody else who knows anything about this] say that there are more mid-latitude aurorae at high solar activity. Scafetta claims that at low solar activity there are more mid-latitude aurorae. How more opposite can the claims be.
~
Now how can we make more aurora at mid lat with less solar activity.
Lets weaken the earth’s magnetosphere my immersing it with less pos charges and add more neg charges (solar cycle is in low.) so ionization rate is less and less radially outward into interplanetary space. More interstellar neutrals inside the planetary spheres orbits. During high speed coronal hole wind streams interstellar neutrals and solar produced backwater get bull dozed right into Earth’s magnetosphere and snap, snap, snap then crackle pop. Density enhancement.?
vivid imaginations
Those were great aurora pictures DR. S Thanks for the views.
Our most recent RED mid lat. aurora were seen in
..”or photographed in more than half of all US states including Alabama, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, Nebraska, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Maryland, New York, Montana, Ohio, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, Arkansas and California. Many observers, especially in the deep south, commented on the pure red color of the lights they saw. These rare all-red auroras sometimes appear during intense geomagnetic storms. They occur some 300 to 500 km above Earth’s surface and are not yet fully understood..”
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=25&month=10&year=2011
NICT movies show sudden increase in solar wind up to500 km/sec, and sudden increase in density at 1800 on Oct.24, 2011.
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie.html
Slower moving eletrons all in RED showing up in the Ozarks. Movies clip at the above spaceweather archive link.
Leif deserves an award for his patience and clarity on this thread.
Awards come with correctness. There seems to be a challenge towards the mid latitude aurora data, Dr. Scafetta and the reviewers of the paper. If there is not a 60 year frequency in the data, that needs to be shown clearly by examining the data used in the paper. Otherwise all points are moot.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 13, 2011 at 11:38 am
“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.”
OK so changes in the solar wind affects surface temperatures, but why use aurora as a measure of that ?
For how long could a J/S conjunct do something ? maybe for a couple of years while they are in closer conjunct, that is just a blip in 60yrs.
And why should every 3rd J/S conjunct be so different ?
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 14, 2011 at 11:55 am
-Your other Danish friends Svensmark and Christiansen also say that local cloud formation depends on the impact of cosmic rays at all latitudes.
Aurorae are not clouds nor influenced by cosmic rays. So irrelevant.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 14, 2011 at 12:09 pm
You are still missing the point. The issue is that your concerpt of “high activity” is relative, not absolute. A “high activity” of what?
High activity of solar magnetic field, and of electric currents in the magnetosphere and ionosphere.
I do not discuss the origin of the auroras and their spacial distribution at the different locations.
You do, e.g. ” A stronger solar or heliospheric magnetic field better screens galactic cosmic ray fluxes. Fewer cosmic rays reaching the Earth imply a weaker ionization of the upper atmosphere. As a side effect, less auroras form in the middle latitudes because a stronger magnetic field and a less ionized ionosphere mostly constrains the auroras in the polar region.”
I will grant you that the discussion is muddled and displays poor understanding of the physics, so in that respect you are correct: “there is no valid discussion of the origin etc…”
The fact that you do not understand, dear Leif, is that even if you flip up-down the Faroe data record its power spectrum would show exactly the same peaks at about 10, 20 and 60 years and that these peaks are found in the temperature records. This is what really matters for my argument that the 10,20 and 60 year oscillations that we find in the temperature are not just an internal variability of the climate system but are due to astronomical forcings related to the oscillations of the solar system.
No, because you add the Faroe data to the end of another series. If you have, say three cycles of sin(t) and you add three more cycles of -sin(t), the resulting series has no single cycle.
In other words,. dear Leif. you are not understanding the focal point of my paper whose title is “A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature”
Looking at the frequencies alone is not valid, you have to look at the phase. What is important is that the series vary in phase not that you can find the same frequencies if the series are not stationary and the frequency peaks derive from different parts of the two series.
But we are losing track of the important point: looking at data is only important if the data is good, and your data is not. That leads you astray and into non-physical speculation. You can begin to do some damage control of your reputation by conceding that mid-latitude aurorae [as all the world agree with] are most frequent as solar maximum and are associated with strong magnetic disturbances. If you cannot do that, there is no hope for you.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 14, 2011 at 3:36 pm
If there is not a 60 year frequency in the data, that needs to be shown clearly by examining the data used in the paper. Otherwise all points are moot.
If the data is flawed or misinterpreted the whole paper is moot.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 14, 2011 at 12:09 pm
even if you flip up-down the Faroe data record its power spectrum would show exactly the same peaks at about 10, 20 and 60 years and that these peaks are found in the temperature records. This is what really matters for my argument that the 10,20 and 60 year oscillations that we find in the temperature …
No, because you add the Faroe data to the end of another series. If you have, say three cycles of sin(t) and you add three more cycles of -sin(t), the resulting series has no single cycle with a period of 2pi = 6.28. Here is a simple demonstration of that [function on right, power spectrum on left]:
http://www.leif.org/research/2pi-splice.png
Bottom line: the auroral, sunspot, and geomagnetic records do not show any consistent 60-yr oscillation, and especially not in the same time period as the climate [1850-2011]. The reviewers did a very poor job on you. Would you care to share their reports with us [if necessary ask their permission first]?
Geoff Sharp, thank you.
There is no doubt that the data I use in the paper show a 60-year frequency peak. This has been found also by other people as I reference in the paper: so there are several peer reviwed paper talking about a quasi-60 year cycle in the aurora records.
The problem with Leif is that he uses the word “high solar activity” in a way that differs from what it is intended in the paper.
Let us see if I can explain it with an example. Let us suppose that the solar activity is made by a perfect and constant 11-year solar cycle. So, solar activity as Leif understand it is given by a perfect and constant cycle. Let us suppose that the top of the cycle is determined by a increased frequency of CMEs.
How would the aurora record look like? According Leif’s model one would see more aurora when the solar cycle is at its top of the cycle, that is when there are more frequent CMEs, and less auroras when the solar activity is at the bottom of the same cycle. The record of auroras will follow closely the 11-year CME cycle and we would see a perfect 11-year aurora record coupled to that cycle. I can agree with that.
Let us now add another ingredient to the model. Let us assume that there exists an additional component associated to the relative position of the planets. Let us assume that when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the sun (with a cycle of 60-year) the physical properties of the heliosphere change in such a way that become more difficult or more easy for the aurora to form at a specific location.
It is evident that in such scenario the aurora record at each location would present an 11-year cycle in phase with the 11-year cycle of CME plus an additional 60 year cycle despite the fact that we are assuming that the solar CME activity is regurated by a perfect and constant cycle.
Essentially, Leif is thinking only in terms of frequency of CME, while I am thinking at the backgroud properties of the sun, of the heliosphere and of the magnetosphere too that may or may not be correlated to the multidecadal trend of the frequency of CME.
The major problem with Leif, in my opinion, is that he believes that the backgroud properties of the sun, of the heliosphere and of the magnetosphere are almost perfectly constant, so he does not grasp the point. Leif also believes that the sunspot cycle is a rigorous representation of what ever is happening in the sun, of the heliosphere and of the magnetosphere, while I don’t think so. The Sun and the heliosphere are a more complex system than just the sunspot.
One way to look at the things is to look at the mid-latitude aurora frequency number during the minimum of the sunspot solar cycle. Of course, during these minima we find less mid-latitude aurora than during the sunspot maxima. However, the mid-latitude records during the suspot solar minimum periods are not constant (as Leif’s solar model that has all minima equal would predict) but reveal a quite strong cyclicity as figure 2 shows. So becaue the number of CME events during the sunspot minima may be constant as Leif says because it may be strongly linked to the sunspot number, the strong cyclicity observed in the aurora is evidently due to a physical change of the solar/heliosperic background activity not elemenary linked to CME events alone.
My argument is that it is this solar/heliosperic background activity that is regulated by the planets and ultimately regulates the climate, not the CME events alone.
Of course the exact explanation of the physical mechanisms linking everything was not the topic of the paper. The paper simply stresses the fact that mid-latitude aurora records present the same major frequencies of the solar system and of the temperature. Then I correlate the temperature patterns to the planetary cycle directly, and in references I stress that the best mechanism is a cyclical modulation of the albedo.