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.
Ulric Lyons says:
November 14, 2011 at 3:45 pm
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 ?
Ulrich, Nicola displays a J/S tidal elongation at Earth diagram in figure 7A in his paper that clearly shows the 60 year oscillation (which happens to align with the PDO). Because Jupiter makes up the greater proportion of tidal influence his graph is also very close to the Sun/Jupiter distance graph that can easily be constructed with JPL data. This is a normal function that has probably been going on for 4.5 billion years.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/j-sun1.jpg
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 14, 2011 at 4:32 pm
If the data is flawed or misinterpreted the whole paper is moot.
Well perhaps you may be better off dealing with the data than attempting to give a science lecture. This should be your focus.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:07 pm
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.
Mid-latitude aurorae are very strongly correlated with magnetic activity of which we have a very good record back to 1840s. The Faroe data in Figure 2 are not homogeneous [for whatever reason] and cannot be used as support as you claim. Figure 3 of Silverman 1992 [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf ] show this clearly. As Silverman points out: “The solar activity minima in 1901 ans 1913 are refelcted here in sharp drops in auroral occurrence”. The unfortunate fact is that it is next to impossible to calibrate the auroral record, only the magnetic imprint of the very same currents that are the aurorae give a reliable picture.
My argument is that it is this solar/heliospheric background activity
We know now quite well the heliospheric magnetic field back to the 1830s [and the wind speed back to the 1840s] and there is no 60-year cycle in that data, nor in the sunspot number. It is very likely there is a 60-yr cycle in climate, after all the PDO shows one, but it is not caused by anything solar or heliospheric.
To clarify,please state here for the record that you now fully agree that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records.
I asked about the reviewers’ reports. Can you produce them?
Geoff Sharp says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Well perhaps you may be better off dealing with the data than attempting to give a science lecture. This should be your focus.
Science lectures are what I do and am good at. The auroral data cannot be dealt with any better than by Silverman in the links I provided and there is not much more that can be done about that at this juncture. We can only hope that hapless researchers become inform themselves or are heeded advice when told about the problems of calibration and homogenization [what Krivksy called the ‘civilization factor’].
@ur momisugly Leif that says “No, because you add the Faroe data to the end of another series. ”
It is not fully true Leif. I explain the things in the paper
In Figure 4 I am showing four power spectra.
4A is the power spectra of the temperature,
4C refers to the Mid-latitude aurora alone from 1700 to 1880,
4D refers to the Faroe aurora alone.
So, the two records mid-latitude aurora and Faroes are analyzed independly.
Then in Figure 5 I combine the spectrum of temperature record in 4A with the spectrum of the midlatitude aurora alone in 4C.
It is true that in 4B I show a spectrum obtained by combining the two aurora records, due to the fact that during the overlapping period from 1872 to 1900 the two records show comparable patterns. So I assumed that a continuity merging could be possible which assumes that the Faroes record could be used as a possible proxy for the mid-latitude record given the strong similarity between the two records from 1872 to 1966.
You may not like figure 4B, fine. But the argument in the paper was not based on it at all, Leif.
The aurgument in the paper was based on figure 4A, 4C and 4D and figure 5 that uses only 4A and 4C. I never used 4B to support the aurgument. of the paper. Think, Leif, think.
So, my argument is perfectly consistent. I am using the mid-latitude aurora record since 1700 and compare it with the temperature frequencies, as the title says. I can eliminatethe Faroes aurora from the paper and nothing would change, not even one augument.
A referee raised the issue that you are raising, I have explained it and my explanation was accepted because the referee realized that the Faroe record was not at all artificially altering the results, as you are misinterpreting, but was added for checking that the frequencies observed in the Mid-latitude aurora from 1700 to 1900 were also present in another long and more recent record of aurora that extended up to 1966.
On the contrary, I agree that the result depicted in figure 4B can be considered speculative because I merged the two records under the above continuity assumption that you may not like, but that figure does not change anything in the paper.
I am sorry Leif, but I believe that your hostility agaist me is so strong that you are trying to find the smallest aurgument in my paper that you may question instead of looking at the general findind and the correct logic of it. You are simply missing the point.
In conclusion, the Faroe auroras were added not for falsify the result as you are maliciously misinterpreting, but for checking that the same major frequencies found in the Mid-latitude record which ends in 1900, are present also for a more recent and independent long aurora record. That is what emerge from the paper and what the referee correctly understood.
In any case, Leif if you think that there are so many errors in the paper, or if you have better data why don’t you submit a comment to the journal so that I may properly respond?
Geoff Sharp says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“Nicola displays a J/S tidal elongation at Earth diagram in figure 7A..”
Jeff, that is a slightly varying 11.86 cycle, and does not answer my question, which I was hoping for an answer from Nicola. Meanwhile, have a think about which of the 11.86yr and 19.86yr peaks in 7A/B could possibly be forcing the “cold” portion of this c.60yr cycle.
Hey, Leif
did you note that also Silverman that you like so much, which of course I referenced in my paper, agrees that a quasi 60 year cycle is present in the mid-latitude aurora record?
I appreciate that you are reading some of the references that I add in the paper.
Have you noted that Silverman analyzed the period 1500-1948 in figure 4 and found a rougth 55 year cycle (probable error +/-5 years).
However, note that before 1700 the data are very poor and he merged the mid-latitude catalog I used with another record (New England data base) to arrive to 1948 , which correspond to the arond 55N geomagnetid coordinate, so is at the border of the 55N.
He also found a rougth 83 year cycle. (Jupiter and Uranus 84 year resonance cycle?,what do you think?)
Then he wrote:
“The peak at 55 years had also been proposed by
Wolf [seeF ritz, 1893] as a prominent period.A definite and
clearly significant peak is found in the present data set at 33
years (that is my about 30 year cycle). CharvdtovaJakubcoevt [1988] have reported
periods in the range 60-100, 43-47, 34-37, and 30-31 years
in less well resolved spectra based on an auroral data set
coveting the interval 1001-1900 and the subintervals 1001-
1500 and 1501-1900. Except for the peak in the 43-47 year
period these are consistent with the present results.”
And I would say that Silverman’s results are compatible with mine too.
Are you convinced, Leif, that a quasi 60-year cycle in the aurora record was not observed by me only?
Of course the data are poor, but that is what we have.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 14, 2011 at 6:05 pm
So, my argument is perfectly consistent. I am using the mid-latitude aurora record since 1700 and compare it with the temperature frequencies, as the title says. I can eliminate the Faroes aurora from the paper and nothing would change, not even one argument.
The point is that the auroral record is generally too poor for this, as it is not possible to calibrate it in a reasonable way. But it is also not necessary as the magnetic record is far better, directly giving us a measure of the electric currents in the upper atmosphere. And the magnetic record and the sunspot record do not show the 60-year period. Since the climate very likely does [PDO] it follows that that period must have other sources, if not just a random fluctuation.
In conclusion, the Faroe auroras were added not for falsify the result as you are maliciously misinterpreting
maliciously? that is a bit over the top, don’t you think?
your hostility against me is so strong…
I’m not aware of any hostility on my part. I have given your paper more analysis and thought than most and found it wanting. My beef is with the paper, not with the person. Try to count the number of negative words in your posts and mine and perhaps report here what you find in order to back up your assertion. If not, one can take that as admission that you have been too emotional and not quite polite.
In any case, Leif if you think that there are so many errors in the paper, or if you have better data why don’t you submit a comment to the journal so that I may properly respond?
If you think you have not responded properly here, I might just do that to give you a second chance. As a prelude to that and so that we don’t waste ink on it, please state here for the record that you now fully agree that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records in concert with the generally accepted view of auroral physics and all the modern data our marvelous space-based monitors have provided us with.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm
did you note that also Silverman that you like so much, which of course I referenced in my paper, agrees that a quasi 60 year cycle is present in the mid-latitude aurora record?
He notes that just about every period you can think up has been found by somebody at some time. “Scientists around the turn of the 19th century were busy looking for connections between aurora, weather, meteors, astronomical positions, and just about everything else.” I’m sure that you could find somebody claiming just about any period in the data. About the peaks he found he notes “The peaks here are, unfortunately, not sufficient well resolved to provide definitive information either to define the period with exactitude or for significance
Are you convinced, Leif, that a quasi 60-year cycle in the aurora record was not observed by me only?
Everybody analyzing the same crappy data one might hope will find similar things. That, as Silverman observes, cannot even be tested for significance.
Of course the data are poor, but that is what we have.
No, that is not the only thing we have. We have very good modern data for the past almost 200 years and they show no 60-yr period. Period.
Again: please state here for the record that you now fully agree that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records in concert with the generally accepted view of auroral physics and all the modern data our marvelous space-based monitors have provided us with.
Ulric Lyons says:
November 14, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Jeff, that is a slightly varying 11.86 cycle, and does not answer my question, which I was hoping for an answer from Nicola. Meanwhile, have a think about which of the 11.86yr and 19.86yr peaks in 7A/B could possibly be forcing the “cold” portion of this c.60yr cycle.
The theory is quite simple Ulric, greater gravitational/magnetic influence is directed towards our magnetosphere when the J/S position is closer to Earth, there can be no doubting of the JPL data. Nicola speculates that a change in cloud cover brought about by a density change in cosmic rays brings changes to temperature. If so I would not be surprised if this cloud cover change has an impact on spatial SST formations in the North Pacific (PDO) which have been shown to influence ENSO which is a contentious issue for some. A lot of correlations and perhaps the missing accurate data (cosmic rays/cloud cover) making the process harder but none the less worthy of investigation.
Leif, the link between the aurora records and the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records is “approximate” and needs to be well understood.
Note that our marvelous space-based monitors do not really exisisted when the aurora records used in the paper were recorded which also goes fur beyond the geomagnetic activity records. Moreover, what our marvelous space-based monitors record from the space may not be exactly identical to what people see or have seen from the ground as I wrote in the paper
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Leif, the link between the aurora records and the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records is “approximate” and needs to be well understood.
It is very well understood, especially between auroral activity and geomagnetic activity. That you don’t understand it can be rectified. There are several good texts available. I can recommend ‘Exploring the Secrets of the Aurora’ by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, ISBN 1-4020-0685-3. It is very accessible and written by one the men who helped introduce the idea and concept of the auroral oval and how it is formed and moves.
Note that our marvelous space-based monitors do not really exisisted when the aurora records used in the paper were recorded which also goes for beyond the geomagnetic activity records. Moreover, what our marvelous space-based monitors record from the space may not be exactly identical to what people see or have seen from the ground as I wrote in the paper
What the modern data does is to show us that the theory is very well understood. What people have seen from the ground is, of course, unreliable: http://www.leif.org/research/Aurora-1570-01-12.png
The geomagnetic record is exquisite since the 1840s. It shows us directly the intensity of the currents in the ionosphere and even allows us to determine the properties of the solar wind with considerable precision. You can get a feeling for this by studying http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
Again: please state here for the record that you now fully agree that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records in concert with the generally accepted view of auroral physics and all the modern data our marvelous space-based monitors have provided us with.
Leif, I have already responded. Do not be petulant.
Please, write your formal comment if you like.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 14, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Leif, I have already responded. Do not be petulant.
Your response was weak and ambiguous, try again with a YES or NO:
Again: please state here for the record that you now fully agree that mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle and geomagnetic activity records in concert with the generally accepted view of auroral physics and all the modern data our marvelous space-based monitors have provided us with.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:22 pm
“The theory is quite simple Ulric, greater gravitational/magnetic influence is directed towards our magnetosphere when the J/S position is closer to Earth,,”
Not quite that simple, here is what he said:
“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.”
All a bit confused really, but the point is that these astronomical configurations (eg when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the Sun) only last briefly, and so are to short lasting to physically represent the cause of the main warmer section of a 60yr cycle. And who is to say the tidal consideration (fig 7A) is valid anyway ?
From what I can tell, the response of surface temperatures to changes of the solar wind speed seem to be very immediate, the changes in cloud cover are a response to temperature change.
@Nicola Scafetta
You’ve convinced me to take a look at the data.
(Only problem: We’re in the busy season in my industry. 4 times the normal workload… I’ll keep reading what you write here though – have time for that.)
@ur momisugly Ulric Lyons:
The actual mechanisms are not fully understood yet, nor they were supposed to be the main topic of the paper. In the paper I propose some conjectures, not detailed physical proves of the chain of all single mechanisms. As somebody said above, science is full of misteries, and in this topic there are a lot of misteries yet. This is perfectly normal in science.
What the paper shows is that there are 60-year oscillations in the solar system. In the paper I focuses on three observable: one is related to the speed of the Sun relative to the center of mass of the solar system, one is related to the tidal envelop and another is a geometrical orientation. Thus, a lot of other observables would have such harmonic. These oscillations match with the observed climate oscillations.
So, we know that a 60-year modulation exists in the solar system. However, at the moment a full theory of how this oscillation is translated exactly into a forcing of the climate is not yet clear.
One of the topics of the paper was to show that even if we may not know the physical details of all involved mechanisms we can try to forecast climate change using astronomical cycles.
This is what people actually do for forecasting the ocean tides. Not all involved mechanisms are fully understood yeat about the ocean tides and people use harmonic model based of astronomical harmonics for overcome our ignorance.
Ulric Lyons says:
November 14, 2011 at 8:39 pm
All a bit confused really, but the point is that these astronomical configurations (eg when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the Sun) only last briefly, and so are to short lasting to physically represent the cause of the main warmer section of a 60yr cycle. And who is to say the tidal consideration (fig 7A) is valid anyway ?
From what I can tell, the response of surface temperatures to changes of the solar wind speed seem to be very immediate, the changes in cloud cover are a response to temperature change.
I was also confused initially but see it pretty clearly now after Nicola pointed out the magnetosphere is affected by the planets as well as the Sun. I think you are getting confused about the brief period when J/S have their greatest effect. Yes there is a point of greatest modulation but it takes 30 years to reach that point before turning back to a baseline position 30 years later. It is not all about the min and max positions as any point in the 60 year period will be in front or behind the average.
Solar wind speed IMO does not have enough variation over the cycle as I have shown you previously.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/Sc23wind_rz.png
Putting albedo changes after temperature could be one theory but I suspect you might be out on a limb, plus the earthshine project does seem to follow Nicola’s logic.
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/espr/sci_images/fig_watts_website.gif
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm
So, we know that a 60-year modulation exists in the solar system.
Since 1600 there has not been a 60-yr period in sunspot numbers and therefore
Since 1600 there has not been a 60-yr period in cosmic rays.
Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in geomagnetic activity and therefore
Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in auroral activity.
Since 1835 there has not been a 60-yr period in the heliospheric magnetic field.
Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in solar wind speed.
So, your assertion that a ’60-year modulation exists in the solar system’ does not refer to any of the above.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm
So, we know that a 60-year modulation exists in the solar system.
Since 1600 there has not been a 60-yr period in sunspot numbers and therefore
Since 1600 there has not been a 60-yr period in cosmic rays.
Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in geomagnetic activity and therefore
Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in auroral activity.
Since 1835 there has not been a 60-yr period in the heliospheric magnetic field.
Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in solar wind speed.
So, your assertion that a ’60-year modulation exists in the solar system’ does not refer to any of the above for the time periods listed.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 14, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in auroral activity.
Should that read “Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in mid-latitude auroral activity.” ?
If so you may need to show that by challenging the data properly. There is more than one paper that disagrees with you.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 14, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Since 1600 there has not been a 60-yr period in sunspot numbers and therefore
[…]
Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in solar wind speed.
Here is how the scientific method works: You present a hypothesis based on some ideas and some data. The hypothesis predicts or posits the behavior of several related data sets. A crucial step is now to check if that behavior is, in fact, observed. If not, your hypothesis is either falsified or overreaching into domains where it is not valid. The cases listed above provide such a test with the outcome being failure.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 14, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Should that read “Since 1844 there has not been a 60-yr period in mid-latitude auroral activity.” ?
If so you may need to show that by challenging the data properly.
If you want I can restrict it to that, but that is a red herring because there has not been any no matter what the latitude is. The data is challenged by noting that auroral activity which is notoriously difficult to calibrate is just a visual aspect of the underlying electric currents which are easy to measure via their magnetic effect. That is the proper procedure: decouple from the unreliable and unreproducible auroral sightings [why do you think the various auroral datasets stop shortly after 1960? because we realized it was not worth collecting that unreliable stuff, now that we have figured out the physics] and use the measurements of the currents.
There is more than one paper that disagrees with you.
If they are on the same shaky ground as Scafetta’s quantity does not matter. But, anyway, find me one that shows a 60-yr period in geomagnetic activity 1844-2011 and I’ll have a look.
Pamela Gray says:
November 11, 2011 at 9:03 am
Massive weaknesses in this paper. The suggested physical mechanism, as presented in this paper, of cosmic rays and clouds is NOT validly or reliably accomplished. Plausibility (IE the mechanisms well-reasoned details) is entirely lacking in the paper. Mechanisms MUST be girthed with plausibility when being thrown into a paper focused on solar/climate cycle matching. In my opinion, Scafetta’s paper is mortally wounded by such a failing.
====================================
It’s only mortally wounded by your own “hopey-changey” orthodoxy in your belief system, Pamela.
You just JUMP to find ways to disprove anything out of the system of Earth’s biosphere….you do this every time without fail and without even remote question.
There may be “multiple weaknesses” in this paper….but there are equally multiple weaknesses in your premature jumping to conclusions.
I have been your champion on here as I admire your logic and commitment to the truth. But your prejudices against anything beyond Earth, are unmistakably skewed.
As to your point on the physical mechanism of “cosmic rays and clouds” as being not “validly and reliably accomplished”…please demonstrate as to why that is so.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 14, 2011 at 10:22 pm
If you want I can restrict it to that, but that is a red herring because there has not been any no matter what the latitude is.
The mid-latitude aurora is what Nicola is representing which you conveniently omitted, which has been the pattern of your hand waving exercise. It is far from a red herring, more the elephant in the room. This is not a restriction, more the meat of the paper.
If they are on the same shaky ground as Scafetta’s quantity does not matter. But, anyway, find me one that shows a 60-yr period in geomagnetic activity 1844-2011 and I’ll have a look.
You could start with the data behind Nicola’s paper and if needed I am sure Nicola could provide other papers as referenced in his paper.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Mid-latitude aurorae are very strongly correlated with magnetic activity of which we have a very good record back to 1840s. The Faroe data in Figure 2 are not homogeneous [for whatever reason] and cannot be used as support as you claim. Figure 3 of Silverman 1992
[ http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf ]
show this clearly. As Silverman points out: “The solar activity minima in 1901 ans 1913 are reflected here in sharp drops in auroral occurrence”.
Again summing up solar tide functions of 11 couples from Mercury to Quaoar, one can identify a positive correlation between the number of auroras Silverman has published in Fig. 3 on a log scale and in comparison the square function of the GHI, what is visible in this graph:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_vs_aurora_silv.jpg
Because this summation only takes heliocentric tide functions of synodic well known 11 couples in our solar system, it means, if there is a correlation that the amount of solar tides related to the planets is connected with the amount of terrestrial aurora for the past 500 years, and as Silverman has pointed out that ‘drops in the auroral occurrence’ are connected to times when more solar nip tides occurred than solar spring tides.
Moreover, because the low frequencies of the slow moving synodic couples have obvious the greatest impact on the terrestrial auroras, temperatures etc. , the time length the tide configuration is present must have a relevant meaning in this mechanism of activity in the solar gas ocean on its moving surface.
A blow up of the hadcrut3 data 100 years ago do show also a drop in the global temperature and is corresponding to the solar tide function of six synodic couples (GHI6++ – Jupiter and outer planets):
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi6_90_txt_1880.gif
Seems arguments are not allowed if they do not fit with traditional views.
V.