Aurora Borealis and surface temperature cycles linked

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

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

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

A new paper has just appeared

Nicola Scafetta 2011: A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics In Press doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013

This paper is certainly going to enlarge the debate on the role of natural climate variability and long term change.

The abstract reads [highlight added]

Herein we show that the historical records of mid-latitude auroras from 1700 to 1966 present oscillations with periods of about 9, 10–11, 20–21, 30 and 60 years. The same frequencies are found in proxy and instrumental global surface temperature records since 1650 and 1850, respectively, and in several planetary and solar records. We argue that the aurora records reveal a physical link between climate change and astronomical oscillations. Likely in addition to a Soli-Lunar tidal effect, there exists a planetary modulation of the heliosphere, of the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth and/or of the electric properties of the ionosphere. The latter, in turn, has the potentiality of modulating the global cloud cover that ultimately drives the climate oscillations through albedo oscillations. In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied, which also include a historical record of meteorite fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. We show that a harmonic constituent model based on the major astronomical frequencies revealed in the aurora records and deduced from the natural gravitational oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a reasonable accuracy the decadal and multidecadal temperature oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data before 1950, and vice versa. The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60–70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced. Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.

The highlights listed in the announcement of the paper read

► The paper highlights that global climate and aurora records present a common set of frequencies. ► These frequencies can be used to reconstruct climate oscillations within the time scale of 9–100 years. ► An empirical model based on these cycles can reconstruct and forecast climate oscillations. ► Cyclical astronomical physical phenomena regulate climate change through the electrification of the upper atmosphere. ► Climate cycles have an astronomical origin and are regulated by cloud cover oscillations.

========================================================

Dr. Scafetta writes in and attaches the full paper in email to me (Anthony) this week saying:

I can forecast climate with a good proximity. See figure 11. In this new paper the physical link between astronomical oscillations and climate is further confirmed.

What the paper does is to show that the mid-latitude aurora records present the same oscillations of the climate system and of well-identified astronomical cycles. Thus, the origin of the climatic oscillations is astronomical what ever the mechanisms might be.

In the paper I argue that the record of this kind of aurora can be considered a proxy for the electric properties of the atmosphere which then influence the cloud cover and the albedo and, consequently, causes similar cycles in the surface temperature.

Note that aurora may form at middle latitude or if the magnetosphere is weak, so it is not able to efficiently deviate the solar wind, or if the solar explosions (solar flare etc) are particularly energetic, so they break in by force.

During the solar cycle maxima the magnetosphere gets stronger so the aurora should be pushed toward the poles. However, during the solar maxima a lot of solar flares and highly energetic solar explosions occurs. As a consequence you see an increased number of mid-latitude auroras despite the fact that the magnetosphere is stronger and should push them toward the poles.

On the contrary, when the magnetosphere gets weaker on a multidecadal scale, the mid-latitude aurora forms more likely, and you may see some mid-latitude auroras even during the solar minima as Figure 2 shows.

In the paper I argue that what changes the climate is not the auroras per se but the strength of the magnetosphere that regulates the cosmic ray incoming flux which regulate the clouds.

The strength of the magnetosphere is regulated by the sun (whose activity changes in synchrony with the planets), but perhaps the strength of the Earth’s magnetosphere is also regulated directly by the gravitational/magnetic forces of Jupiter and Saturn and the other planets whose gravitational/magnetic tides may stretch or compress the Earth’s magnetosphere in some way making it easier or more difficult for the Earth’s magnetosphere to deviate the cosmic ray.

So, when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the Sun, they may do the following things: 1) may make the sun more active; 2) the more active sun makes the magnetosphere stronger; 3) Jupiter and Saturn contribute with their magnetic fiend to make stronger the magnetic field of the inner part of the solar system; 4) the Earth’ magnetosphere is made stronger and larger by both the increased solar activity and the gravitational and magnetic stretching of it caused by the Jupiter and Saturn. Consequently less cosmic ray arrive on the Earth and less cloud form and there is an heating of the climate.

However, explaining in details the above mechanisms is not the topic of the paper which is limited to prove that such kind of mechanisms exist because revealed by the auroras’s behavior.

The good news is that even if we do not know the physical nature of these mechanisms, climate may be in part forecast in the same way as the tides are currently forecast by using geometrical astronomical considerations as I show in Figure 11.

The above point is very important. When trying to predict the tides people were arguing that there was the need to solve the Newtonian Equation of the tides and the other physical equations of fluid-dynamics etc. Of course, nobody was able to do that because of the enormous numerical and theoretical difficulty. Today nobody dreams to use GCMs to predict accurately the tides. To overcome the issue Lord Kelvin argued that it is useless to use the Newtonian mechanics or whatever other physical law to solve the problem. What was important was only to know that a link in some way existed, even if not understood in details. On the basis of this, Lord Kelvin proposed an harmonic constituent model for tidal prediction based on astronomical cycles. And Kelvin method is currently the only method that works for predicting the tides. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide-predicting_machine

Figure 11 is important because it shows for the first time that climate can be forecast based on astronomical harmonics with a good accuracy. I use a methodology similar to Kelvin’s one and calibrate the model from 1850 to 1950 and I show that the model predicts the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2010, and I show also that the vice-versa is possible.

Of course the proposed harmonic model may be greatly improved with additional harmonics. In comparison the ocean tides are predicted with 35-40 harmonics.

But this does not change the results of the paper that is: 1) a clearer evidence that a physical link between the oscillations of the solar system and the climate exists, as revealed by the auroras’ behavior; 2) this finding justifies the harmonic modeling and forecast of the climate based on astronomical cycles associated to the Sun, the Moon and the Planets.

So, it is also important to understand Kelvin’s argument to fully understand my paper.

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

This work is the natural continuation of my previous work on the topic.

Nicola Scafetta. Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate

oscillations and its implications. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Volume 72, Issue 13, August 2010, Pages 951-970

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610001495

Abstract

We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate

oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature

records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets

present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5

and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large

climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 and 0.25°C,

and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the

orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are

also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to

the Moon’s orbital cycles. A phenomenological model based on these

astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature

oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century.

It is found that at least 60% of the global warming observed since 1970 has

been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate

oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or

cool until 2030–2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively

discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization

of coupled oscillators.

=======================================================

The claims here are pretty bold, and I’ll be frank and say I can’t tell the difference between this and some of the cycl0-mania calculation papers that have been sent to me over the last few years. OTOH, Basil Copeland and I looked at some of the effects of luni-solar on global temperature previously here at WUWT.

While the hindcast seems impressive, a real test would be a series of repeated and proven short-term future forecasts. Time will tell.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
795 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 15, 2011 5:22 pm

Leif,
do your homework well, as Carla says.
I have disproved you continuously, I do not have much time to continuously refute every your random insinuation that changes everytime.
You are simply missing the point of my arguments and because you want to manipulate the data as you wish without proving anything and because of your personal biases on this and related topics. And also because your personal obsession and hostility, as everybody here has understood.
Try just to be more humble. OK?
Do not worry, hopefully I will have other papers published and we can continue the discussion.

December 15, 2011 5:30 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 15, 2011 at 5:22 pm
I have disproved you continuously, I do not have much time to continuously refute every your random insinuation that changes everytime.
You have done nothing like that. On the contrary, I have with detailed analysis countered every flaw of your paper. Staying focused on the central point.
You are simply missing the point of my arguments and because you want to manipulate the data as you wish without proving anything and because of your personal biases on this and related topics. And also because your personal obsession and hostility, as everybody here has understood.
Your arguments are invalid so there is no point to miss.
Try just to be more humble. OK?
Do not worry, hopefully I will have other papers published and we can continue the discussion.

If they are as bad as this one [and others], it will be a long, rocky road.

December 15, 2011 7:31 pm

Ok Leif, continue to sing your own praises.

December 15, 2011 7:48 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 15, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Ok Leif, continue to sing your own praises.
It is easier by far to document the many flaws of your papers. You ought to issue a retraction, based on what you have learned here.

December 16, 2011 3:29 am

Response to Leif from one of the above Reader (similar concluisions have been reached by many other readers)
Lucy Skywalker says:
November 11, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Leif Svalgaard says: November 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm
…I use independent data of geomagnetic activity, … cosmic ray data, sunspot numbers, and even climate, and show that none of these show any 60-year cycle over long enough time periods [centuries]. Thus replication fails and the claim fails.
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.

December 16, 2011 6:24 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 16, 2011 at 3:29 am
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).
The one that should not be in her list is the one we have discussed: aurorae. This is the one I’m concerned with and is the one mentioned prominently in the title of your paper. And is the one that you need to retract based on the results obtained here. Lucy [like you] is hardly a person knowledgeable in the field so invoking her opinion shows how deeply you have sunk to scrape for support.

December 16, 2011 9:25 am

Leif,
the aurora records too presents a 60-year cycle as the solar records and I am not the only person that has said it.
Olmsted, Wolf and Fritz in the 19th century and Charva´tova, Strestnk, Krivsky in more recent times talk about this cycle in their works on the Auroras.
The fact that you do not see it is due to your poor mathematical handling of the data and to the fact that other cycles are present as well such as a 80-90 year cycle and the longer ones, as I say in my paper. Moreover there is the problem with your personal biases and prejudices that makes you blind.

December 16, 2011 9:45 am

From
http://www.leif.org/EOS/RG018i003p00647.pdf
Denison Olmsted in an 1856 article concluded that
its greatr eturnso ccura t intervalso f from 60 to 65 yearsa nd
last from 20 to 25 years [Olmsted, 18561.
… Fritz advocated a 55.5-year period for
the secular variation, a period that Rudolf Wolf had already
inferred from his collection of sunspot data, composed of five
of the 11-year sunspot cycles. The English astronomer John
Herschel, commenting on the importance of the work of Wolf
and Fritz, noted that the secular period of 55 years suits the
auroral observations better than does the period of 65 years
[Herschel, 1864]. Loomis favored a period of around 58 years.

December 16, 2011 10:02 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 16, 2011 at 9:45 am
Denison Olmsted in an 1856 article concluded that
its greatr eturnso ccura t intervalso f from 60 to 65 yearsa nd

There was indeed in the 1800 century an approximate 60-yr period in aurorae mostly from New England. This period is however not stationary and has disappeared, especially in Mid-latitude European records, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Ungarn-Aurorae-1600-1960 to be replaced by the more important 90-yr cycle also conclusively established by Feynman http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA089iA05p03023.pdf
“we have shown that the long cycle in solar terrestrial relations is real and periodic, that it is present in 1000 years of auroral data, and that the period is 88.4 _+0.7 years”
But none of this matters, the flaws in your paper are much more elementary and grave, such as having the physics wrong, claiming to use data from one area when it is really from another one, inappropriate splicing together data from different regions, and so on. It is time to spare yourself further embarrassment and to retract the paper.

December 16, 2011 10:10 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 16, 2011 at 9:25 am
the aurora records too presents a 60-year cycle as the solar records
The solar and geomagnetic activity records do not show any such period [especially not for the time interval your use for the climate 1850-present]: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Ap-1944-2011.png
As I said, it is time to retract the paper.

December 16, 2011 10:11 am

not for the time interval your use for the climate 1850-present]: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Ap-1844-2011.png

December 16, 2011 2:49 pm

Leif, now you are getting very funny.
1) first you denied the existence of a 60-year cycle in the auroras data claiming that I needed to retract my paper based on your non sense.
2) then, forced by my hard evidences taken from your own web-site you have acknowledged that several people expert in aurora data have acknowledged the existence of a 60 year cycle.
3) now, you are claiming that the 60 year cycle does not appear in the solar records during the last century.
Unfortunately for you, that depends on the solar sequence that you use. There are several solar sequences, including your beloved northern New England aurora records that peak in 1880 and 1940. Then you may add the ACRIM TSI that peaks in 2000, and you get two nice 60-year cycles since 1880 in perfect phase with the 60-year cycle of the temperature.
I explain this things in my paper, but you did not read it, don’t you?
The fact, dear Leif, is that your solar models claiming a “flat” solar activity are wrong!
When are you going to apologize?

December 16, 2011 3:00 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 16, 2011 at 2:49 pm
When are you going to apologize?
On the contrary, I’m going to expose the flaws in your paper in a Comment to the journal.

December 16, 2011 5:47 pm

Ok Leif,
why did you wait so much!

December 16, 2011 6:27 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 16, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Ok Leif, why did you wait so much!
I wanted to spare you further embarrassment, if possible, but that seems not to be avoided.

December 16, 2011 9:23 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 16, 2011 at 2:49 pm
There are several solar sequences, including your beloved northern New England aurora records that peak in 1880 and 1940. Then you may add the ACRIM TSI that peaks in 2000, and you get two nice 60-year cycles since 1880 in perfect phase with the 60-year cycle of the temperature.
It seems you have been taken in by your own flawed Figure 2B which shows the latest Krivsky data dominated by New England aurorae. The ‘peaks’ in 1880 and 1940 that are shown in the Figure are actually valleys [as you plot the frequency upside down], so unless you claim that ACRIM TSI also was at a minimum in 2000 you are in trouble.

December 17, 2011 12:20 am

Leif, you are not understanding the complex dynamics I am talking about. Don’t you?

December 17, 2011 12:25 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 17, 2011 at 12:20 am
Leif, you are not understanding the complex dynamics I am talking about. Don’t you?
You are babbling. Not coherent. Make no sense.

December 17, 2011 6:22 am

Leif,
your argument is based on the idea that data that do not fit your ideology should be rejected.
So, you are looking at the problem only from one and single point of view, which is the one of the “flat sun” believers who commit the same error of the “flat Earth” believers that do not understand that there are regions of the Earth that present a cold season simultaneously to other regions of the Earth that present a hot season.
Try to understand that there are multiple points of view were the relative patterns may appear to be negative-correlated at times.
The data do not support your understanding of solar/terrestrial interation dynamics, so are the data wrong or is your theory wrong? The issue requires a detailed analysis which cannot be solved in just one paper but requires a detailed study.
So, try to understand that this is “frontier research”. My paper does not contain any factual error that you can objectively criticize. Your criticism is only that my paper does not address and explain every possible issue one might think about. But no paper solves everything at once.
You simply need to learn to respect people who have ideas and opinions that may be different from yours, that is all.

December 17, 2011 6:53 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 17, 2011 at 6:22 am
your argument is based on the idea that data that do not fit your ideology should be rejected.
Nonsense, the data stays the same and are what they are. What should be rejected is invalid analysis performed on the data.
So, try to understand that this is “frontier research”. My paper does not contain any factual error that you can objectively criticize. Your criticism is only that my paper does not address and explain every possible issue one might think about. But no paper solves everything at once.
This is not even ‘research’. And you can replace ‘frontier’ by ‘fringe’ with no loss of meaning. I have documented as host of factual errors both regarding the physics and even more glaringly the ‘analysis’ [although what you do can hardly be called that].
You simply need to learn to respect people who have ideas and opinions that may be different from yours, that is all.
I respect peoples opinions or papers. The person does not enter the equation, if only in a negative way by losing reputation by not wishing to learn. To be respected, an idea has to be formulated clearly, has to be backed up by correct analysis, and has to be physically plausible. Yours fail on all those points. Unfortunately, the peer-review process has failed in your case, and that needs to be brought to the fore. As it shall be, shortly.

December 17, 2011 1:42 pm

Go head, Leif

December 17, 2011 1:45 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 17, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Go head, Leif
My pleasure.

December 17, 2011 1:52 pm

Let us see what are you able to do.

December 17, 2011 2:01 pm

Leif,
I was forgetting.
Where can I download the data concerning your flat TSI reconstruction and relative publications?
So, please write a comment to my paper as well as you can and then I will write a response to your comment. I may use your TSI as well in my reply.

December 17, 2011 2:23 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 17, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Where can I download the data concerning your flat TSI reconstruction and relative publications?
TSI is not flat, there are clear solar cycle variations as well as large ~100 year variations. You can download several reconstructions from http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20(Reconstructions).txt or from an Excel file with same name but extension .xls. The base for the reconstruction is the realization that there is no ‘background’ secular change in the sun’s magnetic field, as for example shown by Schrijver et al http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf and by our own work http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2011-The-Forgotten-Sun.pdf
So, please write a comment to my paper as well as you can and then I will write a response to your comment. I may use your TSI as well in my reply.
Your response may not survive peer-review. And in any case, TSI has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is the poor quality of your paper.