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.
Legatus: Regarding your November 10, 2011 at 4:25 pm comment, the PDO does not represent the Sea Surface Temperature of the North Pacific (north of 20N) so your observations are flawed. The PDO is actually inversely related to the North Pacific Sea Surface Temperature variations. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/an-inverse-relationship-between-the-pdo-and-north-pacific-sst-anomaly-residuals/
And:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/an-introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3/
Regards
jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.
In contrast to science, both astrology and CAGW propose a physical mechanism but have no predictive ability better than chance.
Thus, physical mechanism is not a valid scientific test. It tells us nothing, because it assumes knowledge is finite. That assumption is wrong.
There are an infinite number of things about the universe that we don’t know. And, no matter how much we learn, there will still be an infinite number of things we don’t know. So, to say we must know the underlying cause before we can predict, that is not science.
All we need to predict is to observe and find an identifiable, repeating pattern. Armed with that pattern, we can then predict. Thus, early humans predicted the seasons long before we understood the cause. Thus modern humans can predict the tides and the climate.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 5:45 pm
There is a very clear understanding of its magnitude and how that depends on the mass and separation of objects.
But what is the underlying physical mechanism? You have said “Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology’. What is the physical mechanism that gives rise to gravity?
We have many scientific theories that are very valuable without any understanding of the physical mechanism.
In contrast astrology proposes that are lives are controlled by the planets and their position in the heavens. A clear physical mechanism without any predictive skill.
Now we have CAGW, which proposes that the climate is controlled by industrialization. A clear physical mechanism with the same predictive skill as astrology. Actually, my horoscope is right more often than the IPCC model predictions for post 2000 climate.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 5:45 pm
there is a very clear understanding of its magnitude and how that depends on the mass and separation
The relationship between gravity, mass and distance is the repeatable pattern that Newton discovered that allowed him to predict gravity.
What Newton never did was discover a physical mechanism for gravity. Neither did Einstein with GR.
“jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.””
Indeed? I know how we can describe and measure mass, inertia, momentum and gravity. I have no idea what mass, inertia, momentum and gravity actually are.
Gravity appears to suggest that all matter in the universe is coupled to all other matter in the universe.
I find it very difficult to understand how an attractive force can connect all matter. So, I have no understanding of what mass actually is and how mass is able to communicate with mass.
Perhaps you could help me out.
Dang, CO2 fluctuations cause the Northern Lights. Huda thunk?
/reverse logicification.
Moon Jupiter and Uranus?
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/kevster1346/uranusspeck.jpg
Sony cybershot point and shoot.
If you are trying to tell if A causes X and all you have is empty correlations;
then it would not hurt to take an old trick from the discredited behavoutalist psychologists.
I am talking about ABABA.
Apply treatment A – does result X appear.
Remove A (treatment B = absence of A) – does result X disappear?
Apply A again – does X reappear?
Remove A for the last time – check again that X is gone.
Apply A – X should reappear once more.
If you don’t have enough instances of a phenonema, than you are just guessing.
Does the climate cycle up and down repeatedly in response to the aurora every 60 years or so
Then you know what causes what (as long as all other potential influences can be elimanated or controlled.
Does does CO2 cycle up and down every 60 years?
No it does not.
Then perhaps it can also be eliminated without much sadness.
Doug Jones says @ur momisugly November 10, 2011 at 3:43 pm
How do you know there is no dipole feedback at 90 degrees to the ecliptic and how would you propose checking for the existence of and measuring such an effect with the solar wind roaring through, possibly inducing changes in the former? Are we not looking at dynamos within a dynamo here? Only asking 🙂
According to Robert Nemiroff and Jerry Bonnell of NASA,” the solar bow shock may lie at around 230 AU from the Sun.” 5.2 Astronomical Units is the average distance of Jupiter from the sun.The solar wind streams off of the Sun in all directions at speeds of about 400 km/s (about 1 million miles per hour). Magnetism moves at the speed of light. Calculating interactions at this level is beyond my ability, sadly. The way I see it, if the sun’s influence reaches Jupiter as is clearly seen suggesting no interaction is implausible.
I don’t think people get my initial statement….
The authors of that paper have an apparent correlation , and they suggested a mechanism. But their mechanism (gravitational and magnetic fields due to Jupiter) is physically impossible. So their proposed mechanism is in the realm of astrology, not physics. You don’t like that observation? Well tough, learn something about the relative magnitudes of forces. In science you have to be quantitative not just qualitative – if a given proposed cause is not of a magnitude to result in an observed effect of a particular size, then it is not the cause.
And stop making comments about the IPCC and climate science – I am not trying to defend them, because two wrongs do not make a right. Scepticism properly applied looks in both directions. If something is rubbish then it should be described as that even if it would support something you want to be true
Anthony;
“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.”
I know you don’t like to hear this, but:
This corroborates Landscheidt – Earth climate correlates with the output from the Sun which in turn correlates with cycles in the position of the centre of the solar system relative to the centre of the Sun driven by variations in the orbital pull of the major planets.
Mike H
Part of a growing acknowledgement of a link between top down solar effects on the atmosphere and air circulation patters.
Keep it simple.
Solar changes affect the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere especially towards the poles. Mechanism currently unclear but in my view related to atmospheric chemistry involving ozone but with different effects at different levels.
The result is a change in the degree of zonality/meridionality/latitudinal positioning of the mid latitude jets in particular but most likely the entire surface air pressure distribution too.
Long looping jets increase global cloudiness. Shorter more direct jets reduce global cloudiness. No need for cosmic rays to affect cloudiness but there may be some such effect.
I think the consequent effects on global albedo and solar energy uptake by the oceans are by now pretty much a given.
There you have the entire climate change phenomenon in a nutshell. Not even any need for any change in total system energy content to occur. Just a redistribution of energy within the system as the rate of energy flow through the system responds to air circulation changes. We perceive that as climate change because the direction of air flow across surface sensors changes as the positions of the permanent climate zones shift relative to those sensors. The satellites record much smaller changes as the system adjusts the rate of energy leaving the system in order to maintain radiative balance.
The radiative balance is constantly maintained by internal system adjustments that always act negatively to any forcing that tries to change the system energy content. It even deals with the faint sun paradox whereby the Earth’s temperature has stayed much the same over billions of years despite a 30% increase in solar output.
The shifting climate zones have made fools of climatologists.
jimmi_the_dalek;
But their mechanism (gravitational and magnetic fields due to Jupiter) is physically impossible.>>>
Can we get some trolls in on this to argue with? At least they have some semblance of an argument that one can rebutt rather than simply shouting “that’s impossible!”
Jimmi, can you answer this question:
What is the ratio of the earth’s gravitational effect on your body versus the gravitational effect of your body on the earth?
I can’t really critique the paper at all since I am not a scientist but it sounds pretty far fetched to me. Without something being accurately measured I would put as much faith in any correlation as I would to Michael Mann’s tree ring correlation with global temperature.
Jimmi, can you answer this question:
Yes I can actually – it is of the order of 10^23 (ratio of the masses since the distance of myself from the earth the same as the distance of the earth from me) Which is tiny. Which of course is my point. Which I already made when I pointed out that , for example, the effect of Jupiter’s magnetic field on the Sun is less than the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on the sun. Do we worry about the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on the Sun? No? Then why should we consider the effect of Jupiter’s if is less than half that (you do know how I calculated that I suppose?)
I’ll grant that I’m just an old EE, but I don’t see how this is different than a Fourier Transform. I would be somewhat surprised if you took 300 or so data points from any natural system, did a transform using half a dozen frequencies or so, and then did the reverse transform that you wouldn’t get a reasonably close match.
davidmhoffer says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:02 pm
“What is the ratio of the earth’s gravitational effect on your body versus the gravitational effect of your body on the earth?”
I nominate this for the question of the week and some funds from Big Oil as well 😉
The magnetic pole has probably moved a considerable distance since then. It is currently moving at a rate of 37 miles / year toward Russia but the rate and direction changes over time.
Jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.
LOL! And so if you put a physical mechanism like the CO2 greenhouse effect into a computer and make a bunch of calculations that is science?
Was Kepler a scientist? Copernicus?
Take your lame rhetoric elsewhere sir.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Do we worry about the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on the Sun? No?
The International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/
Gene,
“I’ll grant that I’m just an old EE, but I don’t see how this is different than a Fourier Transform.”
Ah well yes, that’s another problem. I wasn’t going to mention that, but if you start doing Fourier Transforms of short sequences of noisy data then you can get just about any periodicity that you want.
Mark
“I nominate this for the question of the week and some funds from Big Oil as well 😉”
I am afraid I have to decline your offer as I would not accept funds from such a source ;);)
Dr. Scafetta writes in and attaches the full paper in email to me (Anthony) this week saying: […]
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
I’m afraid this is yet another bad case of cyclomania. The magnetosphere being weak and not able to efficiently deviate the solar wind is just nonsense, pure and simple. The Earth’s magnetic field changes only very slowly [by about 1 in a thousand per year] and the size and extent of the magnetosphere is controlled by the dynamic pressure of the solar wind and changes just the opposite way of what Scafetta describes [“During the solar cycle maxima the magnetosphere gets stronger” – whatever that means]. Here is the time evolution of the solar wind flow pressure during the space age: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Flow-Pressure.png
The reference in the article to Lord Kelvin’s tide calculator is a bit misleading. It says: “conceived by Lord Kelvin in 1867,which is currently the only methodology that accurately predicts tidal heights.” Modern tidal calculations rely on the Doodson Numbers [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Thomas_Doodson ] which give the position of the Sun and the Moon, and which are curve fitted to a Fourier expansion of tidal data as observed at the location in question. No physics here, pure curve fitting. During the D-Day invasion, knowledge of the tides was crucial and the British sent in under cover of darkness crews in small boats and mini-submarines to actually measure the tides so that they could be curve fitted to the Doodson Numbers. The tide predictions work because the is a well-known physical cause, Scafetta’s curve fitting has no physics behind it.
Mark
“The International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program” is monitoring the effect of the sun on the earth, not the effect of the earth on the sun.
Eric
“LOL! And so if you put a physical mechanism like the CO2 greenhouse effect into a computer and make a bunch of calculations that is science?
Was Kepler a scientist? Copernicus?
Take your lame rhetoric elsewhere sir.”
This lack of reading comprehension is starting to annoy me. Have I said I believe the IPCC’s computer models (for a point of information I do not). What I have said is that this paper has no plausible physical content, which is another thing entirely.
I will repeat something I said further up:
And stop making comments about the IPCC and climate science – I am not trying to defend them, because two wrongs do not make a right. Scepticism properly applied looks in both directions. If something is rubbish then it should be described as that even if it would support something you want to be true