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.
Do your homework. Leif!
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Your earlier state if correct Of the 2344 LOO records between 1776 and 1872, not a single one replaces any of the 1482 F records in the original 1988 Krivsky list, is proof that the LOO records are confirming singletons left over from the old list along with new singletons available in the later Euro data.
There are no singletons in the first list, they were all verified [most by region IV data]. The final list is identical to the 1988 [first list] except for the LOO [and the smattering of SC2 entries]. Doesn’t it strike you that not a single LOO entry matches ANY of the entries in the 1988 list? The reason is [I think] that Krivsky didn’t want to count an auroral day twice [although he actually did on exactly one occasion]. What is important is that according to Krivsky’s own recipe, if a LOO were confirming an F entry, then the F would have been overwritten by the LOO, and there is not a single case of that. I think that the people at NOAA that added the LOO data also did not want to enter the same day twice, so they removed LOO records such as to ensure that they didn’t get any duplicates [and missed one: 1850 2 3].
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 1, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Do your homework. Leif!
Weak response. When will you supply some substance?
I showed you that almost all the catalogs you mentioned are not relevant because they referred to times away from the LOO records. E.g.
BOTLEY C. M.: Aurora in S. W. Asia 1097 – 1300. J. British Astr. Assoc.
74, 1964, 293.
Ba BARNARD E. E.: Observations of the Aurora made at the Yerkes Observatory,
1897-1902. Astrophys. J. 16, 1902, 135.
Where bold shows and end point of an the interval covered by the catalog. THAT is homework. Now, go a bit of yours.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 1, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:50 pm
If you are looking at the Krivsky list there are 8 Fritz entries for 1844. They are not singletons, they are verified Fritz entries probably? from the first list.
—————————-
You are forgetting I have the first list from 1988. Not a single one has been replaced by a LOO entry, so they must be verified by an region IV [North American] entry, making that 7+25=32 American entries vs. only 1 (Dec 29th) verified pure European entry. So, again, the Krivsky list is overwhelming an American list.
You are still not getting it. You would not expect a LOO entry to replace a Fritz entry from the 1st list. The LOO entries are verifying Euro singletons (non verified) that were left off the first list or verifying the newer Euro entries on the 2nd list. Each list in its own right has to have a verification. NO single records as in 1 aurora seen in only 1 place on the same day are allowed. Every LOO record has a corresponding Euro record behind it. Krivsky clearly points out that only aurora from regions I and II are considered as the initiating records.
The 2nd list is a supplementary list, it is extras found outside of the first list. Then the two are added together. The fact that you cannot find one LOO entry over riding a Fritz entry from the first list is proof of this. You need to acknowledge you understand this point.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 9:50 pm
The LOO entries are verifying Euro singletons (non verified) that were left off the first list or verifying the newer Euro entries on the 2nd list.
Since there are many more LOO entries than Euro singletons [as per Angot] and almost no Euro entries on the 2nd list [as per Krivsky “predominantly American”], you should be able to see that what you claim doesn’t add up. There are no ‘extras’ found outside the 1st list. The other catalogs as I showed Nicola don’t count as they almost all refer to times outside the LOO data [1776-1872].
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 1, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Your earlier state if correct Of the 2344 LOO records between 1776 and 1872, not a single one replaces any of the 1482 F records in the original 1988 Krivsky list, is proof that the LOO records are confirming singletons left over from the old list along with new singletons available in the later Euro data.
There are no singletons in the first list, they were all verified [most by region IV data].
Of course there were no singletons in the first list. They cant make it if they are singletons. You also do not know how the Fritz entries that only have one sighting in region I or II are verified, you are guessing, they could be verified by other Euro lists.
The final list is identical to the 1988 [first list] except for the LOO [and the smattering of SC2 entries]. Doesn’t it strike you that not a single LOO entry matches ANY of the entries in the 1988 list?
Of course there are no conflicts, Krivsky did the sorting correctly. Singletons left over from the first list become available for a Loomis verification.
if a LOO were confirming an F entry, then the F would have been overwritten by the LOO, and there is not a single case of that.
Right here is where you lose the plot. The F entries on the first list are already confirmed, so LOO is not needed (they may exist). The LOO entries on the 2nd list are verifying left over Euro singletons.
I think that the people at NOAA that added the LOO data also did not want to enter the same day twice, so they removed LOO records such as to ensure that they didn’t get any duplicates [and missed one: 1850 2 3].
Very big assumption. You are saying Krivsky just dumped the LOO records directly into the 2nd list. This goes against all his principles and guidelines that are clearly laid out. NOAA did not add the LOO data, they merged the two records with Krivsky’s approval. They use the word “combined” Krivsky states in his supplement area:
“The supplement contains corrections and new data of the past observation of
north polar aurorae (<55 degrees)."
Corrections and new data so he has built the supplement with the original database in mind. Why would he trash the original database as you have suggested.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 10:28 pm
how the Fritz entries that only have one sighting in region I or II are verified, you are guessing, they could be verified by other Euro lists.
No, Krivsky says explicitly: “auroral data were adopted provided there was guarantee that they were simultaneously observed in a larger geographical region. i.e. provided they were recorded at a number of stations in Region I or II (i.e. Europe), or in Region I or II and at the same time in Region IV (i.e. America). Fritz’s [2] division into regions is as follows: I – south of 46,
II – between 46 and 55 , III – from 55 to the polar circle, IV – America south of 60 , V – high latitudes. If the source of an auroral observation given by H. Fritz [2] was also given by another author, the latter has been mentioned.”
Forget region I as there are so few aurorae from there. So, the criteria were: 1) multiple stations in II or 2) at the same time an aurora in II and IV. Not by other Euro lists, except the fewer that ‘were also given by another author’. [349 vs. 1482 by Fritz]
Singletons left over from the first list become available for a Loomis verification.
LOO data were predominantly American
Right here is where you lose the plot. The F entries on the first list are already confirmed, so LOO is not needed (they may exist). The LOO entries on the 2nd list are verifying left over Euro singletons.
1st: the LOO are predominantly American. 2nd: No, there are many more LOO than euro singletons.
You are saying Krivsky just dumped the LOO records directly into the 2nd list.
The second list is just the LOO records. ‘Dumped’ is a silly word. Scientists don’t ‘dump’ data.
This goes against all his principles and guidelines that are clearly laid out.
Big assumption. And there are simply not enough other Euro records for that.
NOAA did not add the LOO data, they merged the two records with Krivsky’s approval.
Assumption.
They use the word “combined”
means “merged”
Krivsky states in his supplement area:
“The supplement contains corrections and new data of the past observation of
north polar aurorae (<55 degrees)."
You left out the important bit: “New data are based predominantly on the two Catalogues, i.e. of Loomis (LOO) and of Schroder (SC2). In the Catalogue LOO are collected the aurorae which were observed in North America.”
Corrections and new data so he has built the supplement with the original database in mind.
No, he notes that the list was a World List of Polar Aurorae < 55N. Not a European list.
Why would he trash the original database as you have suggested.
He didn’t trash the original database. NOAA did, if anybody did. NOAA removed duplicates from the too list, when they were merged.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 10:28 pm
they could be verified by other Euro lists.
Simply look at the 1834 data:
1834 1 5 LOO Jan. -5, Catterick Bridge (Yorkshire).
1834 1 7 LOO
1834 1 15 LOO Jan. —15th. Brussels.
1834 2 7 LOO
1834 2 8 LOO
1834 2 10 LOO Feb. 10. Augsburg.
1834 2 20 LOO Feb. —20th. Kendal. Perhaps continue the list:
1834 3 3 LOO
1834 3 4 LOO
1834 5 3 LOO
1834 6 28 LOO June 28 Brussels
1834 7 28 LOO
1834 9 30 LOO
1834 10 1 LOO
1834 10 8 LOO
1834 10 23 LOO
1834 11 2 LOO
1834 11 5 LOO
1834 11 6 LOO
1834 11 28 LOO
1834 12 3 LOO
1834 12 4 LOO
1834 12 6 LOO
1834 12 23 LOO
Which catalog did all the ‘Euro’ singletons that are supposed to sit under every LOO entry come from? Same with all other years. There are not enough ‘other’ Euro records out there. You are suggesting that Fritz did a poor job, while everybody else praises him for his outstanding thoroughness.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 1, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 9:50 pm
The LOO entries are verifying Euro singletons (non verified) that were left off the first list or verifying the newer Euro entries on the 2nd list.
————————————–
Since there are many more LOO entries than Euro singletons
Your example of 1831 shows 9 new Fritz singletons out of 34 LOO records. We have no idea how many non Fritz Euro singletons were at Krivsky’s disposal. You left out the papers that he could use during that time period, and it only takes one to fill in the blanks. Do you know how many Fritz singletons are available during the Loomis time frame?
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 1, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Big assumption. And there are simply not enough other Euro records for that.
This you will have to prove. Good luck with that one. All of your assumptions rest on this statement.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 2, 2011 at 12:15 am
Your example of 1831 shows 9 new Fritz singletons out of 34 LOO records. We have no idea how many non Fritz Euro singletons were at Krivsky’s disposal. You left out the papers that he could use during that time period, and it only takes one to fill in the blanks.
If one eliminates from your and Nicola’s list of 35 catalogs the ones that are not applicable, one is left with these four:
L3 LINK
Mo MOSSMAN
R RETHLY A., BERKES Z.
S SEYDL O
The Seydl catalog has two entries for 1831 [none corresponding to a LOO record] and no entries for 1834, so we can cross that one out.
This leaves
L3 LINK
Mo MOSSMAN
R RETHLY A., BERKES Z.
There are no L3 or R records mentioned in the Supplement [which the medium has produced] and only one Mo record. For them to supply a thousand+ singletons is not credible.
Do you know how many Fritz singletons are available during the Loomis time frame?
This is your only remaining straw. You must mean non-euro singletons as we both know the euro ones. The Fritz 1873 book is on its way to me, so we shall see.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 2, 2011 at 1:06 am
<i"Big assumption. And there are simply not enough other Euro records for that."
This you will have to prove. Good luck with that one. All of your assumptions rest on this statement.
The shoe is on the other foot. You will have to prove my statement wrong. I have made it plausible [see just above] that there are not many.
All of your assumptions rest on this statement.
Conversely, all of yours rest on its negation. The null-hypothesis is that there are no other euro records. You claim there are thousand+. You’l have to prove that, rather than just blatantly assuming that.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 2, 2011 at 7:10 am
[Geoff Sharp says:
December 2, 2011 at 12:15 am]
S SEYDL O
The Seydl catalog has two entries for 1831 [none corresponding to a LOO record] and no entries for 1834, so we can cross that one out.
Furthermore Krivsky has this to say about Seydl: “By analysing Seydl’s catalog of aurorae we arrived at the conclusion that the number of 402 aurorae published in the catalog is relatively small and clearly does not correspond to reality”. So not the source of the thousand+ you need.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 2, 2011 at 1:06 am
“Big assumption. And there are simply not enough other Euro records for that.”
This you will have to prove. Good luck with that one. All of your assumptions rest on this statement.
The shoe is on the other foot. You will have to prove my statement wrong. I have made it plausible [see just above] that there are not many.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 2, 2011 at 1:06 am
“Big assumption. And there are simply not enough other Euro records for that.”
This you will have to prove. Good luck with that one. All of your assumptions rest on this statement.
There are only one viable catalog left: R RETHLY A., BERKES Z.
The medium produced that catalog. There were no Euro record for 1844 or 1834 and only 4 for 1831 [of which 3 were doubtful], so there are not enough Euro records. Proof delivered. http://www.leif.org/research/Ungarn-Aurorae.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 2, 2011 at 7:19 am
The shoe is on the other foot. You will have to prove my statement wrong. I have made it plausible [see just above] that there are not many
So you make assumptions, then denigrate others based on that assumption without providing proof. Nice call Leif. The right thing to do would have been to illustrate your concerns with the data without mouthing off. Then researching the data and providing evidence for your claim.
Anyway, the process is illuminating, I am currently in contact with NOAA in an attempt to get some detail on how things might have been done.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 2, 2011 at 10:03 pm
The right thing to do would have been to illustrate your concerns with the data without mouthing off. Then researching the data and providing evidence for your claim.
There are only one viable catalog left: R RETHLY A., BERKES Z.
The medium produced that catalog. There were no Euro record for 1844 or 1834 and only 4 for 1831 [of which 3 were doubtful], so there are not enough Euro records. Proof delivered. http://www.leif.org/research/Ungarn-Aurorae.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
December 2, 2011 at 10:03 pm
I am currently in contact with NOAA in an attempt to get some detail on how things might have been done.
NOAA stated that they simply typed in the data and merged them into one list. In the text for the 1996 supplement http://www.leif.org/EOS/Krivsky-Supplement.pdf Krivsky notes about the new data: “Only new data sources with abbreviations are referred”. This means that if there were already an entry in the first catalog, there would not be an entry for that in the Supplement. This explains where there is no overlap [except on one day 1850 2 3] between the two lists.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Corrections and new data so he has built the supplement with the original database in mind. Why would he trash the original database as you have suggested.
“He didn’t trash the original database. NOAA did, if anybody did. NOAA removed duplicates from the two lists, when they were merged.”
Now that we have the actual text of the supplement we can see that nobody trashed the data [so NOAA did not remove duplicates because there weren’t any], and as you, rightly, surmised Krivsky built the supplement with the original database in mind namely by not including a new entry if there was already an old entry for the day.
It does help to actually get the original sources. So, again, no mysterious ‘extra’ Euro entries from unknown and unnamed hidden catalogs. Result: the final list is completely dominated by North American data and is in no way, shape, and form a European list.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 2, 2011 at 11:39 pm
Unfortunately the actual paper does not really give us any more information other than verifying the amount of original LOO entries which we already had as it turns out. I don’t think NOAA has trashed the data at all, unless the two sets were not meant to be merged, but Krivsky was aware of the whole process and devised the supplement to fit in with the original data. But the question still remains how Krivsky added the LOO records. Your dismissal of the European data is way too early, I don’t think you have done a thorough examination and have left out the Russian and Asian data etc…more work to do. I am waiting to here back from a NOAA retiree who may have some more info hopefully.
It is difficult to intelligently discuss the observations (glacial/interglacial cycle, the solar cycles, and the sub climatic cycles) without an outline of the basic mechanisms. The next few comments provides observational evidence in links to papers from different specialty fields to provide an overview and explanation as to how the mechanisms work.
The paleoclimatic record shows evidence of cyclic changes in the climate (Heinrich events, Bond events, and so on. Named after the paleoclimatic researchers that found the climate events.). It has been known for some time that there is concurrent with the past climate change events abrupt changes of cosmogenic isotopes that are deposited on the ice sheets and in sediment on the ocean floor. The cosmogenic isotopes are formed by high speed galactic particles referred to as galactic cosmic rays GCR (mostly protons) that strike the earth’s atmosphere. The strength and extent of the solar heliosphere and the strength of the geomagnetic field both affect the intensity and the statistical velocity/energy distribution of the particles that strike the earth’s atmosphere.
Specialists in the study of the geomagnetic field have found something external (As will be shown by observational evidence the ultimate cause of the geomagnetic field changes is the restarting of the solar magnetic cycle after interruption.) is periodically abruptly changing the inclination the geomagnetic field and the strength of the geomagnetic field. The geomagnetic field changes are too rapid and too large to have been caused by any geophysical process. (The earth’s core cannot suddenly change to causes the observed change.)
The largest events geomagnetic excursions (the non polar component of the geomagnetic field suddenly increases at the geomagnetic excursions and the strength of the geomagnetic field is reduced by a factor of 7 to 10) occur at the glacial/interglacial climate change transitions.
Comment: The geomagnetic field intensity is stronger during the interglacial period.
There are smaller versions of the forcing event that causes the geomagnetic excursions. These are called archeomagnetic jerks (The term archeomagnetic jerk is confused by all with the term geomagnetic jerk which is small and rapid change in the geomagnetic field). During archeomagnetic jerk the inclination of the geomagnetic field abruptly changes 10 to 15 degrees and there is 10 to 20% change in the geomagnetic field intensity.
The geomagnetic specialists took roughly 15 years to agree that there were cyclic archeomagnetic jerks and geomagnetic excursions and that the timing of the archeomagnetic jerks and geomagnetic excursions correlate with the abrupt climate changes. The underlying problem with accepting that the geomagnetic field can suddenly be forced is that the forcing mechanism cannot possibly be geological.
If anyone is interested I can explain in some detail how the different proxy data has analyzed and the technical problems associated with that analysis to explain why it took 15 years to get agreement among the geomagnetic field specialists concerning the existence and timing the archeomagnetic jerks and geomagnetic excursions.
Comment: The term archeomagnetic jerk has selected as a key proxy source to determine the inclination and strength of the geomagnetic field is to study kiln fired pottery (sun dials and fired tiles.) The term archeomagnetic is apt as it is necessary to locate the site of the kiln usign archeo analysis. The hot pottery captures the inclination and strength of the geomagnetic field when it cools. The French have a vast collection of small pottery pieces (such as fired floor tiles and sun dials. The fired tiles and sundials are marked with the name of the manufacturer.) which have been gathered specifically for paleo analysis of the geomagnetic field.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 3, 2011 at 12:45 am
But the question still remains how Krivsky added the LOO records.
Krivsky explains that clearly enough.
Your dismissal of the European data is way too early, I don’t think you have done a thorough examination and have left out the Russian and Asian data etc…more work to do.
I’m not dismissing European data. Simply pointing out that after examining the catalogs that Krivsky used [and that he told us about] it is evident that there are no more European data that he could have used, unless you postulate that he had thousands of reports that he is not telling us about. On what do you base “I don’t think you have done a thorough examination”?. I have examined every single report in the catalogs. And there are no Russian or Asian data in any of the catalogs listed by Krivsky for the period in question, with the exception of Fritz [and those would already be in the 1st list]. For example, the K-catalog listed by Krivsky: K KEIMATSU MITSUO: A Chronology of Aurorae and Sunspots Observed in China, Korea and Japan (VII). Ann. Sci. Kanazawa Univ. 13,1976,1 upon examination gives a list from BC 687 to AD 1600. The catalog by Mossman [Mo in the list] were generally omitted [373 records for London 1707-1895] by Krivsky [‘cancelled’ in the 1st list, as he says] as only the months were given, no dates, so comparison on a date-by-date basis is not possible. I have examined every single catalog and all the data quoted by Krivsky for the period we are discussing 1776-1900, and there are no more data to be had from those sources.
So, at this point, it is up to you to ‘do more work’ be prove your assertion that there are thousands of unknown Euro records that were used by Krivsky. Until then my conclusion stands.
The Hungarian catalog by Rethly & Berkes is interesting because it is derived from a small, well-defined area and because of the great care taken by the authors and of their extensive documentation [also comparing with Fritz]. Here is a plot of their compilation http://www.leif.org/research/Ungarn-Aurorae-1600-1960.png also showing the power spectrum. Needless to say there is no hint of a 60-yr cycle, although the 10-yr solar cycle is evident as well as the well-known 88-yr and 200-yr peaks.
William says:
December 3, 2011 at 3:35 am
Specialists in the study of the geomagnetic field have found something external (As will be shown by observational evidence the ultimate cause of the geomagnetic field changes is the restarting of the solar magnetic cycle after interruption.) is periodically abruptly changing the inclination the geomagnetic field and the strength of the geomagnetic field. The geomagnetic field changes are too rapid and too large to have been caused by any geophysical process. (The earth’s core cannot suddenly change to causes the observed change.)
I am an expert specialist in the study of the geomagnetic field and while there are changes, perhaps even waves, on a short time scale of the field, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Archeo-Field-Intensity.png there is no evidence [and no agreement] that these changes are external and especially not related to the solar cycle.
Leif, as usual you confuse things.
1) LOO record is in agreement with many European records which were not included in the previous catalog because made of just one entry.
2) even excluding all LOO data, the aurora european record from 1000 to 1900 was already analyzed in
I. CHARVATOVA-JAKUBCOVA, J. STRESTIK, L. KRIVSKY: The periodicity of
aurorae in the years 1001-1900. Studie Geophys. Geod. 32 (1988), 70.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j23481u8473657q4/
both during the period 1000-1900, and the subperiods 1000-1500 and 1500-1900.
The result they found is in agreement with mine. For example they found two cycles at about 60 and 80-90 years.
For example they write:” Figures 1 and 2 show a certain indication that the 60- i00 year interval probably consits of at least two subintervals.”
That is one cycle around 60 year and another one around 80-100 year
Both cyclicities are found in numerous climate data.
In my paper I clearly state: “Large cycles with periods of about 60, 80–90 years and longer bi-and multi-secular cycles are the most commonly reported.”
Both 60 and 80-90 year cyclicities are found in other solar records, both are related to planetary motion: 60-yr to Jupiter and Saturn; and 80-90yr to Jupiter and Uranus.
So, it is evident that there is more than one cycle which is why you get confused. Essentially you are not able to handle more than one cycle.
Now, let us give a close look at your “high” quality Hungarian record
http://www.leif.org/research/Ungarn-Aurorae-1600-1960.png
You claim that there is no 60-year cycle.
Well let us see:
1) your FFT shows a peak at 60 year together with another at 90 year.
2) Your record of auroras show a clear cycle with maxima located around 1725, 1785 ,1850 and 1910. This make the 60-year cycle.
In particular note the 60-year cycle with a minimum in 1810-1820, maximum in 1840-1850, minimum in 1870-1880, a maximum in 1905-1915 and the following minimum in 1930. The latter pattern from 1880 to 1930 is what we find in the Faroes auroras with a maximum around 1910.
Superimposed to this 60 year cycle we find in those specific data a more irregular pattern with larger peaks that is what produce your FFT peak around 90 year and aroud 180 year (which is anotherr planetary frequency)
In conclusion, your attempts do not prove me wrong, Leif!
You just need to start thinking that there are two major cycles at 60 and 80-90 year, as I write in my papers and other people have found as well, and consider that according the record that one analyzes one cycle may be stressed more than the other for reasons that we do not understand yet although I have some idea of why.
.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 3, 2011 at 11:19 am
1) LOO record is in agreement with many European records which were not included in the previous catalog because made of just one entry.
There are no such records as I have demonstrated.
2) even excluding all LOO data, the aurora european record from 1000 to 1900 was already analyzed in…
They use the same original Krivsky record which is not European [remember I have the original list], but heavily dominated by North American records. Example:
1844 has 17 records in the 1988 list, but Fritz’s record only has 12 European records [of which 11 singletons]. The final list [not used by the paper] has 33 records of which 25 are LOOs, thus American. Or 1834: has 6 records in the old 1988 list used by the paper. Fritz’s list has only 11 records of which 10 are singles, but the final list has 28 records of which 24 are LOOs, so again heavily North American.
That is one cycle around 60 year and another one around 80-100 year
Both cyclicities are found in numerous climate data.
Your Figures 4, 5, 8 show no 80-yr cycles in any of the data.
Joan Feynman’s careful study http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA089iA05p03023.pdf concludes:
“we have shown that the long cycle in solar terrestrail 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”
In particular note the 60-year cycle with a minimum in 1810-1820, maximum in 1840-1850, minimum in 1870-1880, a maximum in 1905-1915 and the following minimum in 1930. The latter pattern from 1880 to 1930 is what we find in the Faroes auroras with a maximum around 1910.
The interval 1905-1915 was a period of very low solar and auroral activity.
I have some idea of why
and of many other things as well, it seems. .
.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 3, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Sorry for the bold, here is what it should be:
That is one cycle around 60 year and another one around 80-100 year
Both cyclicities are found in numerous climate data.
Your Figures 4, 5, 8 show no 80-yr cycles in any of the data.
Joan Feynman’s careful study http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA089iA05p03023.pdf concludes:
“we have shown that the long cycle in solar terrestrail 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”
In conclusion, your attempts do not prove me wrong, Leif!
‘Prove’ is a strong word. What I have done is comment on the poor quality of your paper. The quality is so low that it is hard to make much sense of it, let alone prove anything.
Let us return to my question that you are evading:
You say “magnetosphere gets stronger”.
How is ‘strength’ measured or defined? and why ‘should aurorae be pushed towards the poles”?
In reply to Leif Svalgaard says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:49 am
“I am an expert specialist in the study of the geomagnetic field and while there are changes, perhaps even waves, on a short time scale of the field, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Archeo-Field-Intensity.png there is no evidence [and no agreement] that these changes are external and especially not related to the solar cycle.”
I am familiar with your work and appreciate your expertise. I have some understanding of the development of theory in your field. Regardless, the observational evidence supports the above assertion. As noted below observational evidence is interpreted based on assumed mechanisms. Analysis of the proxy data is complicated. There is a set of linked (in time) anomalous observations concerning these mechanisms. I started looking at the subject from the standpoint of paleoclimatic changes and then moved to geomagnetic changes and the theory/controversy/issues concerning proxy interpretation..
The geomagnetic field forcing is due to the solar magnetic cycle restarting not due to the normal cycle. There are a host of related observational data that can be used to provide support for that assertion and to define the mechanisms.
As I noted above the proxy inferred changes in the geomagnetic field are too rapid and too large to be caused by geological changes. Because the geomagnetic observational evidence requires a physical explanation which requires new mechanism(s) to explain the observation is the reason why there was a 15 year delay in agreement (by agreement I mean that there are published papers and conference discussions, full agreement requires the entire problem to be solved) that the geomagnetic changes did occur.
The interpretation of the geomagnetic proxy data is based on what is believed to be possible. The mantel is conductive. It is physical not possible for a core forcing event to cause the observed very rapid and very large geomagnetic field changes. (The conductive mantel will generate a counter acting emf to resist the changes.) Geomagnetic excursions are assumed to take a couple of thousand years to occur based on an assumed core mechanism. Obviously one cannot directly observe the planet`s core. The core based mechanism is assumed as are aspects of the solar mechanisms. I am appealing to what is believe to be correct as to what is known to be correct by observational evidence to open the door for the possibility that a fundamental assumption could be incorrect.
Those analyzing the ocean floor sediment data assumed the changes in the sediments that indicated geomagnetic field changes caused planetary temperature changes was due to the planetary temperature affecting the proxy data and hence adjusted or corrected the proxy data to make the geomagnetic changes go away (i.e.) to correct for temperature affecting the sediment proxy record. Analysis of different proxy sources (The kiln fired tiles and sundials.) and a special developed sediment analytical technique to find the geomagnetic excursions that correlate with the termination of the interglacial periods was able to determine the magnitude of the geomagnetic field by a method that all agreed was not affected by temperature, has confirmed that the geomagnetic field does change and that there is correlation of the geomagnetic field changes with abrupt climate changes.
Using Svensmark`s mechanism a geomagnetic excursion is capable of terminating an interglacial period. Everyone agrees the glacial/interglacial cycles do occur and that the change from glacial to interglacial and interglacial to glacial does is from the standpoint of climate change and limitations of the known climate forcing mechanisms unexplainable in its rapidity. What is missing is a mechanism to explain why the changes are occurring. A basic quantified analysis indicates Milvankotich’s mechanism cannot explain what is observed. (There are sets of paradoxes associated with Milvankotich’s mechanism.) The forcing mechanism of the geomagnetic field excursions and archeomagnetic jerks are affected by the same parameters that affect insolation at 60N (tilt of the planet and eccentricity of the earth’s orbit and seasonal timing of which hemisphere is pointing at the sun during the perihelion.)
The largest geomagnetic field forcing changes (geomagnetic excursion) such as what caused the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event cooled the planet for 1300 years. There is concurrent with the Younger Dryas event the largest change in cosmogenic isotopes in the paleo record. The Younger Dryas is a Heinrich event (i.e. The Younger Dryas is one of a cycle of events rather than something unique. There are large cosmogenic isotope changes at the other Heinrich events. I am appealing to the evidence of large cosmogenic isotopes changes at each of the abrupt climate events as smoking gun evidence that there is solar related trigger for what is observed.
A solar cycle is not based analysis of the proxy record, however, directly capable of causing the planet to abruptly cool for 1300 years. The TSI for instance is not reduced for 1300 years. The solar cycle restart causes the abrupt geomagnetic field change. The delay in the core integrating the abrupt geomagnetic field change is the explanation for the duration of the cooling.
Comment:
The old hand waving theory to explain the Younger Dryas was an appeal to changes in ocean circulation as the cause. (Hand waving as there has no explanation as to what could be cyclic changing ocean currents and no quantified of the amount of cooling vs the amount of cooling that would occur due to an abrupt stoppage of the North Atlantic drift current.) An abrupt of thermohaline conveyor is not capable of causing the observed abrupt Younger Dryas climate change. A paper published a couple of years ago shows using GCM that a complete interruption of the North Atlantic drift current will result in cooling that is an order of magnitude too small based on the observations. That analysis is not controversial as simple back of the envelope physical analysis supports that conclusion.
There are concurrent with the Younger Dryas event burn marks throughout the Northern Hemisphere. There is evidence of other large sets of burn marks that occurred at different times. A significant amount of energy is required is required to abruptly change the geomagnetic field. For geological reasons the evidence for the burn marks may not always be preserved. I am appealing that every physical event must have a physical cause. If one accepts that the geomagnetic field is abruptly changing then that abrupt change must have a cause. I am also appealing to the evidence of burn marks that are concurrent with the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event as a reason to consider the possibility that the assertion may have legs.