Aurora Borealis and surface temperature cycles linked

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes about a new paper from Nicola Scafetta.:

New Paper “A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature” By N. Scafetta 2011

File:Northern light 01.jpg
Northern light over Malmesjaur lake in Moskosel, Lappland, Sweden Image: Wikipedia

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.

Fig. 11. Astronomical harmonic constituent model reconstruction and forecast of the global surface temperature.

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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
795 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 21, 2011 7:56 pm

Here is the record from Blue Hill, near Boston, Massachusetts for 1885-1939 : http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-Blue-Hill-1855-1939.png
Homogeneous observations made at the Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory.
Again, all reliable data shows the simple solar cycle relationship.

November 21, 2011 9:25 pm

Siscoe’s review http://www.leif.org/EOS/RG018i003p00647.pdf and Feynman’s http://www.leif.org/EOS/RG018i003p00647.pdf are instructive too.

November 22, 2011 2:26 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 21, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Those are defects in the records, as it is difficult to calibrate those observations.
Laughable really. Good data referenced by yourself is now defunct because it has back fired on you. Like I said you have lost all credibility. Any reasonable dialogue with you is impossible.
Anthony should make you face up to your deception, if a warmist displayed your tactics they would most likely be banned. You have been shown to be incorrect with your own referenced data and refuse to admit it.

November 22, 2011 4:46 am

Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2011 at 2:26 am
Good data referenced by yourself is now defunct because it has back fired on you.
I have shown that what you call ‘good data’ is not reliable by comparing the data with long-term observations by single observers. You should discuss the issues instead of blindly prefer unreliable data just because they confirm your bias.

November 22, 2011 6:33 am

Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2011 at 2:26 am
Good data referenced by yourself is now defunct because it has back fired on you.
I have shown that what you call ‘good data’ is not reliable by comparing the data with long-term observations by single observers. You should discuss the issues instead of blindly prefer unreliable data just because they confirm your bias.
Reliable data shows that the mid-latitude aurora follows the sunspot number as shown here [lower right]. Scafetta’s curve [red] does not match the auroral record after 1850 [not to speak about before 1700] when we have good climate data. As simple as that: http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-SSN-Silverman.png

November 22, 2011 5:13 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 22, 2011 at 4:46 am
I have shown that what you call ‘good data’ is not reliable by comparing the data with long-term observations by single observers.
The SIlverman New England data 1800-1948 consists of 20,000 records from several hundred stations. Multiple records on one day are treated as one.
—————–
Data for New England were taken from a compilation by
S. M. Silverman based on several sources (for a descriptio
of observational systems from the end of the eighteenth cen
tury to 1870, see Fleming [1990]). The primary source used
here was the meteorological registers kept by voluntary ob-
servers in the network established by the Smithsonian Insti-
tution and continued, primarily, by the Army Signal Servic
and the Weather Bureau. Observations were also publishe
in the Monthly Weather Review and in the series, Climato
logical Data of the United States. Some additional data for
individual locations were also used, as, for example, the
observations of Bentley in Jericho, Vermont, from 1881 to
1931 [Silverman and Blanchard, 1983]. Some data were also
taken from the auroral catalogs published by Lovering [ 1866
1871] and Fritz [1873]. The New England data base com-
prised about 20,000 records, from 1741 to 1948. Some scat
tered records prior to 1741 exist but are not utilized here
Altogether several hundred locations are involved. Their geo
graphic coordinates range from about 41 ø to 45 ø , and the
corresponding corrected geomagnetic coordinates from abou
53 ø to 57 ø .
————————
A pretty comprehensive data set I would have thought. That you choose to go with a single observer over a shorter time frame is your prerogative, but hardly a convincing argument.
When the Silverman aurora data is overlaid over the SIDC data the disconnect becomes clearly apparent.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/aurora_ssn.png

November 22, 2011 6:45 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2011 at 5:13 pm
The SIlverman New England data 1800-1948 consists of 20,000 records from several hundred stations.
That is part of the problem. A record from a single observer that observed on every clear day is much to be preferred. This illustrates the problem: http:/www.leif.org/research/Numbers-of-Observers-Influence.png Assume a cycle of constant amplitude [blue curve], but let the number of random observers change with time [or their conditions, e.g increasing city lights] [green curve] then the number of reports [even if multiple are treated as one] will be the product of the two curves [the pink curve], so the envelope is more a reflection of the number of observers. Note how the bottom values follow the same curve and do not go to zero]. This is the problem with the raw data.
When the Silverman aurora data is overlaid over the SIDC data the disconnect becomes clearly apparent.
Yes, it clearly shows the problems with the Silverman data. If you overlay the Faroes data, their disconnect with both Silverman and SIDC becomes even more apparent [yet are an eye-catcher on Scafetta’s Figure 2B, and a major claim for the 60-year period – how well they follolw the red sine curve]. To sum up: collections [no matter of how many] of random observers will always have these problems. There are two remedies: (1) use only a few long-running observers that make observations on a regular schedule, and (2) since we know that the number of mid-latitude aurorae goes to almost zero at solar minimum, we can take that into account and calibrate the counts so that this is fulfilled.
Here you can see how severe the problem is for the Faroe data: http://www.leif.org/research/Faroe-Aurorae-in-Context.png.
As shown in the yellow rectangle the Faroe Islands are about halfway between Iceland and Denmark and Germany. The two records on the left [Vestmannoe and Berufjord] are from Iceland and agree that the aurorae were rare around 1910. The record from Denmark shows also a paucity of aurorae at that time. Yet the Faroes have a strong maximum from 1890 to 1920 showing that the Faroe Island records [used by Scafetta] do not show the true [low] occurrence. The reason likely explained by the effect illustrated by my graph above.
We have a very good, quantitative theory for the aurorae worked out decades ago and confirmed by modern measurements every day. Mid-latitude aurorae follow the sunspot cycle closely [not ‘verbatim’ as you said, because nature is a noisy place] and are clearly present in the geomagnetic record as well. That aurorae tend to occur at the time when sunspot groups pass near the central meridian of the Sun was already noted by Mairan in 1733. It was shown by Carrington, Spoerer and Wolf that the auroral frequency followed the sunspot cycle [‘old, dusty text book’ knowledge] and everything we have observed since with modern, controlled data confirms that. There is no other choice to be had. Aurorae do not behave differently in the past as they do now. The same physics is at work.

November 22, 2011 7:37 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 22, 2011 at 6:45 pm
That is part of the problem. A record from a single observer that observed on every clear day is much to be preferred.
You are still not seeing the main point of the divergence between the aurora and sunspot record.
Even if we use your preferred data or accept your point about more observers there is still a 60 year movement in the aurora recorded at solar minimum (that does return to around zero every 60 or so years), this 60 year trend is also observed in the aurora peaks that can go against the trend in the sunspot record. This trend cant be explained away as you have tried to do. Dont try to line up each hump in the aurora/sunspot record, look at the max/min trends in both records.
Basically the mid latitude aurora record has a quasi 60 year trend and does not follow the same trend as the sunspot record.

November 22, 2011 8:31 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2011 at 5:13 pm
When the Silverman aurora data is overlaid over the SIDC data
The Ap geomagnetic index is a measure of currents in the mid-latitude ionosphere and generally correlates well with auroral activity. Only the strongest outbreak of currents such as generally found at high solar activity give rise to visible aurorae at mid-latitudes. The high-speed streams often occurring on the declining branch of the cycle are generally not associated with sporadic CME [giving us mid-latitude aurorae], but do increase the Ap-index [at times substantially]. So a combination of SSN and Ap should be a good measure of mid-latitude auroral frequency. I have overlain the Ap-record on your SSN and Silverman overlay: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Ap-Aurorae.png
Several things are visible: the effect of number of observers, the occasional impact of high-speed streams, the low activity during the first few cycles of the 20th century. This is in contrast to Scafetta’s Figure 2B on which his claim is built: http://www.leif.org/research/Sharp-Overlay-Faroes-Aurora.png
Scafetta’s sleight of hand slipping the Faroes data was one of my first criticisms and still stands.

November 22, 2011 8:34 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Basically the mid latitude aurora record has a quasi 60 year trend and does not follow the same trend as the sunspot record.
That trend comes basically from the use of the unreliable Faroes data as I just showed. The max/min trend is precisely what is influenced by a variable number of observers:
http://www.leif.org/research/Numbers-of-Observers-Influence.png

November 22, 2011 9:25 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Basically the mid latitude aurora record has a quasi 60 year trend and does not follow the same trend as the sunspot record.
As both the sunspot number and the Ap-index [and perhaps best their combination] are the controlling factors of the auroral record, it is of interest to compute the power spectrum of both:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Ap-1844-2011.png after all, Scafetta claims he is comparing frequencies.
As you can see for periods above 5 years the two power spectra agree, and there is no hint of any 60-yr period. The interval 1844-2011 for which I have geomagnetic data matches well the 1850-2010 span of climate data, that is used in Scafetta’s paper, so it is very appropriate to compare datasets for that interval.
It is well-known that there is ~90-year period in both SSN [the Gleisberg cycle] and auroral data, but no 60-yr. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA089iA05p03023.pdf “Eighty-Eight Year Periodicity in Solar-Terrestrial Phenomena Confirmed [Joan Feyman & Paul Fougere].
BTW, Scafetta’s 60-yr period ‘predicts’ high solar activity the next 30 years.

November 22, 2011 9:31 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Basically the mid latitude aurora record has a quasi 60 year trend
Feynman’s conclusion:
“we have shown that the long cycle in solar terrestrial relations is real and periodic, that it is present in 1000 years of auroral data, and that the period is 88.4 _+0.7 years. “

November 23, 2011 5:41 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 22, 2011 at 8:34 pm
The max/min trend is precisely what is influenced by a variable number of observers
That is not a reasonable statement and implies that the number of observers must fluctuate on a 60 year period, even if your theory is right which I am not nearly convinced, the observers would merely be amplifying a trend that is already there. The Ap record is also now showing a similar trend that agrees with the mid latitude aurora record, does it also suffer from over counting?
Scafetta’s sleight of hand slipping the Faroes data was one of my first criticisms and still stands.
This is outside the 4 points we are discussing, but I am also wary of the Faroes data and wonder if it was necessary to include in the paper.
BTW, Scafetta’s 60-yr period ‘predicts’ high solar activity the next 30 years.
You might need to expand on that one?

November 23, 2011 6:26 am

Geoff Sharp says:
November 23, 2011 at 5:41 am
That is not a reasonable statement and implies that the number of observers must fluctuate on a 60 year period,
Only for the 19th century.
even if your theory is right which I am not nearly convinced, the observers would merely be amplifying a trend that is already there.
No, as http://www.leif.org/research/Numbers-of-Observers-Influence.png shows varying the number of observers CREATES the trend. The blue curve is a cycle with no trend.
The Ap record is also now showing a similar trend that agrees with the mid latitude aurora record, does it also suffer from over counting?
The real issue is that Ap is a measure of the currents. At sunspot maximum we get more of the flares that push the aurorae down to mid-latitudes, so a combination of Ap and SSN is really the best if one wants to go past 1st order. The point is that neither Ap nor SSN shows any 60-yr period over the time of the climate record considered by Scafetta:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Ap-1844-2011.png
I am also wary of the Faroes data and wonder if it was necessary to include in the paper.
That data is vital for the paper, see Figure 2B.
“BTW, Scafetta’s 60-yr period ‘predicts’ high solar activity the next 30 years.”
You might need to expand on that one?

Figure 2B: when the red curve has minima, the number of aurorae [i.e. solar activity] is highest. The next minimum is about 2030, so that is when there should be most aurorae and solar activity. Compare with 1850s, 1780s, 1730s. Similarly, solar activity should have been large in the 1910s [the blue Faroe curve is picked to ‘prove’ that].

November 23, 2011 7:09 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 23, 2011 at 6:26 am
The point is that neither Ap nor SSN shows any 60-yr period over the time of the climate record considered by Scafetta:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Ap-1844-2011.png

But the climate record does show a 60-yr cycle [PDO and all that], both the raw data and the detrended data:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Global-Temperatures.png
So much for “A shared frequency set between mid-latitude aurora and global temperature”
The 11-yr solar cycle peak is clearly in the data as we would expect from the TSI variation. The clear peak at exactly one year is due to the fact that the data is an anomaly over an average yearly curve, and there is variation in the yearly curve from year to year.

November 23, 2011 7:15 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:09 am
So much for “A shared frequency set between mid-latitude aurora and global temperature”
This is perhaps best shown in this composite plot http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Ap-Temps.png

November 23, 2011 7:22 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 23, 2011 at 6:26 am
Your number of observer theory is weak, you have not answered why the Ap record shows the same trend.
The point is that neither Ap nor SSN shows any 60-yr period
The SSN record is not important as it diverges from the aurora record. The Ap record needs to be looked at.
That data is vital for the paper, see Figure 2B.
Disagree, I think you need to give a bit of slack here. Nicola has identified a quasi 60 year trend in the mid latitude aurora data. A similar trend is also produced in his Jupiter/Saturn tidal elongations. He has only speculated on the physical link but if correct some of the inner planets may also add and take away from the strict 60 year cycle.
Figure 2B: when the red curve has minima, the number of aurorae [i.e. solar activity] is highest. The next minimum is about 2030, so that is when there should be most aurorae and solar activity. Compare with 1850s, 1780s, 1730s. Similarly, solar activity should have been large in the 1910s
No, still missing the point. The red curve is the influence on the magnetosphere, not necessarily solar output, in my opinion this is the important factor. The Dalton minimum is a good example of this which should be repeated again in the next 30 years. According to the theory the magnetosphere is shaped by planetary influence which is then subject to the solar output of the day. Grand minima obviously will over ride the red curve.

November 23, 2011 7:32 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:15 am
This is perhaps best shown in this composite plot http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Ap-Temps.png
Nicola shows a very similar 60 year frequency in the mid latitude aurora data. If you think this is incorrect you should challenge the data through the appropriate channels.

November 23, 2011 7:35 am

Leif continues with his misinformation and twisting of data and facts.
>BTW, Scafetta’s 60-yr period ‘predicts’ high solar activity the next 30 years.
No, my model predicts a low solar activity the next 30 years.
Leif also continues to mix the American New England auroras to the mid-latitude auroras from Europe as if they correspond to the same angle relative to the north magnetic pole.
Leif does not understand that New England is located far norther than central Europe relative to the magnetic north pole.
For example between 1800 and 1950 the north magnetic pole was located on average at about
latitude 72N ; longitude -99
New England is located at about
latitude 42N ; longitude -73
Germany is located at
latitude 51N ; longitude 10
It is evident from the above that, like Iceland, New England was (and is) far closer to the north magnetic pole than Germany. This is why the 60-year modulation in the two records is negative-correlated: when one increases the other decreases. Try to calculate the angle, Leif!

November 23, 2011 7:59 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:35 am
“BTW, Scafetta’s 60-yr period ‘predicts’ high solar activity the next 30 years.”
No, my model predicts a low solar activity the next 30 years.

In Figure 2B you claim that auroral frequency is largest during the minima of the red sine curve. High auroral frequency is a sign of high solar activity. So since your red curve has a minimum in 2030, that predicts high auroral frequency i.e. high solar activity.
New England is located far norther than central Europe relative to the magnetic north pole.
The northern geomagnetic pole is not at “latitude 72N ; longitude -99”, but at 79N, 80W. [ http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/cgm_vitmo.html ]. I showed you the locations already here: http://www.leif.org/research/Mag-Poles-1900-1990.png [also the pole in 1800]. Check the angles [pink arrows] they are the same Your mistake is to believe that the pole on the ground is the pole seen by the aurora and solar wind. That pole is in Northern Greenland at 79N, 80W. You can see that directly here: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/
Geoff Sharp says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:22 am
“Figure 2B: when the red curve has minima, the number of aurorae [i.e. solar activity] is highest. The next minimum is about 2030, so that is when there should be most aurorae and solar activity. Compare with 1850s, 1780s, 1730s. Similarly, solar activity should have been large in the 1910s”
No, still missing the point. The red curve is the influence on the magnetosphere, not necessarily solar output, in my opinion this is the important factor.

The magnetosphere reacts directly to solar output of flares, CMEs, and other stuff that creates mid-latitude aurorae.

November 23, 2011 8:03 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:49 am
A more extended comment is here
Just a rehash of the same old tired arguments that have been shown here to be invalid.

November 23, 2011 8:23 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:35 am
New England is located far norther than central Europe relative to the magnetic north pole.
Here is a bit of education for you: http://www.leif.org/EOS/96EO00237_rga.pdf
“Geomagnetic coordinates are applied universally to organize many types of geophysical data, particularly those for solar-terrestrial and magnetospheric scientists.”
“For the many scientists not working in geomagnetism and for ordinary citizens, the present magnetic pole marking only leads to a confusion as to what is being located at the given positions. The major global cartographers need to become aware of the modern science of geomagnetism and either improve the accuracy of their maps or remove their dubious “Magnetic Pole” locations altogether.” This goes for you as well.

November 23, 2011 11:06 am

Sorry, Leif. You are confusing the topic and still not understending the issue. As I said the next 30 year predicts a low solar activity, low magnetic field shielding that yields more low latitude auroras.
You do not have to think only at he sun, but at the dynamics of the magnetosphere.
Moreover, the location of the North Magnetic pole is here
http://academic.greensboroday.org/~regesterj/potl/E&M/Magnetism/popup.north.pole1.gif
around 1800-1950 (the time of the data in my paper) it was around
latitude 72N ; longitude 99W.
Now it is about 82.7° N 114.4° W
the angle between the north magnetic pole and New England was about 32 degree, the angle between North Magnetic pole and Germany was about 48 degree
The angle between north magnetic pole and Iceland was about 29 degree, so it was close to New England

1 17 18 19 20 21 32