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.
Leif,
instead of continuously changing the topic of discussion every time you get in trouble,
may you indicate me a web-link where I can download the data from the Hungarian record?
Thank you.
William says:
December 3, 2011 at 12:41 pm
The geomagnetic field forcing is due to the solar magnetic cycle restarting not due to the normal cycle.
The solar magnetic cycle has never stopped. Even during the Maunder Minimum the magnetic cycle was continuing. We know this from the fact that the modulation of cosmic rays [caused by the Sun’s magnetic field] during the MM was as strong as today.
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.)
That argument goes the other way to. It is not possible for an external change to penetrate downwards. From spherical harmonic analysis already Gauss [who invented the technique] could show that something like 99.9% of the geomagnetic field [at times when there is not a rare, strong geomagnetic storm] comes from the interior, more precisely the core. BTW, an emf does not mean that a current is flowing, just that there is a voltage difference.
More on the core field:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080630-earth-core.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142541.htm
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 3, 2011 at 1:00 pm
instead of continuously changing the topic of discussion every time you get in trouble,
The topic is the poor quality of your paper. That is the constant in this whole thing.
may you indicate me a web-link where I can download the data from the Hungarian record?
It is a 189 page book that I have [as well of most of the other catalogs referred to], and I think I already did post it, but here is again the tabulation of all the records in the catalog: http://www.leif.org/research/Ungarn-Aurorae.pdf
If you need specific information about some of the detailed observations, please do not hesitate to ask.
Could you as a reciprocal courtesy answer the question you have been evading?
Thank you.
Leif, thank you very much for the file.
About your question, as I have already responded many times above, my statement must be understood in a qualitative term. At the moment I am not referring to a specific and explicit quatitative phenomena that can be directly tested in a direct experiment. And my paper was not focusing in proposing this specific mechanism.
It is more or less when people reason that because humans are wealthier in the summer and less wealthy in the winter, people may say that humans get “stronger” in the summer and “weaker” in the winter.
In the case of auroras, I simply argued that the data that I have analyzed suggest that it is easier to see auroras at the low latitudes every 60 years. At least this is one of the patterns as also the hungarian record show quite well.
For example , in the hungarian record that you plotted
http://www.leif.org/research/Ungarn-Aurorae-1600-1960.png
note the local maxima about in
1610
1670 (missing because the Maunder minimum)
1730
1790
1850
1910
1970 (?) (deduced as a trend from the german record)
In any case, I never claimed in my paper that the 60-year cycle is the only cycle that these data contain, and other longer cycles may overtake it during specific periods.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 3, 2011 at 2:14 pm
About your question, as I have already responded many times above, my statement must be understood in a qualitative term.
That is the point: it is qualitatively wrong. And you have clearly not responded in any satisfactory way, otherwise I would not keep asking.
At the moment I am not referring to a specific and explicit quatitative phenomena that can be directly tested in a direct experiment. And my paper was not focusing in proposing this specific mechanism.
The whole premise of your paper is dependent on this mechanism, as you explain: “In this paper, we postulate that the annual frequency occurrence of mid-latitude aurora events is a measure of the level of electrification of the global ionosphere, which is mostly regulated by incoming cosmic ray flux variations (Kirkby, 2007; Svensmark, 2007). When the Earth’s magnetosphere is weaker relative to the surrounding space environment the ionosphere can be highly ionized by cosmic rays, and large auroras would more likely form at the mid-latitudes. This phenomenon would occur because when the upper atmosphere is highly ionized, it would also be electrically quite sensitive to large solar wind particle fluxes and favor the formation of extended mid-latitude auroras. In fact, higher ionization of the atmosphere would mostly occur when the magnetosphere is weaker and cosmic ray as well as solar wind particles can more easily reach the mid-latitudes. Then, the level of atmospheric ionization and of the global electric circuit of the atmosphere should regulate the cloud system (Kirkby, 2007; Svensmark, 2007; Tinsley, 2008). If the above theory is correct, the frequencies of the mid-latitude aurora records should be present in the climate records too.”
There are several errors in that premise:
1) the ionosphere is created and maintained by solar UV. Cosmic rays have nothing to do with this. You are confusing the ionosphere with the lower atmosphere.
2) ” When the Earth’s magnetosphere is weaker relative to the surrounding space environment” is nonsense. Unless you define what ‘weaker’ means, hence my question.
3) ” the global electric circuit of the atmosphere should regulate the cloud system “. It is the other way around: the global circuit is maintained and controlled by thunderstorms. “The earth’s electric current is the accumulated effect of thousands of thunderstorms, mostly in the tropical regions. These storms feed a continuous current from the ground to the ionosphere (a layer in the atmosphere that lies above 100 km (62.5 miles) altitude). The current spreads out around the globe via this layer and returns to earth as the “fair weather current” outside the thunderstorm areas. The whole circuit is referred to as the “global electrical circuit.” From http://www.earthinginstitute.net/commentaries/gaetan_electrical_surface.pdf
4) “If the above theory is correct, the frequencies of the mid-latitude aurora records should be present in the climate records too” but as the theory is not correct the whole premise falls.
I simply argued that the data that I have analyzed suggest that it is easier to see auroras at the low latitudes every 60 years. At least this is one of the patterns as also the hungarian record show quite well.
Not at all: http://www.leif.org/research/Ungarn-Aurorae-1600-1960.png
Check the power spectrum.
note the local maxima about in 1610 1670 (missing because the Maunder minimum) 1730
1790 1850 1910 1970 (?) (deduced as a trend from the german record)
Not at all: the significant maxima are 1610, 1725, 1780, 1870, and 1950 [the pink curve]. The blue curve for individual years is to noisy to show anything.
In any case, I never claimed in my paper that the 60-year cycle is the only cycle that these data contain, and other longer cycles may overtake it during specific periods.
You claim that the 60-yr cycle is the only significant one since 1850, c.f. Figure 2.
Leif,
I am sorry but I do not agree with your statements.
If you disagree with my statements, I do not know what to do for you. P
As I said above the future will determine whether my results are correct. Please, do not presume to be at the same moment the accuser and the judge. The scientific community will judge my work, not you.
It appears quite clear to me that the Hungarian data confirms the existence of a 60-year cycle, together with other cycles. If you do not see it, I do not know what I can do for you.
You need to decompose the signal of the highest peaks which are unlikely due to the sun spurious to properly see the pattern.
In the Hungarian record that you plotted
http://www.leif.org/research/Ungarn-Aurorae-1600-1960.png
note the local maxima about in
1610
1670 (missing because the Maunder minimum where the sun was quite, so few auroras could be produced)
1730
1790
1850
1910
1970 (?) (hypothetical deduced as a trend from the german record)
There in anothr patterns super imposed to the 60-year cycle that you do not see. The cycle is nevertheless creal to me.
look at the maxima in 1610 and 1730 (after 120 years, this should be easy for you, and the local maxima in 1910, that is 5*60=300 years from 1610.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm
I am sorry but I do not agree with your statements.
I’m not fishing for your agreement, just pointing out the flaws in your paper.
If you disagree with my statements, I do not know what to do for you.
With the low level of quality and invalid analysis, there is not much you can do in that regard.
As I said above the future will determine whether my results are correct.
No need to wait, they are already dubious
Please, do not presume to be at the same moment the accuser and the judge. The scientific community will judge my work, not you.
I’m just a referee. And a [not insignificant] part of the scientific community.
In the Hungarian record that you plotted
note the local maxima about in 1610 1670 (missing because the Maunder minimum where the sun was quite, so few auroras could be produced) 1730 1790 1850 1910 1970 (?) (hypothetical deduced as a trend from the german record)
1610, 1725, 1780, 1870, and 1950 as should be evident to any sensible person.
http://www.leif.org/research/Ungarn-Aurorae-1600-1960.png [look again]
There in another patterns super imposed to the 60-year cycle that you do not see. The cycle is nevertheless real to me.
As I said in my very first comment: “I’m afraid this is yet another bad case of cyclomania”
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 3, 2011 at 12:30 pm
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.
You have demonstrated the reverse. Nicola is saying that that LOO records by acting as a qualifier are making available previous European records (singletons) that were not used in the first Krivsky list. We have already seen a fair chunk of the original unused Fritz record line up with the Loomis data and are now evaluating other European data sets referenced by Krivsky in an attempt to fill in the missing blanks.
To do this evaluation process properly we will need to make available publicly every possible source of European aurora data that Krivsky lists in his references. Are you prepared to do that?
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.
Something not adding up here. There are 8 Fritz entries in the 1996 NOAA (combined Krivsky lists) the rest all have LOO labels. If there was 17 records in 1844 on the 1988 list which records have disappeared? Can you publish a link for the 1988 Krivsky list?
BTW I am in contact with the originator of the NOAA list and working through some of the detail. I am not sure if NOAA is aware of how Krivsky formulated his supplementary list at this stage. More to come.
In reply to Leif Svalgaard,
The emf generated in the mantel resists core changes (emf induces a counter acting current liquid core to resist the change.)
This is a different mechanism.
The surface burn marks that coincide with the timing of the Younger Dryas abrupt climate event are charge discharges from the ionosphere to the surface of the planet. There is a flow of current as the planet attempts to equalize. It is the massive flow of charge that creates the geomagnetic excursion. Depending on the location of the strike the charge flow eventually reinforces or attempts to reverse the geomagnetic field. (As stated above the seasonal timing of perihelion and the tilt of the orbit at the time of the strikes occurring determines the final magnitude of the resultant.)
Remember the smaller version of the event is change the alignment of the geomagnetic field by 10 to 15 degrees.
There are other geological anomalies that support the above assertion. Such as five very large Auckland volcanoes have that have geological separate magma chambers that all erupted simultaneously from a geological standpoint.
The effect is modulated by insulating ice sheets. When the ice sheets melt there is a potential difference in the region of the earth surface that was covered by ice. There are when the ice melts an order of magnitude increase in volcanic activity in that region of the planet when the strikes occur.
It is logical if the geomagnetic excursions and archeomagnetic jerks are real observations there is a physical reason for there occurrence. The burn marks seems to be evidence of the process occurring. There one is set of burn marks that occurred in the North Hemisphere at multiple locations (around 40 if I remember correctly) and the dating of the burn marks coincides with the timing of the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change which is also when a geomagnetic excursion occurred.
If one is looking for a semi periodic solar change that can leave massive burn marks on the earth, the natural next question is what assumption concerning the sun is not correct and what change is required to enable sun to produce the burn marks. I found a entire series of astrophysical papers that basically outlines the jest of the incorrect assumption. The affect is scalable and is observed for larger astrophysical bodies.
There is evidence of restrike in some of the older set of burn marks. That set of burn marks are aligned with the magnetic field at that time. Northwest alignment. The west component is due to the motion of the earth as the massive strikes occur.
At a certain point there is sufficient observational evidence to prove the assertion. The science in each of fields (from an observational standpoint is quite advanced.) The observations from each field and the strawman mechanisms (the astrophysical researchers have a strawman mechanism that is quite useful) fit together like a puzzle.
Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/
Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5^10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought.
Recent studies suggest that the Earth’s magnetic field has fallen dramatically in magnitude and changed direction repeatedly since the last reversal 700 kyr ago (Langereis et al. 1997; Lund et al. 1998). These important results paint a rather different picture of the long-term behaviour of the field from the conventional one of a steady dipole reversing at random intervals: instead, the field appears to spend up to 20 per cent of its time in a weak, non-dipole state (Lund et al. 1998).
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and
cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined. And the previous points allow the possibility for some connection between the geomagnetic field and climate over these time scales.
Point 4: We first reiterate the fact that the “claims” made in our paper regarding correlations between cooling periods and archeomagnetic jerks were actually put forward by Gallet et al (2005, 2006). We do note that the causal relationship between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover suggested by Marsh and Svensmark (2000) would result in a correlation opposite to the one we find if the field geometry were axial and dipolar and this is precisely why we propose a mechanism of dipole tilt or non dipole geometry to interpret our observations. Gallet et al (2005) write: “ Another hypothesis is to assume that the incoming charged particles are deflected towards the poles, where the overall low humidity level due to cold temperatures limits cloud formation. If archeomagnetic jerks indeed correspond to periods of strongly inclined dipole, then the charged particles would interact with more humid air from lower latitude environments, leading to significantly larger cloud production and cooling.” And if this happens, there is no need to “overcome the more direct effect”, as (mis)understood by BD07 (who seem to understand that a growing axial dipole is superimposed on a tilted dipole, which is not the case).
It is therefore not surprising that the tuned curve should reveal the link between solar
activity and 18O. It is moreover interesting to note that this correlation, obtained on an Alpine stalagmite, and therefore evidence of the influence of solar variability on climate, is also found in proxies from other regions around the globe: correlation between times of solar minima and cold episodes in western Europe (Magny, 1993; Holzhauser et al, 2005), modulation of precipitation in the tropics in Northern South America and Yucatan (Haug et al, 2001), in Eastern Africa (Verschuren et al, 2000), and Arabia (Neff et al, 2001); influence on droughts in North America (Yu and Ito, 1999).
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/
Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5^10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought.
Recent studies suggest that the Earth’s magnetic field has fallen dramatically in magnitude and changed direction repeatedly since the last reversal 700 kyr ago (Langereis et al. 1997; Lund et al. 1998). These important results paint a rather different picture of the long-term behaviour of the field from the con-
ventional one of a steady dipole reversing at random intervals: instead, the field appears to spend up to 20 per cent of its time in a weak, non-dipole state (Lund et al. 1998).
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and
cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined. And the previous points allow the possibility for some connection between the geomagnetic field and climate over these time scales.
Point 4: We first reiterate the fact that the “claims” made in our paper regarding correlations between cooling periods and archeomagnetic jerks were actually put forward by Gallet et al (2005, 2006). We do note that the causal relationship between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover suggested by Marsh and Svensmark (2000) would result in a correlation opposite to the one we find if the field geometry were axial and dipolar and this is precisely why we propose a mechanism of dipole tilt or non dipole geometry to interpret our observations. Gallet et al (2005) write: “ Another hypothesis is to assume that the incoming charged particles are deflected towards the poles, where the overall low humidity level due to cold temperatures limits cloud formation. If archeomagnetic jerks indeed correspond to periods of strongly inclined dipole, then the charged particles would interact with more humid air from lower latitude environments, leading to significantly larger cloud production and cooling.” And if this happens, there is no need to “overcome the more direct effect”, as (mis)understood by BD07 (who seem to understand that a growing axial dipole is superimposed on a tilted dipole, which is not the case).
It is therefore not surprising that the tuned curve should reveal the link between solar
activity and 18O. It is moreover interesting to note that this correlation, obtained on an Alpine stalagmite, and therefore evidence of the influence of solar variability on climate, is also found in proxies from other regions around the globe: correlation between times of solar minima and cold episodes in western Europe (Magny, 1993; Holzhauser et al, 2005), modulation of precipitation in the tropics in Northern South America and Yucatan (Haug et al, 2001), in Eastern Africa (Verschuren et al, 2000), and Arabia (Neff et al, 2001); influence on droughts in North America (Yu and Ito, 1999).
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027284.shtml
Geomagnetic excursion captured by multiple volcanoes in a monogenetic field
Five monogenetic volcanoes within the Quaternary Auckland volcanic field are shown to have recorded a virtually identical but anomalous paleomagnetic direction (mean inclination and declination of 61.7° and 351.0°, respectively), consistent with the capture of a geomagnetic excursion. Based on documented rates of change of paleomagnetic field direction during excursions this implies that the volcanoes may have all formed within a period of only 50–100 years or less. These temporally linked volcanoes are widespread throughout the field and appear not to be structurally related. However, the general paradigm for the reawakening of monogenetic fields is that only a single new volcano or group of closely spaced vents is created, typically at intervals of several hundred years or more. Therefore, the results presented show that for any monogenetic field the impact of renewed eruptive activity may be significantly under-estimated, especially for potentially affected population centres and the siting of sensitive facilities.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 3, 2011 at 4:59 pm
“There are no such records as I have demonstrated.”
You have demonstrated the reverse.
Unfounded utterance on your part
Nicola is saying that that LOO records by acting as a qualifier are making available previous European records (singletons) that were not used in the first Krivsky list.
Nicola has no idea what is going on. He has not examined the providence of the lists.
We have already seen a fair chunk of the original unused Fritz record line up with the Loomis data and are now evaluating other European data sets referenced by Krivsky in an attempt to fill in the missing blanks.
As I said there are no other data sets for the period in question than the ones I have looked at in detail. And no more records.
To do this evaluation process properly we will need to make available publicly every possible source of European aurora data that Krivsky lists in his references. Are you prepared to do that?
Tantamount to saying that I’m not truthful. Bad style. However, I think I have already done that as there was only one catalog with some clout [Hungary]. Remind me of others you would like to see.
Something not adding up here. There are 8 Fritz entries in the 1996 NOAA (combined Krivsky lists) the rest all have LOO labels. If there was 17 records in 1844 on the 1988 list which records have disappeared? Can you publish a link for the 1988 Krivsky list?
There is no link. I have the paper book. A good catch by you. I had counted 1845 as well [hard to count correctly from paper records]. There are 8 F-entries for 1844 on the 1988 list as on the final list. The final list [not used by the paper] has 33 records of which 25 are LOOs, thus American. This still holds even if I screwed up with the 1845.
BTW I am in contact with the originator of the NOAA list and working through some of the detail. I am not sure if NOAA is aware of how Krivsky formulated his supplementary list at this stage. More to come.
I don’t see how they could be aware. They just typed in the lists from Krivsky’s publications. The supplement is clear though: “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.
William says:
December 3, 2011 at 5:48 pm
The surface burn marks that coincide with the timing of the Younger Dryas abrupt climate event are charge discharges from the ionosphere to the surface of the planet.
All your long comment may be what it is, but is mostly just a list of stuff with little relevance. for example: there are no charge discharges from the ionosphere to the surface of the planet.
It is the massive flow of charge that creates the geomagnetic excursion
By doing what: magnetizing surface rocks?
The west component is due to the motion of the earth as the massive strikes occur.
There are no ‘massive strikes’. And the earth does not move as a result.
Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5^10
The current field is 50,000 nT. to drop by a factor of 5^10 [weird number, must be typo?] the field must fall to 0.005 nT which is way below what we can measure.
These important results paint a rather different picture of the long-term behaviour of the field from the conventional one of a steady dipole reversing at random intervals
That is not the conventional view. It is well-known that the field strength changes a lot [factor of 5] all the time.
global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations.
This has been known for decades, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
And so on, and on. A lot seems to hang on the ‘massive strikes’, so let us concentrate [only] on those first. Do you have a literature reference for those?
“I’m not fishing for your agreement, just pointing out the flaws in your paper. ”
Ok, Leif. Thank you for your help!
However, there might be the possibility that it is your judgment to be flawed, as I think.
So, please avoid to be an official referee of my work , because you are not an unbiased person on these topics, and let other people to judge my work.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 3, 2011 at 6:35 pm
However, there might be the possibility that it is your judgment to be flawed, as I think.
Well, the measure is to what extent judgement is based on sound analysis rather than on ‘I’m so sorry’ statements.
So, please avoid to be an official referee of my work , because you are not an unbiased person on these topics, and let other people to judge my work.
Some already have: e.g. http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm
or see the scathing remarks on Currie’s blog. You can take some solace from the ‘support’ from the other cyclomaniacs, though. The reception your talk got in Sedona was not exactly warm.
Leif, let us wait and see.
At the moment I am getting the dynamics of the temperature signal correctly, as the figure above shows. Look in particular at figure 11B above where the decadal and multidecadal variation from 1950 to 2010 is reproduced calibrating the model during the period 1850-1950. So, the model is shown to have forecasting capabilities.
How many presentations did you see that were capable of getting the temperature signal with such a precision? Please refer to just a single published study or Sedona presentation.
At Sedona some people were quite warm, do not worry. You were silent.
As I said, please avoid to be an official referee of my work , because you are not an unbiased and objective person on these topics. Moreover, you have a prejudiced ill-willed disposition against my reseach in general. Thus, you cannot serve as an official referee of my work. Let other people to judge my work, people who are not suggested by you, of course.
Your criticism is not very different from the scientific quality of skepticalscience or realclimate. You can joint them.
My papers have been approved by numerous and different referees who are very likely more expert than you on these topics, and I have received several emails of appreciation from numerous people.
So, wait and see.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 3, 2011 at 8:20 pm
So, the model is shown to have forecasting capabilities.
We are not discussing the temperature variation, the PDO cycle predicts that quite well [if one is even a weak believer in cycles].
As I said, please avoid to be an official referee of my work , because you are not an unbiased and objective person on these topics.
A good referee judges the paper on its [de]merits which is an objective thing. And I comment on what I please.
Moreover, you have a prejudiced ill-willed disposition against my reseach in general.
Not your work in particular; any flawed work will get the same treatment.
My papers have been approved by numerous and different referees who are very likely more expert than you on these topics
Clearly, the refereeing process has at times failed in your case. And I believe some have been rejected too.
So, wait and see.
It might take a hundred years or more to [dis]prove 60-yr cycles. By that time, we have figured all this out anyway, so nobody is going to care what some 100-yr old flawed papers claimed. Like Brown’s http://www,leif.org/EOS/1900MNRAS-Brown-Sunspot-Tides.pdf who first discussed the side-peaks to the 11-yr peak in terms of tidal influence from Jupiter and Saturn.
It is too bad, you have stopped addressing the science in favor of general whining. There are questions you have evaded. If during a review you evade a question and do not respond satisfactorily to the reviewer’s concerns, that alone is cause for summary rejection.
Like Brown’s http://www.leif.org/EOS/1900MNRAS-Brown-Sunspot-Tides.pdf who first discussed the side-peaks to the 11-yr peak in terms of tidal influence from Jupiter and Saturn.
Leif, “the PDO cycle predicts that quite well”
Are you sure? what is causing the PDO cycles?
You are not getting the point, right?
In any case, dear Leif, your own statement
“We are not discussing the temperature variation, the PDO cycle predicts that quite well”
implies that you acknowledge the correctness of my model for constructing and forecasting the temperature. Thank you!
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 3, 2011 at 9:08 pm
In any case, dear Leif, your own statement
“We are not discussing the temperature variation, the PDO cycle predicts that quite well”
implies that you acknowledge the correctness of my model for constructing and forecasting the temperature. Thank you!
The 30-yr low+30-yr high alternating pattern of PDO is not ‘your’ model. Everybody and his brother claim that, e.g.http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/la-nina-and-pacific-decadal-oscillation-cool-the-pacific.pdf for recent data
Your ‘model’ is just simplistic curve fitting.
Although you and Easterbrook claim a 60-year cycle for recent data, Bob Tisdale has shown that it does not persist back in time:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-there-60-year-pacific-decadal.html
So, the whole thing is just curve fitting that doesn’t work backwards in time and therefore cannot claim predictive power going forward.
In reply to Leif Svalgaard,
Younger Dryas Burn marks
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016/suppl/DC1#F7
Then, just before the Younger Dryas began, a thin layer of bleached sand was deposited and, in turn, was covered by the dark layer marked “YDB” above. That stratum is called the Usselo Horizon and is composed of fine to medium quartz sands rich in charcoal. The dark Usselo Horizon is stratigraphically equivalent to the YDB layer and contains a similar assemblage of impact markers (magnetic grains, magnetic microspherules, iridium, charcoal, and glass-like carbon). The magnetic grains have a high concentration of Ir (117 ppb), which is the highest value measured for all sites yet analyzed. On the other hand, YDB bulk sediment analyses reveal Ir values below the detection limit of 0.5 ppb, suggesting that the Ir carrier is in the magnetic grain fraction. The abundant charcoal in this black layer suggests widespread biomass burning. A similar layer of charcoal, found at many other sites in Europe, including the Netherlands (3), Great Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, and Poland (4), also dates to the onset of the Younger Dryas (12.9 ka) and, hence, correlates with the YDB layer in North America.
The Younger Dryas paper includes information on the Carolina Bays burn marks. This event occurred prior to the Younger Dryas event. These marks show evidence of restrike. See figure 7.
Carolina Bays. The Carolina Bays are a group of »500,000 highly elliptical and often overlapping depressions scattered throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain from New Jersey to Alabama (see SI Fig. 7). They range from ≈50 m to ≈10 km in length (10) and are up to ≈15 m deep with their parallel long axes oriented predominately to the northwest. The Bays have poorly stratified, sandy, elevated rims (up to 7 m) that often are higher to the southeast. All of the Bay rims examined were found to have, throughout their entire 1.5- to 5-m sandy rims, a typical assemblage of YDB markers (magnetic grains, magnetic microspherules, Ir, charcoal, soot, glass-like carbon, nanodiamonds, carbon spherules, and fullerenes with 3He). …
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016/suppl/DC1#F7
Quote:
Fig. 7. Aerial photo (U.S. Geological Survey) of a cluster of elliptical and often overlapping Carolina Bays with raised rims in Bladen County, North Carolina. …
…The largest Bays are several kilometers in length, and the overlapping cluster of them in the center is ≈8 km long.
Further to my comment above.
Younger Dryas Burn marks
This is a link to the full paper that discusses the Younger Dryas burn marks.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.full.pdf
This paper finds the data does not support the hypothesis that the burn marks were caused by an extraterrestrial impact.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/43/18155
“the whole thing is just curve fitting that doesn’t work backwards in time and therefore cannot claim predictive power going forward.”
Leif,
as several readers of this post have already realized, you only show all your bias and/or personal malevolence and luck of objectiveness.
As Lucy summarized above, your comments are nothing but
“Rubbish. Scafetta has already showed six different indices in his paper which all show with stunning clarity the formative presence of a 60-year cycle: PDO, AMO, auroras, monsoons, meteorites, and global temperatures (detrended etc). Thus replication has already succeeded so the claim holds so far. The correlations are highly evocative, I don’t know how to quantify them statistically but visually they shout. Thus the likelihood increases that your apparent non-correlations may have other factors at work, that do not disprove the presence of a 60-year cycle.”
Look at figure 3 of my paper where I show the 60-year cycle since 1700, and numerous other references, where the 60 year cycle and the other cycles have been found up to thousand years uninterrupted.
Again and again, I proved you twrong. However, given the fact that you are not interested in being objective, but you only denigrate and insult, there is no need for me to continue to discuss with you.
As I said, your criticism is not very different from the low scientific quality of skepticalscience or realclimate. You can joint the Team in their propaganda and methods.
About my results the future will tell, Leif, do not worry.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 3, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
December 3, 2011 at 4:59 pm
“There are no such records as I have demonstrated.”
You have demonstrated the reverse.
———————————————–
Unfounded utterance on your part
We have just been this process…do we have to do the ground hog day thing?
Nicola is saying that that LOO records by acting as a qualifier are making available previous European records (singletons) that were not used in the first Krivsky list.
——————————-
Nicola has no idea what is going on. He has not examined the providence of the lists.
Rubbish, he has provided his own examples and witnessed others proved here. Please try to refrain from your sophist type behavior.
We have already seen a fair chunk of the original unused Fritz record line up with the Loomis data and are now evaluating other European data sets referenced by Krivsky in an attempt to fill in the missing blanks.
—————
As I said there are no other data sets for the period in question than the ones I have looked at in detail. And no more records.
——————-
To do this evaluation process properly we will need to make available publicly every possible source of European aurora data that Krivsky lists in his references. Are you prepared to do that?
——————————-
Tantamount to saying that I’m not truthful. Bad style. However, I think I have already done that as there was only one catalog with some clout [Hungary]. Remind me of others you would like to see.
It is not bad style to investigate the full data in a proper open manner, taking your word for it is not good enough. Every record referenced by Krivsky must be examined in full. I think if your assumptions are founded NOAA will remove their merging of the data and list the Krivsky lists separately. The first paper to start with should be Loomis, there are discrepancies.
A good catch by you. I had counted 1845 as well [hard to count correctly from paper records]. There are 8 F-entries for 1844 on the 1988 list as on the final list. The final list [not used by the paper] has 33 records of which 25 are LOOs, thus American. This still holds even if I screwed up with the 1845.
So Nicola’s point stands, the 1988 Krivsky list used in the Charvatova paper is not in any doubt of adulteration.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 4, 2011 at 5:44 am
We have just been this process…do we have to do the ground hog day thing?
?????
Rubbish, he has provided his own examples and witnessed others proved here. Please try to refrain from your sophist type behavior.
Which examples?
It is not bad style to investigate the full data in a proper open manner, taking your word for it is not good enough. Every record referenced by Krivsky must be examined in full.
I agree, and I have done that for all European data he lists. Which catalog would you like to look at? I asked you before, you didn’t answer.
“The final list [not used by the paper] has 33 records of which 25 are LOOs, thus American.”
So Nicola’s point stands, the 1988 Krivsky list used in the Charvatova paper is not in any doubt of adulteration.
My point stands, the list in the Chartatova paper is just the old 1988 list [which I have in my hand, book 151 pages]. Nobody ‘adulterates’ anything.