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.
jimmi_the_dalek,
Fair point about quasi-cycles. I learned something.
Stephen Wilde,
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.*
That’s pretty much my view, although I’d substitute feedbacks for adjustments, but we are left with the puzzle of what does cause the known climate variation. It has to be factors that affect the feedbacks themselves. Cloud modulation is top of my list.
* this allows some effect from radiative forcings such as GHG, but limits it through increasingly negative feedbacks. So increasing CO2 could have some effect that stops at some point irrespective of how much CO2 increases beyond that point, which is essentially what we have observed since 1960.
A thought provoking article, but this supposition;
“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.”
appears dubious, which make me more skeptical about the rest of it.
For reference, here is a simulation of Earth’s Magnetosphere getting hit by an X Class Flare:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N0YfHOqFsY&w=640&h=360]
here is the current state of Earth’s Magnetosphere;
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/index.html
available from here:
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/home.html
WUWT’s Geomagnetism Reference Page;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/geomagnetism/
is also a valuable resource.
In terms of aurora, they “primarily occur in the thermosphere. Charged particles (electrons, protons, and other ions) from space collide with atoms and molecules in the thermosphere at high latitudes, exciting them into higher energy states. Those atoms and molecules shed this excess energy by emitting photons of light, which we see as colorful auroral displays.”
but while “the thermosphere is considered part of Earth’s atmosphere, the air density is so low in this layer that most of the thermosphere is what we normally think of as outer space. In fact, the most common definition says that space begins at an altitude of 100 km (62 miles), slightly above the mesopause at the bottom of the thermosphere. The space shuttle and the International Space Station both orbit Earth within the thermosphere!”
“Much of the X-ray and UV radiation from the Sun is absorbed in the thermosphere. When the Sun is very active and emitting more high energy radiation, the thermosphere gets hotter and expands or “puffs up”. Because of this, the height of the top of the thermosphere (the thermopause) varies. The thermopause is found at an altitude between 500 km and 1,000 km or higher.”
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/thermosphere.html
Here are POES Northern and Southern Auroral Activity;
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html
here’s an animated version of Northern Auroral Activity;
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/AnimateN.html
and Southern Auroral Activity:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/AnimateS.html
crosspatch says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm
If aurora were visible in London in late 14th century they they must have been incredibly powerful. 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.
1: it was not the 14th century but 1550-1650
2: in the year 1600 the magnetic pole was at latitude 85.03N degrees and longitude 306.55E. Today it is at 82.53N and 276.37E, so London was actually at a lower magnetic latitude back in 1600, so would see fewer aurorae.
3) many aurorae were seen because the Sun was quite active.
“jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 5:45 pm
60 + or – 4 . The fact that it is not a constant value is enough to rule out an astronomical origin – the orbits of the planets are precise – they do not gain or loose 4 years every now and then.”
Things are not always as precise as they seem. For example at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet
“Halley’s prediction of the comet’s return proved to be correct, although it was not seen until 25 December 1758, by Johann Georg Palitzsch, a German farmer and amateur astronomer. It did not pass through its perihelion until 13 March 1759, the attraction of Jupiter and Saturn having caused a retardation of 618 days.”
Also, Jupiter and Saturn meet every 19.85 years. Since it is not an even 20.00 years, there will be different seasons on Earth with every meeting. In addition, other planets such as Venus and Uranus also have their influences so years could be added or subtracted. As well, the sun would be at different phases in its sunspot cycle each time so it is not surprising that we have 60 + or – 4.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:40 pm
My point was interaction between the bodies. If the sun’s influence reaches Jupiter then they interact. Any influence however small should be considered. For example: My girlfriend who is 4’9″ frequently alters my position on things even though I’m a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:19 pm
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.>>>
OK, so the question now is, are you prepared to follow some math and perhaps learn something?
The question is actually a trick question of sorts. The ratio is exactly 1:1
No, I’m not kidding. The formula for calculating the amount of force that two bodies exert on each other is:
F=(G*m1*m2)/r^2
Where F = Force
G is a constant
m1 is the mass of one body (let’s say you)
m2 is the mass of the other body (let’s say earth)
r is the distance between the centres of gravity of the two masses.
So let’s go through the assumptions you’ve made to show why they are commonly made mistakes.
Assumption 1: The ratio of gravitational force is determined by the relative mass of the two bodies. Incorrect. It doesn’t matter if YOU are m1 and the earth is m2 or the other way around. The force between the two is exactly the same. If the earth exerted more force on you than you exert on the earth, then you would actually move the earth simply by standing on it.
Assumption 2: The distance between you and the earth is tiny. Again, common assumption that since you are standing on it, the distance is zero. But it isn’t because r in the formula above is calculated between the centres of gravity of the two bodies. The diameter of the earth being about 13,000 kilometers, r is, in this case, about 6,500,000 meters. Not close to zero at all.
In fact, if the distance between two bodies approaches zero, then the force between them approaches infinity because 0^2 is still 0 and anything divided by zero is infinity. If you followed this far, you should now understand what a “black hole” is. When matter is compressed so much that the distance between any two particles starts to approach zero, the force between them becomes so great that it collapses time and space. Trust me, though you might hug the earth with all your might, you’re in no danger of creating a black hole.
Now take what you’ve learned and apply it to some of the things you’ve said. How much force does Jupiter exert on the Sun? Answer: exactly as much as the Sun exerts on Jupiter.
Now take the next step. Jupiter orbits the Sun, and I’m betting if I asked you exactly at which point inside the Sun it is the Jupiter orbits around, I’m guessing that you, like most people, would say the centre of the Sun. You’d be wrong again.
The answer is that when two bodies are in orbit, their orbits revolve around the centre of gravity of the two bodies taken together as one. For you standing on the earth surface, your mass is in fact so small that you probably can’t measure the change in centre of gravity of you and the earth if your mass were to instantly double. But it isn’t zero. Juptier on the other hand, is big enough to cause the centre of gravity of it and the sun to be somewhere between the centre of the sun and the surface of the sun. Both Jupiter and the Sun orbit around that centre of gravity. So, Jupiter being rather small compared to the Sun, has a very large orbit, and the Sun has a very small orbit. But if you were so far away in space that all you could see was the Sun as a tiny point of light, and you had instruments accurate enough, you would be able to figure out that something the size of Jupiter exists, because over time, you would notice that the star isn’t sitting still, it is wobbling around itself.
Now let’s keep going and talk tides. The moon raises tides on earth, even though it is only one sixth the mass of the earth, it raises tides of several meters in some cases, and does so based on a 24 hour rotation. Now certainly, Jupiter is far less than one sixth the mass of the Sun, but it has YEARS to raise a tide on the sun, not hours.
OK, that’s enough physics for me tonight.
Mark ro says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:27 pm
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 😉
————-
Why thank you. Assuming I am awarded both of these and they are in the usual as based on historical averages, my net worth just increased by zero. I tried converting to various currencies with little success. American green backs, zero. Canadian dollars, zero. Euros, zero. The experiment ended when I converted to Zimbabwe’s currency. Mugabe phoned me up, advised that the amount wasn’t worth the paper it was written on… and sent me a bill for the paper. Sigh, I’m actually in the hole on this deal.
Mark ro;
My girlfriend who is 4’9″ frequently alters my position on things even though I’m a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier.>>>
Stop complainging. I upgraded Girlfriend 11.3 to Wife 1.0 and discovered that it deleted all of my opinions and positions entirely as a side effect of the upgrade. Also deleted were Weekly Pokernight 4.2 and Annual Fishing Trip 7.6. I considered trying to downgrade back to Girlfriend 11 (any version) but apparently the upgrade wipes out the existance of the previous Girlfriend version. I was tempted by the potential return of Girlfriend 6.0, but was advised by Wife 1.0 that further attempts to communicate in any way shape or form with Girlfriend 6.0 would invoke Legal Proceedings 2.0. Not certain what that is yet, but it sounds bad.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Eric
This lack of reading comprehension is starting to annoy me.
I agree Jimmi. You need better reading comprehension. Try reading up on the scientific process and then review your posts here.
I wonder what Peirs Corbyn has to say on this?
The greater magnetic and gravitational fields of the Galaxy permeate the whole solar system and pass through the entire system. Originally we had flat earth thoughts, then heliocentric mindedness, where most people are stuck, the local galaxy we are invested in, is slave to the greater local super group’s magnetic fields and gravitational influences. To not be aware of the constructiveness of the whole system is to be lost to the whole truth. The influences of the galaxy push magnetic fields into the poles of all the planets and the sun, the sun responds with the rest of the solar system to the flux in their strength, and balance is struck between each and all bodies in the system.
http://research.aerology.com/natural-processes/solar-system-dynamics/
Excerpt; Posted: January 31, 2011 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics
24 Recent update, reflecting the ideas I have found in the rest of these blog stuff links by others.
All of the universe affects the rest of it, as all sits in a common bowl of gravitational and magnetically connected and driven mass of ions and regular atoms, that respond to the basic physics detailing the “normal rules or laws”. To think that there are voltages or ions that move without magnetic fields attached violates first principles.
The stars are surrounded with a ion shell the heliosphere, that protects them [like ferro fluid particles with oxalic acid coats to keep them from merging as they float around] from running into each other the outer surfaces are composed/covered with free electrons hanging on the outer edge of the magnetic fields.
The mutual static repulsion keeps the stars separated just as mutual static repulsion keeps the neutralized moisture in a cloud from condensing. As the background cumulative charge gradient increases it reduces droplet size and polarizes them. With the added side effect of lowering albedo by becoming more transparent to short wave sun light.
The galactic magnet fields are also influenced by these same basic rules of action as well, which leads me to the conclusion that the interactions of the composite system of magnetic interactions from the rotation of the Galaxy, and the declinational movement of the solar system in that larger frame of reference, as well as the density waves that propagate around driving the spiral arm flux variances give rise to the longer term cyclic climatology of the Earth.
The heliopause of our sun Sol, seems to have auroral knotted bands (recently spotted ribbons of ion activity) on its leading side as it progresses through the interstellar gases and dust clouds, the solar system passes through in its travels. I think that this is due to the conductance of the galactic fields into and through the heliopause, coupling through the polar regions of the sun and planets, altering the interactions of inertial and inductive drives to near stable states at or near equilibrium.
The residual shifts in balance are felt as steering currents in the slow transition of the orbital dynamics and swaying of the solar system as it winds its way through the static charges on heliopause, as Sol makes its way through the gravitational attractions and radiation pressures gauntlet, shoved around ever so slowly by the rest of the individual stars.
The magnetically permeable inductive components of planetary bodies and their moons are susceptible to Ohms laws, and Maxwells power equations, that drive the interactions of electromagnetic forces that equally apply to the full frequency spectrum from near DC standing magnetic fields to the most energetic particles seen.
All electronic gadgets, radios, toys, and computers work with these modulation techniques derived from compounding the effects of the individual components, through inductive and capacitive couplings into and through semi conducting amplifiers, filtering for the frequency range required for the end function desired. The formula for solving the initial circuit design has long been known and has been taken to almost single atomic scale in state of the art semiconductor manufacture.
So we should be able to understand, by the application of these common formula, and to figure out from the sizes of the forces at work, the interactions of the sun with the planets and their moons, by determining the shifts of flux of the magnetic fields, with the shifting density and speed of the solar wind, in their resultant periodic harmonic interactions as they became stable over the past 4.8 billion years.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Scafetta’s curve fitting has no physics behind it.
And with no physics, it is truly meaningless regardless of how well he can predict the future. Welcome to the myopic world of Dr. Svalgaard.
Eric Barnes says:
November 10, 2011 at 8:58 pm
And with no physics, it is truly meaningless regardless of how well he can predict the future.
He has not predicted anything well yet.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:03 pm
He has not predicted anything well yet.
**********************************************
Reply; By applying the repeating patterns of the inner planet and lunar declination 240 cycle affects on the past weathers resultant recorded data, I have been able to forecast daily weather almost as good as the 3 to 5 day out NWS forecast for periods out to ten years at a time.
Mechanism outlined on web site as well as four year old forecast maps, and the next two years also forecast back in 2007.
crosspatch says: November 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm
If aurora were visible in London in late 14th century they they must have been incredibly powerful. 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.
Leif Svalgaard says: November 10, 2011 at 8:01 pm
1: it was not the 14th century but 1550-1650
2: in the year 1600 the magnetic pole was at latitude 85.03N degrees and longitude 306.55E. Today it is at 82.53N and 276.37E, so London was actually at a lower magnetic latitude back in 1600, so would see fewer aurorae.
3) many aurorae were seen because the Sun was quite active.
Here is a map with the North Magnetic Pole location back to 1600;
http://www.megakastro.gr/weather_agro/solar_modulation_files/image007.jpg
this one is from 1831 to 2001;
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/54556main_nmppath2001_med.gif
and this one is 1900, through current and projected:
http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/poles/figs/pole_ns.gif
Here is NOAA’s North Magnetic Pole from 1600 to Present:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/poles/NP.xy
According to NOAA, and in reasonable agreement with the other sources above,
in 2010 the North Magnetic Pole was at latitude 84.742N and 129.077W, whereas in 1600 it was at 74.833N and 111.690W.
Leif, why the difference in the locations that you’ve cited versus those in the sources above?
Hi Anthony
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.
The strongest argument in my opinion is that the tides are calculated in a similar manner, so if true and the data fit backwards and forwards in time one should take it seriously. I have often argued that the planet orbits are like a giant clock against which there will be a coincidence of any periodic manifestation, in a similar way that we use 24 hour clocks for defining time changes . I keep an open mind as far as causality, though there should not be much doubt about sun and moon effects, as they are strong enough .
Yes, time will tell, as with all climate related models/predictions.
First I would like to thank Anthony for the post about my article and all readers who have found my paper intersting.
Just a few thoughts about some of the numerous comments.
I see that some persons insist with the thesis that a finding would be scientific only if everything is already fully understood and clear. However, I need to say that in scientific research one does not start with a full and complete knowledge about an issue. The full and complete knowledge of an issue is the conclusive step of a scientific research not its beginning. In scientific research people start with the data and try to understand what the data tell us. Then they try to model the phenomenon and/or propose possible mechanisms. This is what makes a theory. A specific proposed theory may then be further supported or rejected by additional research on the topic. This is the way in which science, in every field, progresses. So, there is nothing wrong if a single paper on an ongoing research does not explain in detail every possible issue related to the studied phenomenon, in particular if, as it is in this case, the phenomenon under study is extremely complex. And there is nothing wrong is such a kind of paper may contain some conjectures which may also be found wrong in the future.
About the comments from Leif Svalgaard, I need again to invite him to read my paper before criticize it and to do that with a little bit of open mind (of course he does not need to open it too much because we do not want that his brain get lost somewhere).
About the tides Svalgaard does not really appear to understand the issue. Time ago he was claiming that nobody in the past, before Newton, knew that the tides were induced by the moon. I needed to prove to him that in the past, on the contrary, everybody knew that the tides were induced by the moon even if the people did not know about Newtonian mechanics.
Now he insists that I do not understand Kelvin’s argument about the tides because in his opinion I ignore Doodson’s work, which by the way I have referenced in my paper together with the work of Kelvin.
Svalgaard does not understand the fact that it is not possible accurately calculate and predict the tides using the fundamental law of physics because of the enormous physical complexity of the problem, which is not limited to only know the existence of the gravity but also requires a detailed knowledge of a lot of other things including thermodynamics, fluido-dynamics and the fundamental local resonances. To overcome this ignorance issues Kelvin proposed a harmonic model based on astronomical cycles without putting any physics in it, but using astronomical geometry. Doodson simply expanded the argument of Kelvin.
That the method of Kelvin does not require any modern quantitative physics but only a qualitative argumentation based on empirical astronomy is proven not only in the same works of Kelvin on the topic but also by the fact that an equivalent methodology was adopted since ancient times to predict the tides. One medieval work that addresses the issue and explains quantitatively how the tides could be predicted based on astronomical cycles is the De temporum ratione (The Reckoning of Time) by the Northumbrian monk Bede in AD 725: quasi 1000 years before Newton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_temporum_ratione
Perhaps Svalgaard has a very restricted understanding of what constitute science which does not appear to me to coincide with what scientists involved in research normally think.
Just The Facts says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:20 pm
why the difference in the locations that you’ve cited versus those in the sources above?
Because the concept of the ‘magnetic pole’ is a bit complicated. If you are walking on the ground with a compass or a device measuring the dip of the needle you might find a point where the horizontal force is zero and the magnetic field is vertical, so that is one definition of the ‘magnetic pole’ [and the one your sources show. But that is not the pole the particles that create the aurorae see. That is called the ‘corrected geomagnetic pole’. And those were the numbers I quoted. For recent years it can be computed here: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/cgm_vitmo.html The reason for the difference is that the small-scale magnetic sources that control the field on the ground disappear or weaken with height, so that out in the magnetosphere the field is simpler and different. For times before 1900 a different model and method is needed, but I have such back to 1590. In general you can trust what I say as being relevant and factual.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
November 10, 2011 at 7:19 pm
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 ?
———————————-
That does not make your point plausible.
The earths influence has a cycle of exactly 1 year. It is then not detectable as it is completely mixed with seasons and eccentricity of the orbit.
The most important planetary long term cycle then comes from Jupiter.
The influence doesn’t have to be exactly 60 years, as, for example, cosmic rays and sun output are not as reliable as planetary orbits.
The effect could even be amplified by an oscillation through exitement every 60 years for billions of years, either an oscillation within the sun or in our climate system or even around an eigenmode.
This may all not be true, but your just saying it is impossible is more astrology than science.
Richard Holle says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:15 pm
I have been able to forecast daily weather almost as good as the 3 to 5 day out NWS forecast for periods out to ten years at a time.
Daily weather where? In Timbuktu? Is weather the same all over the globe?
A deeper understanding of the earths spheres and the electro-magnetic throughput of both energy and matter are much needed, Obviously, the best studies ocurr when the sensors are within the medium and this is difficult for measuring the upper troposhere, the mesosphere, the stratosphere and all layers within the ionoshhere. As we see molecular matter going through breakup phases straight to their atomic form, what is exactly happening? More importantly what happens during periods of increased magnetic influences (CME’s and all their proton, electron, X-ray flows etc..) and the angles that they arrive and the status at the event times (low to absent D layer, day or night, sporadic E layer properties etc…)?
We know very little about the transport of mater and energy entering and leaving the six spheres surrounding our planet. The mechanisims and structures are being studied in a number of ways, but the mediums we’re looking at are a tough one to measure. We’ve had a huge number of satellites with their sensors monitoring the topside and the magnetotail to the cusps, but the data collected is minimal and we certainly have a long way to go…
Cheers!
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:51 pm
About the tides Svalgaard does not really appear to understand the issue. Time ago he was claiming that nobody in the past, before Newton, knew that the tides were induced by the moon. I needed to prove to him that in the past, on the contrary, everybody knew that the tides were induced by the moon even if the people did not know about Newtonian mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei :
Galileo, Kepler and theories of tides
[24] Galileo considered his theory of the tides to provide the required physical proof of the motion of the earth. This theory was so important to Galileo that he originally intended to entitle his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems the Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea.[25] The reference to tides was removed by order of the Inquisition.
For Galileo, the tides were caused by the sloshing back and forth of water in the seas as a point on the Earth’s surface speeded up and slowed down because of the Earth’s rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun. Galileo circulated his first account of the tides in 1616, addressed to Cardinal Orsini.[26] His theory gave the first insight into the importance of the shapes of ocean basins in the size and timing of tides; he correctly accounted, for instance, for the negligible tides halfway along the Adriatic Sea compared to those at the ends. As a general account of the cause of tides, however, his theory was a failure.
[28] Galileo dismissed as a “useless fiction” the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
“In the 9th century, the Arabian earth-scientist, Al-Kindi (Alkindus), wrote a treatise entitled Risala fi l-Illa al-Failali l-Madd wa l-Fazr (Treatise on the Efficient Cause of the Flow and Ebb), in which he presents an argument on tides which “depends on the changes which take place in bodies owing to the rise and fall of temperature. “[citation needed] He describes a precise laboratory experiment that proved his argument.[36]”
To overcome this ignorance issues Kelvin proposed a harmonic model based on astronomical cycles without putting any physics in it
As I said, curve fitting, but with a sound physical basis.
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.
The remaining 30-40% of the warming has been manufactured by cooking the books…
I personally look forward to reading more about the electric properties of the ionosphere… fingers crossed that WUWT doesn’t shut down this line of investigation.
Leif Svalgaard says: November 10, 2011 at 9:53 pm
That is called the ‘corrected geomagnetic pole’. And those were the numbers I quoted. For recent years it can be computed here: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/cgm_vitmo.html The reason for the difference is that the small-scale magnetic sources that control the field on the ground disappear or weaken with height, so that out in the magnetosphere the field is simpler and different. For times before 1900 a different model and method is needed, but I have such back to 1590.
Interesting.
“The provided code calculates the Corrected GeoMagnetic (CGM) coordinates and several other main geomagnetic field parameters for specified points at the Earth’s surface (geocentric coordinates) or in near-Earth space (and vice versa).”
“By definition, the CGM coordinates (latitude, longitude) of a point in space are computed by tracing the DGRF/IGRF magnetic field line through the specified point to the dipole geomagnetic equator, then returning to the same altitude along the dipole field line and assigning the obtained dipole latitude and longitude as the CGM coordinates to the starting point. At the near-equatorial region, where the magnetic field lines may not reach the dipole equator and where, therefore, the standard definition of CGM cooordinates is irrelevant, a new approach based on a Bmin value along the given magnetic field line is developed and applied. This approach is discussed in detail by Gustafsson et al. [1992].
Because the “local” CGM meridian is non-orthogonal to the “local” CGM latitude, we approximate the “local” direction of this meridian.by the great-circle arc, connecting the given point (station) and the corresponding (North or South) CGM pole. Therefore, an azimuth of this arc with respect to the local geographic meridian (which is also the great-circle arc, connecting the station and the corresponding geographic pole) is our “meridian” angle: positive to East from the North geographic meridian and positive to West from the South geographic meridian.
According to the definition of geomagnetic coordinates under the dipole approximation, the magnetic local time (MLT) is measured by the flare angle formed by two planes: the dipole meridional plane, which contains a subsolar point on the Earth’s (or any altitude) surface, and the dipole meridional plane which contains a given point on the surface (that is, the local dipole meridian). This definition cannot be applied to the CGM coordinate system because the latter is non-orthogonal and the CGM meridians do not cross the magnetic equator elsewhere [cf. Gustafsson et al., 1992]. Therefore, the dipole-based approximation is invalid in defining MLT for the CGM coordinate system.
Here we propose to utilize another approach in defining MLT for the CGM coordinate system. Let us assume that the station is located at local midnight, i.e., at some UT instance the local geographic meridian is at 00 LT and the station is “behind” the geographic pole with respect to the Sun. If the Earth rotates through an angle (measured in UT hours and minutes) so that the station’s local CGM meridian (approximated by the great-circle arc) is moved to 00 MLT, then the station is “behind” the CGM pole with respect to the Sun. This UT instance (in hours and minutes) would be “a local MLT midnight in UT” which is computed in our algorithm.”
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/cgmm_des.html
In general you can trust what I say as being relevant and factual.
I know, but it is important that we challenge each other. It is how many errors are identified, flaws are exposed and lessons are learned.
jimmi_the_dalek says: November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Without a physical mechanism, this is astrology not science.
Mmmmmmmmmmm… just like Gravity 🙂