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.
Dear Leif
your own picture at
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html
clearly shows that the aurora oval is strongly skewed toward north America and New England.
100 years ago it was even more skewed because the north magnetic pole was even closer to central Canada.
Dear Leif
your own picture at
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html
clearly shows that the aurora oval is strongly skewed toward north America and New England.
In fact, all north United States are covered by the aurora oval, while most mid-latitude Europe and Asia regions (from Germany to Italy up to Japan) are not.
100 years ago the aurora oval was even more skewed toward New England and North United States because the north magnetic pole was even closer to central Canada by 10 degree.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 11:06 am
As I said the next 30 year predicts a low solar activity, low magnetic field shielding that yields more low latitude auroras.
So you are saying that more low [perhaps you mean mid-] latitude aurorae occur at low solar activity. This places you on the fringe. All data up to now associates high mid-latitude aurorae frequency with high solar activity [Figure 3 of Silverman shows the very low frequency during the Maunder, Dalton, and 1910 solar activity periods]. I think you have now disqualified your theory permanently and ruined your reputation forever.
You do not have to think only at he sun, but at the dynamics of the magnetosphere.
Which brings me back to my question:
How is ‘strength’ measured or defined? and why ‘should aurorae be pushed towards the poles”?
Which you have evaded, but now must answer.
Moreover, the location of the North Magnetic pole is here
http://academic.greensboroday.org/~regesterj/potl/E&M/Magnetism/popup.north.pole1.gif
You did not take the trouble to study http://www.leif.org/EOS/96EO00237_rga.pdf
“Geomagnetic coordinates are applied universally to organize many types of geophysical data, particularly those for solar-terrestrial and magnetospheric scientists.”
“For the many scientists not working in geomagnetism and for ordinary citizens, the present magnetic pole marking only leads to a confusion as to what is being located at the given positions. The major global cartographers need to become aware of the modern science of geomagnetism and either improve the accuracy of their maps or remove their dubious “Magnetic Pole” locations altogether.”
The ‘magnetic pole’ you show is not the location that organizes the magnetosphere. I could give you many references for this, but since you don’t even read the ones I have given, I think you won’t take the trouble to educate yourself. It is universally recognized that auroral frequency follow lines of corrected geomagnetic latitude [google ‘aurora corrected latitude’ to see more than a million references]
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 11:32 am
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html
clearly shows that the aurora oval is strongly skewed toward north America and New England.
http://www.leif.org/research/Auroral-Oval.png
Dear Leif
your own picture at
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html
clearly shows that the aurora oval is strongly skewed toward north America and New England.
In fact, all north United States are covered by the aurora oval, while most mid-latitude Europe and Asia regions (from Germany to Italy up to Japan) are not.
Moreover, if you look carefully the region around England up to the Faroes, region is colored with a dark blue, while the American New England region is colored almost in white. This means that region around England up to the Faroes behaves more like the Mid-latite aurora fron Europe and Asia.
Finally, note that 100 years ago the aurora oval was even more skewed toward New England and North United States because the north magnetic pole was even closer to central Canada by 10 degree and the patterns were likely clearer in my favor.
Sorry, Leif, but your own pictures prove you wrong again and again.
Are you convinced now?
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 1:54 pm
your own picture at
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html
clearly shows that the aurora oval is strongly skewed toward north America and New England.
No, http://www.leif.org/research/Auroral-Oval.png
Finally, note that 100 years ago the aurora oval was even more skewed toward New England and North United States because the north magnetic pole was even closer to central Canada by 10 degree and the patterns were likely clearer in my favor.
Again no: http://www.leif.org/research/Mag-Poles-1900-1990.png
And you did not read the references [again].
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 11:06 am
As I said the next 30 year predicts a low solar activity, low magnetic field shielding that yields more low latitude auroras.
Conflicts with your Figure 2B:
http://www.leif.org/research/High-Low-Switch.png
But I can see how you got misled by your own trick [the blue Faroes data]
Leif,
1) you are thinking only in terms of sunspot number and are making a great confusion. Solar activity is not just sunspot number as you think as I also explained above.
2) the mid-latitude region in Europe ans Asia (the arc from Germany to Italy to Japan) is out your aurora oval as I said.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Leif,
1) you are thinking only in terms of sunspot number and are making a great confusion. Solar activity is not just sunspot number as you think as I also explained above.
It is also flares, CMEs, magnetic field, TSI, mid-latitude aurorae, etc, all of which follow the sunspot number. But regardless of that, your own plot http://www.leif.org/research/High-Low-Switch.png shows how the red curve follow the sunspot number and the number of aurora between 1700 and 1900, but that relationship breaks down thereafter. Is this what you are trying to say? That although before 1900 you would claim that there was some correlation, that is no longer the case.
2) the mid-latitude region in Europe ans Asia (the arc from Germany to Italy to Japan) is out your aurora oval as I said.
Does not make sense, Italy is way to far south. There are VERY few aurorae reported from Italy. The vast majority comes from Germany, England, and France. And all of these are outside of the oval [including the US], anyway. The blue area is not auroral emission, but just quiet background.
http://www.leif.org/research/Mag-Poles-1900-1990.png
No, http://www.leif.org/research/Auroral-Oval.png
Leif,
Take a rest! Physics is complex.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Take a rest! Physics is complex.
There is no physics in your ruminations. It may be hard for you to wiggle out of the pickle you are in.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 3:10 pm
2) the mid-latitude region in Europe ans Asia (the arc from Germany to Italy to Japan) is out your aurora oval as I said.
Italy and Japan are on the same isochasm [line of equal auroral frequency] as Florida and Cuba, so are not mid-latitude in the auroral sense. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/JZ065i007p01967.pdf
Vestine has constructed isochasm maps that show this very clearly, also how the aurorae matches geomagnetic disturbances: http://www.leif.org/EOS/TE049i002p00077.pdf
Of course this is just common and accepted knowledge of the kind you’ll find in old, dusty textbooks. As you never bother to educate yourself by actually reading references, I offer you here a single Figure with the Isochasms drawn by Fritz: http://www.leif.org/research/Fritz-Isochasms.png
Note Italy having a frequency 10-50 times less than Germany and New England. The counts from Italy and Japan make no dent in the total.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 3:10 pm
2) the mid-latitude region in Europe ans Asia (the arc from Germany to Italy to Japan) is out your aurora oval as I said.
Italy and Japan are on the same isochasm [line of equal auroral frequency] as Florida and Cuba, so are not mid-latitude in the auroral sense. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/JZ065i007p01967.pdf
Vestine has constructed isochasm maps that show this very clearly, also how the aurorae matches geomagnetic disturbances: http://www.leif.org/EOS/TE049i002p00077.pdf
Of course this is just common and accepted knowledge of the kind you’ll find in old, dusty textbooks. As you never bother to educate yourself by actually reading references, I offer you here a single Figure with the Isochasms drawn by Fritz: http://www.leif.org/research/Fritz-Isochasms.png
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Finally, note that 100 years ago the aurora oval was even more skewed toward New England and North United States because the north magnetic pole was even closer to central Canada by 10 degree
Note that Vestine [and Fritz] knew that the Magnetic North Pole [green] is not the same as the Geomagnetic North Pole [red], the latter determining where the aurorae go: http://www.leif.org/research/Fritz-Isochasms.png
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:49 am
A more extended comment is here
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/response-from-nicala-scafetta-on-his-new-paper-on-astronomical-oscillations-and-climate-oscillations/
Thanks Nicola, one paragraph in particular gives more insight into why you chose the Faroe data set.
“Where the 60-year cycle in the Faroes is negative correlated to the 60 year cycle in the temperature while the 60-year cycle in Iceland is positive correlated to the 60 year cycle in the temperature from 1880 to 1940. The same complementary dynamics exists between the mid-latitude European/Asian auroras (which are explicitly studied in my paper) and the American New England auroras (which occupy a northern region relative to the magnetic north pole despite their geographical latitude) for the 1800-1900 period.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 23, 2011 at 3:36 pm
The blue area is not auroral emission, but just quiet background.
Would the blue area become active during times of higher solar activity or weaker magnetosphere that might influence mid latitude aurora?
Geoff Sharp says:
November 23, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Thanks Nicola, one paragraph in particular gives more insight into why you chose the Faroe data set.
And at the same time explains his grave mistake, stemming from his not knowing that the Magnetic North Pole is not the Geomagnetic North Pole which controls where the aurorae are. Even Fritz and Vestine knew this, and now you and Nicola should know it too.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 23, 2011 at 3:36 pm
“The blue area is not auroral emission, but just quiet background.”
Would the blue area become active during times of higher solar activity or weaker magnetosphere that might influence mid latitude aurora?
At higher solar activity the oval expands in all directions and the emission moves south to cover the blue background. The ‘weaker’ magnetosphere is nonsense. I have asked Nicola to explain what he means by that, but he evades/refuses/has no clue/whatever to provide an answer. Perhaps you could provide one?
Leif,
Take a rest! please.
If my results are wrong, the future will tell. Do not worry, OK?
Happy Thanksgiving.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Take a rest! please.
If my results are wrong, the future will tell.
We don’t need to wait for the future. You are wrong already now, actually from 16 October, 2011.
Ok, Leif. That is your opinion.
Now take a rest and Happy Thanksgiving.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Ok, Leif. That is your opinion.
Which I have documented extensively and shown to be based on sound physics, valid data, and modern theoretical understanding, while enduring various slings and arrows. One may have a forlorn hope that this has been educational for you and potentially helpful for your further research.
Ok, Leif. Thank you for your comments.
But I remain with my ideas that the things are more complex and interesting than what you believe.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:58 pm
But I remain with my ideas that the things are more complex and interesting than what you believe.
Progress in science happens when complexity is conquered and the essentials extracted and expressed in simple ways. The complexity in auroral, magnetospheric, and solar physics is vast, but we have managed to unravel the simpler physics underlying it all. Speculation is always interesting, but when it leaves the terra firma of valid analysis and solid science it can become counter-productive.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 23, 2011 at 5:29 pm
And at the same time explains his grave mistake, stemming from his not knowing that the Magnetic North Pole is not the Geomagnetic North Pole which controls where the aurorae are. Even Fritz and Vestine knew this, and now you and Nicola should know it too.
Nicola has outlined why the New England data should not be associated with the European data which I now see I did incorrectly. Your referenced links also support his reasoning that show the two areas are subject to different strengths of the auroral oval. It would be beneficial if auroral data from Europe at a latitude less than 55 deg was available after 1900 to ensure a reliable record. In the absence of such data Nicola has substituted the Faroe data from 62 deg because remarkably it has the same frequency signal compared to the European data prior to 1900. This may not be ideal but it explains the process. I note in Shroders paper that has a limited data range from 1946 to 1964 from Germany that the auroral data does not follow the sunspot record as you may expect. Cycle max of SC18 displays a max reading per year of 41 while the highest sunspot cycle in our history SC19 only recorded 29 aurorae. There is sufficient data including the 23% of aurorae that occur at a Kp value of 4 or less that demonstrate mid latitude aurorae of Europe are not solely dependent on solar output.
At higher solar activity the oval expands in all directions and the emission moves south to cover the blue background. The ‘weaker’ magnetosphere is nonsense. I have asked Nicola to explain what he means by that, but he evades/refuses/has no clue/whatever to provide an answer. Perhaps you could provide one?
So your referenced diagrams support Nicola’s logic.
Nicola does not provide a mechanism for a weaker/stronger magnetosphere, but my understanding is the interaction from planetary bodies on our magnetosphere is one proposal.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 23, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Nicola has outlined why the New England data should not be associated with the European data which I now see I did incorrectly. Your referenced links also support his reasoning that show the two areas are subject to different strengths of the auroral oval.
On the contrary, the two areas have the same distance from the Corrected Geomagnetic Pole: http://www.leif.org/research/Mag-Poles-1900-1990.png
and the same dependency on magnetospheric conditions (measured by the Kp needed for an overhead aurorae, the area between the yellow and red lines):
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/globeNE.html
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/globeNW.html
It would be beneficial if auroral data from Europe at a latitude less than 55 deg was available after 1900 to ensure a reliable record.
The Danish record is good for this. There is nothing magical about the latitude of 55N [and part of Denmark is south of 55N).
In the absence of such data Nicola has substituted the Faroe data from 62 deg because remarkably it has the same frequency signal compared to the European data prior to 1900.
That is just cherry picking of bad data. The Faroe Islands are halfway between Iceland and Denmark and must show data that is at least between those two areas [e.g. that activity was low from 1900 to 1920, but does not, so is no good: http://www.leif.org/research/Faroe-Aurorae-in-Context.png
Cycle max of SC18 displays a max reading per year of 41 while the highest sunspot cycle in our history SC19 only recorded 29 aurorae
There were 65 aurorae in SC18 and 90 in SC19. Breaking it down by single year does not enough statistical significance.
There is sufficient data including the 23% of aurorae that occur at a Kp value of 4 or less that demonstrate mid latitude aurorae of Europe are not solely dependent on solar output.
An aurora is a measure of magnetospheric output which is powered by the Sun. The distribution of Kp-values for Schroeder’s data http://www.leif.org/research/Kp-Distribution-Schroeder.png shows [each color a different column plus their sum] a broad plateau from Kp=5 to Kp=9 with a median of Kp=7 consistent with http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/globeNE.html
The spread is just ordinary counting statistics. As a strong aurora extends ~500 km in height it will be visible more than 2000 km away [or ~20 degrees]. Even if we allow that it will only be noticed if at some altitude in the sky, 1000 km distance is reasonable, so a strong aurora in Norway may still be visible from Germany.
“At higher solar activity the oval expands in all directions and the emission moves south to cover the blue background. The ‘weaker’ magnetosphere is nonsense. I have asked Nicola to explain what he means by that, but he evades/refuses/has no clue/whatever to provide an answer. ”
So your referenced diagrams support Nicola’s logic.
No, as it expands in all directions and if the oval expands to New England it also expands to Germany and vice versa, so you will not get opposite occurrences.
Nicola does not provide a mechanism for a weaker/stronger magnetosphere, but my understanding is the interaction from planetary bodies on our magnetosphere is one proposal.
The notion of weaker/stronger magnetosphere is nonsense. Not even the Sun changes the ‘strength’ of the magnetosphere under any reasonable definition of ‘strength’. Nicola refuses to explain what he means with ‘strength’ so this notion is void until he does. The planetary influence on our magnetosphere would do what? The particles in the magnetosphere where the aurorae come from are transient and comes and goes on a time scale of hours. His discussion involving cosmic rays regulating the ionosphere is incoherent and wrong. The ionosphere is created and maintained by ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. Particles accelerated in the magnetotail can precipitate into the ionosphere and heat it, but that is all.
There were 65 aurorae in SC18 and 90 in SC19. Breaking it down by single year does not enough statistical significance.
Miscounted. There were 79 in SC18 and 92 in SC19. The +/-counting error on random events is about the square root of the number of counts.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 23, 2011 at 9:21 pm
On the contrary, the two areas have the same distance from the Corrected Geomagnetic Pole
This is a critical point. It is not about distance but about what band of the auroral oval each area belongs too. Is there anything wrong with the purple and blue dots I have placed on your referenced auroral oval isochasms.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/aurora_oval.png
Geoff Sharp says:
November 23, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Is there anything wrong with the purple and blue dots I have placed on your referenced auroral oval isochasms.
The blue dot is at a bit too high latitude. Most data came from Boston, not from Maine. And in any case the difference is so small that to talk about a reversal of behavior is nonsense and grasping for straws. A strong aurora is visible over an area several hundred kilometers across anyway so make your dots much larger. To have opposite behavior the locations must be of the order of a thousand km or more apart, because if not, south of the oval you would see an aurora in the north, but north of the oval [which itself is some hundreds km wide], you would see that same aurora to the south [thus the count will be the same]. So, there is no way one justify that the bahavior would be with different phases. Now, Nicola doesn’t know this [or pretends he doesn’t] as he measures from the wrong pole. But you know better now, right?