Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes about a new paper from Nicola Scafetta.:
A new paper has just appeared
Nicola Scafetta 2011: A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics In Press doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013
This paper is certainly going to enlarge the debate on the role of natural climate variability and long term change.
The abstract reads [highlight added]
Herein we show that the historical records of mid-latitude auroras from 1700 to 1966 present oscillations with periods of about 9, 10–11, 20–21, 30 and 60 years. The same frequencies are found in proxy and instrumental global surface temperature records since 1650 and 1850, respectively, and in several planetary and solar records. We argue that the aurora records reveal a physical link between climate change and astronomical oscillations. Likely in addition to a Soli-Lunar tidal effect, there exists a planetary modulation of the heliosphere, of the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth and/or of the electric properties of the ionosphere. The latter, in turn, has the potentiality of modulating the global cloud cover that ultimately drives the climate oscillations through albedo oscillations. In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied, which also include a historical record of meteorite fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. We show that a harmonic constituent model based on the major astronomical frequencies revealed in the aurora records and deduced from the natural gravitational oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a reasonable accuracy the decadal and multidecadal temperature oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data before 1950, and vice versa. The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60–70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced. Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.
The highlights listed in the announcement of the paper read
► The paper highlights that global climate and aurora records present a common set of frequencies. ► These frequencies can be used to reconstruct climate oscillations within the time scale of 9–100 years. ► An empirical model based on these cycles can reconstruct and forecast climate oscillations. ► Cyclical astronomical physical phenomena regulate climate change through the electrification of the upper atmosphere. ► Climate cycles have an astronomical origin and are regulated by cloud cover oscillations.
========================================================
Dr. Scafetta writes in and attaches the full paper in email to me (Anthony) this week saying:
I can forecast climate with a good proximity. See figure 11. In this new paper the physical link between astronomical oscillations and climate is further confirmed.
What the paper does is to show that the mid-latitude aurora records present the same oscillations of the climate system and of well-identified astronomical cycles. Thus, the origin of the climatic oscillations is astronomical what ever the mechanisms might be.
In the paper I argue that the record of this kind of aurora can be considered a proxy for the electric properties of the atmosphere which then influence the cloud cover and the albedo and, consequently, causes similar cycles in the surface temperature.
Note that aurora may form at middle latitude or if the magnetosphere is weak, so it is not able to efficiently deviate the solar wind, or if the solar explosions (solar flare etc) are particularly energetic, so they break in by force.
During the solar cycle maxima the magnetosphere gets stronger so the aurora should be pushed toward the poles. However, during the solar maxima a lot of solar flares and highly energetic solar explosions occurs. As a consequence you see an increased number of mid-latitude auroras despite the fact that the magnetosphere is stronger and should push them toward the poles.
On the contrary, when the magnetosphere gets weaker on a multidecadal scale, the mid-latitude aurora forms more likely, and you may see some mid-latitude auroras even during the solar minima as Figure 2 shows.
In the paper I argue that what changes the climate is not the auroras per se but the strength of the magnetosphere that regulates the cosmic ray incoming flux which regulate the clouds.
The strength of the magnetosphere is regulated by the sun (whose activity changes in synchrony with the planets), but perhaps the strength of the Earth’s magnetosphere is also regulated directly by the gravitational/magnetic forces of Jupiter and Saturn and the other planets whose gravitational/magnetic tides may stretch or compress the Earth’s magnetosphere in some way making it easier or more difficult for the Earth’s magnetosphere to deviate the cosmic ray.
So, when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the Sun, they may do the following things: 1) may make the sun more active; 2) the more active sun makes the magnetosphere stronger; 3) Jupiter and Saturn contribute with their magnetic fiend to make stronger the magnetic field of the inner part of the solar system; 4) the Earth’ magnetosphere is made stronger and larger by both the increased solar activity and the gravitational and magnetic stretching of it caused by the Jupiter and Saturn. Consequently less cosmic ray arrive on the Earth and less cloud form and there is an heating of the climate.
However, explaining in details the above mechanisms is not the topic of the paper which is limited to prove that such kind of mechanisms exist because revealed by the auroras’s behavior.
The good news is that even if we do not know the physical nature of these mechanisms, climate may be in part forecast in the same way as the tides are currently forecast by using geometrical astronomical considerations as I show in Figure 11.
The above point is very important. When trying to predict the tides people were arguing that there was the need to solve the Newtonian Equation of the tides and the other physical equations of fluid-dynamics etc. Of course, nobody was able to do that because of the enormous numerical and theoretical difficulty. Today nobody dreams to use GCMs to predict accurately the tides. To overcome the issue Lord Kelvin argued that it is useless to use the Newtonian mechanics or whatever other physical law to solve the problem. What was important was only to know that a link in some way existed, even if not understood in details. On the basis of this, Lord Kelvin proposed an harmonic constituent model for tidal prediction based on astronomical cycles. And Kelvin method is currently the only method that works for predicting the tides. Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide-predicting_machine
Figure 11 is important because it shows for the first time that climate can be forecast based on astronomical harmonics with a good accuracy. I use a methodology similar to Kelvin’s one and calibrate the model from 1850 to 1950 and I show that the model predicts the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2010, and I show also that the vice-versa is possible.
Of course the proposed harmonic model may be greatly improved with additional harmonics. In comparison the ocean tides are predicted with 35-40 harmonics.
But this does not change the results of the paper that is: 1) a clearer evidence that a physical link between the oscillations of the solar system and the climate exists, as revealed by the auroras’ behavior; 2) this finding justifies the harmonic modeling and forecast of the climate based on astronomical cycles associated to the Sun, the Moon and the Planets.
So, it is also important to understand Kelvin’s argument to fully understand my paper.
…
This work is the natural continuation of my previous work on the topic.
Nicola Scafetta. Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate
oscillations and its implications. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Volume 72, Issue 13, August 2010, Pages 951-970
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610001495
Abstract
We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate
oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature
records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets
present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5
and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large
climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 and 0.25°C,
and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the
orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are
also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to
the Moon’s orbital cycles. A phenomenological model based on these
astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature
oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century.
It is found that at least 60% of the global warming observed since 1970 has
been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate
oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or
cool until 2030–2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively
discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization
of coupled oscillators.
=======================================================
The claims here are pretty bold, and I’ll be frank and say I can’t tell the difference between this and some of the cycl0-mania calculation papers that have been sent to me over the last few years. OTOH, Basil Copeland and I looked at some of the effects of luni-solar on global temperature previously here at WUWT.
While the hindcast seems impressive, a real test would be a series of repeated and proven short-term future forecasts. Time will tell.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 23, 2011 at 10:30 pm
But you know better now, right?
What I know is you are trying to deceive. It is plainly obvious that New England is in a totally different band to Germany/Europe <55 and would be subject to a very different auroral record. Why have you persisted with distance when you know the zonal position is of importance?
Nicola had good reason not to use the New England data with the European data. You have still made no headway on the 4 points.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 23, 2011 at 11:19 pm
What I know is you are trying to deceive.
I’m trying to explain and educate.
It is plainly obvious that New England is in a totally different band to Germany/Europe <55 and would be subject to a very different auroral record. Why have you persisted with distance when you know the zonal position is of importance?
The zonal position is a function of the distance. Here is another view of the positions:
http://www.leif.org/research/Auroral-Oval2.png
Nicola had good reason not to use the New England data with the European data.
Nicola has not been quite honest with you. He claims to use the Krivsky and Pejml [1988] data and that that data comes from central Europe. This is, however not the case. You can get the data here ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.dat.rev and from the description of the sources here ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.txt.rev you can see that Nicola thoroughly mixes Central Europe and North America, because Krivsky and Pejml did. There is no separation of the data into regions. They are all lumped together.
You have still made no headway on the 4 points.
Great strides, I would say.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 23, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Nicola had good reason not to use the New England data with the European data.
Nicola has not been quite honest with you. He claims to use the Krivsky and Pejml [1988] data and that that data comes from central Europe. This is, however not the case. Of the 5381 aurorae in the K&P catalog he used since 1700, more than half, 2372, was from North America. That sinks the his and yours arguments.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 24, 2011 at 12:01 am
I’m trying to explain and educate.
The zonal position is a function of the distance. Here is another view of the positions:
http://www.leif.org/research/Auroral-Oval2.png
You are kidding me right?
What sort of amateur attempt is that diagram. You have been found out wanting. Zonal position is a condition of the auroral oval shape and position from the auroral central position. You have sunk to new lows.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 24, 2011 at 12:17 am
Nicola has not been quite honest with you. He claims to use the Krivsky and Pejml [1988] data and that that data comes from central Europe. This is, however not the case. Of the 5381 aurorae in the K&P catalog he used since 1700, more than half, 2372, was from North America. That sinks the his and yours arguments.
Sinking to further lows here. You had better read the explanation text again. The American data is used as a backup reference. When the American backup data is used (as backup for verification) with the Europe data of the same day, the American reference is used.The Euro data is still the catalyst.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 24, 2011 at 1:04 am
You are kidding me right?
What sort of amateur attempt is that diagram. You have been found out wanting. Zonal position is a condition of the auroral oval shape and position from the auroral central position. You have sunk to new lows.
Well it is from http://odin.gi.alaska.edu/FAQ/#altitude from the amateurs at the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. I thought I would let them explain to you what it looks like.
Sinking to further lows here. You had better read the explanation text again. The American data is used as a backup reference. When the American backup data is used (as backup for verification) with the Europe data of the same day, the American reference is used.The Euro data is still the catalyst.
Where is that text?
The reference Nicola gives http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/aeronomy/aurorae.html
has this link ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.txt.rev to the explanatory text, where it says: ” A supplemental list of data found in “Supplement of the Catalogue of Polar Aurorae less than 55N in the Period 1000-1900″ and text were added to the original list.”.
“This supplement presented contains corrections and new data about occurrences of north polar aurorae (<55 degrees). New data are based predominantly on the two Catalogues, i.e. of Loomis (LOO) and of Schroder (SC2). In the Catalogue LOO are collected the aurorae which were observed in North America. New data sources with their abbreviations are referenced.”
The data list is here:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.dat.rev
and contains the total merged lists of 5381 entries of which 2372 are from North America.
Scafetta’s Figure 2B shows for 1850 about 136 aurorae. The list has indeed 136 entries and 87 of those are LOO, i.e. from North America.
Well, who has sunk to new lows here?
Time to wash your mouth out with strong soap, isn’t?
Geoff Sharp says:
November 24, 2011 at 1:04 am
Sinking to further lows here. You had better read the explanation text again.
Your text does not make sense. Did you just make it up? Following your procedure an aurora only seen in North America [perhaps it was cloudy in Europe] would not be counted. But it doesn’t matter as the ‘text’ is out of thin air.
However, it is worse than we thought:
I have plotted the data separately and compared with Scafetta’s plot:
http://www.leif.org/research/Krivsky-Pejml-Aurorae.png
You can see that Scafetta commits a deadly sin: adding the two records from North America [blue] and Europe+Asia [pink] over the whole of the interval 1700-1900. This is only allowed if both regions had data throughout, but the North America record only begins ~1776. The correct analysis would have to average the two series [gray stippled curve] and not adding them. Another example of invalid analysis.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 24, 2011 at 1:27 am
Geoff Sharp says:
Sinking to further lows here. You had better read the explanation text again. The American data is used as a backup reference. When the American backup data is used (as backup for verification) with the Europe data of the same day, the American reference is used.The Euro data is still the catalyst.
—————————-
Where is that text?
Your performance here is embarrassing. The peer reviewers of Nicola’s paper are obviously in a different league to yourself. You have failed to be convincing on any single point.
I think you owe Nicola an apology…… if you are man enough?
“The authors adopted the occurrences of aurorae on the basis of the following
criteria: possible recurrence after roughly 27 days, roughly since 1792 (and
partly also before) auroral data were adopted provided there was guarantee
that they were simultaneously observed in a larger geographical region. i.e.
provided they were recorded at a number of stations in Region I or II (i.e.
Europe), or in Region I or II and at the same time in Region IV (i.e.
America). Fritz’s [2] division into regions is as follows: I – south of 46,
II – between 46 and 55 , III – from 55 to the polar circle, IV – America
south of 60 , V – high latitudes. If the source of an auroral observation
given by H. Fritz [2] was also given by another author, the latter has been
mentioned.“
Geoff Sharp says:
November 24, 2011 at 4:11 am
If the source of an auroral observation given by H. Fritz [2] was also given by another author, the latter has been mentioned.
This is quite different from what you said as the American data just being a backup [the backup idea just made up out of thin air]. And from the “Euro data still the catalyst”. The original list had 3878 entries. If the new data [2372 North America] were just changing a Fritz entry to an American entry, then the number of entries would not have changed. Yet the combined list has 5376 entries. Take the year 1850 for example. It has 136 entries of which 87 were American [LOO] and 46 were Fritz [with 3 more European]. So the combined data for that year was predominantly American and not European.
For the period of the Loomis [North American] data 1776-1872, there are 4175 entries in the combined list of which 2344 were from LOO and thus American and the rest, 1831, Euro+Asia. Soooo, as I said, the list for those crucial ~100 years were predominantly American, and in total the list was a good mixture of both regions. Thus, as I said, Scafetta is not correct in claiming [or is it you who is the originator of that claim: “Nicola had good reason not to use the New England data with the European data] that his data was European, because the North American were ‘different’. And it is still not correct to add the two series for the whole interval. So, there is still the deadly sin. Nothing has changed.
You still need that soap.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 24, 2011 at 4:11 am
The peer reviewers of Nicola’s paper are obviously in a different league to yourself.
Yes, Indeed, they did not catch that elementary error Scafetta made nor his erroneous claim that the data were not American. That certainly places them rather low on the ladder, down there [as you say] in the different league. They did not do a good job and have led the public down.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 24, 2011 at 8:37 am
So the combined data for that year was predominantly American and not European.
Read the explanation text again.
“The authors adopted the occurrences of aurorae on the basis of the following
criteria: possible recurrence after roughly 27 days, roughly since 1792 (and
partly also before) auroral data were adopted provided there was guarantee
that they were simultaneously observed in a larger geographical region. i.e.
provided they were recorded at a number of stations in Region I or II (i.e.
Europe), or in Region I or II and at the same time in Region IV (i.e.
America). Fritz’s [2] division into regions is as follows: I – south of 46,
II – between 46 and 55 , III – from 55 to the polar circle, IV – America
south of 60 , V – high latitudes. If the source of an auroral observation
given by H. Fritz [2] was also given by another author, the latter has been
mentioned.“
The authors are very clear, auroral data is not used unless it is “simultaneously observed in a larger geographical region.” There are no single records from America added to the list. The records are taken from multiple regions of Europe (Region l and ll) OR Europe (Region l and ll) AND at the same time Region lV (America). America is used as a backup reference or qualifier for Europe and thus is the latter record listed in the data. (there is only one label in the table)
The supplementary data for 1996 is compiled from many sources:
SUPPLEMENTAL LIST (added 7/25/96)
Br BREZAN VACLAV:Zivoty poslednich Rozmberku (I,II). Svoboda, Praha 1985.
DC DAI N., CHEN M.: Table of aurorae observed in China, Korea and Japan
from historic time to AD 1747. Kejeshi Wenji (Papers on the History of
Science and Technology), Shanghai, 6, 1980, 87.
Ju JURENDES Mahrischer Wanderer. Ein Geschafts und … auf das Jahr 1823.
Brunn 1822, 12, p. 78.
FP FRANTISEK PRAZSKY: Kronika, in: Kroniky doby Karla IV, Svoboda, Praha
1987. (Franciscus Pragensis, 1353).
KLP KRAKOVETSKY YU.K., LOISHA V.A., POPOV L.N.: The Mauder minimum, new
evidence II. Issled. po magn. aeron. i fizike solntsa, 77, Moscow
Nauka 1987, p. 182.
KV KANOVNIK VYSEHRADSKY: Letopis Kanovnika Vysehradskeho, in: Pokracovatele
Kosmovi, Svoboda, Praha 1974. (Canonicorum Pragensium Continuatio
Cosmae, 1142).
Le LEHMANS CH. Sen.: Historisher Schauplatz derer naturlichen
Merchwurdigkeiten in dem Meissnischen Ober-Ertzgebirge …, Leipzig
1699, Cap., XIX
Lo LOISHA V.A., NADUBOVICH YU.A., POPOV L.N.: The frequency of occurrence
of auroras in the X-XVIII centuries according to data from russian
chronicles. Issled. Geomagn. Aeronom. Fiz. Sol. (Sib. IZMIR) 66, Moskva
1983, p.111.
Loo LOOMIS E.: Comparison of the mean daily range of the magnetic declination
and the number of auroras observed each year, with the extent of the
black spots on the surface of the sun. Am. Jour,. Sci. Arts, Ser. III,
Vol. V, No 28, 1873, 245.
Ma MAKO P.: Dissertationes Physicae, Tupis Regiae Universitatis Budae, 1781.
MB MAREK BYDZOVSKY (z Florentina): Chronicle Notes of Czech. Svoboda, Praha
1987.
Pa PAPROCKY BARTOLOMEJ (z Hlahol): O valce turecke a jine pribehy. Odeon,
Praha 1982. (Diadochos id est successio, ginak poslaupnost Knijzat a
Kraluvo Czeskych …, Bartholomege Paprockeho z Glagol a z Paprocke
wule, 1602).
Sc1 SCHRODER W.: Auroral frequency in the 17th and 18th centuries and Maunder
minimum. J.Atm.Terr. Phys. 41, 1979, 445.
Sc2 SCHRODER W.: Katalog deutscher Polarlichtbeobachtungen fur die Jahr 1882-
1956. Gerl. Beitr. Geophys. 75, 1966, 436; 76, 1967, 195.
Tsh TSHISTYAKOV V.: Private comm. on the basis of the old data from Rossia-
Polnoye Sobranie Russkikh Letopisey, Akad. Nauk USSR, Moscow.
The newer data comes from multiple sources, the Loomis data used to verify the European data comes from a similar area as the Silverman New England data ie New Haven, Boston, New York and Canada. If I overlay the New England Data (green line 1800-1948) over the Krivsky Data on Nicola’s graph (black line) there is an obvious divergence after 1850.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/world_silverman.png
The authors state that the majority of the new data comes from Loomis and Schoder. Notice how there is nearly no reference to the Schoder data (SC2) in the table. This is likely because the European data is being verified by the American data with the American data being the latter record that appears in the table.
Leif,
I think that Geoff may be right
The catalog I used is quite clear, no single American auroras are added to the list. An aurora is added to the list only if it satisfies one of the following condition:
1) it is observed in Region I AND Region II
2) it is observed in Region I AND Region IV
3) it is observed in Region II AND Region IV
where the regions are as following:
I – south of 46N (Europe and Asia),
II – between 46N and 55N (Europe and Asia)
IV – America south of 60N
It is evident that the American catalog cannot be simply added to the mid-latitude aurora record from Asia and Europe because at it is evident in this figure
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/aurora_oval.png
the New England Aurora isochasm zone is far northern than the mid-latitude aurora isochasms in Europe and Asia which correspond to the South of the United Stated of America zone down to Mexico. The isochasm figure above is quite clear.
In fact, from the figure above, the New England Aurora isochasm zone is more compatible with the Arctic zone III – from 55 to the polar circle.
Moreover, as it is clear from your own figure at
http://www.leif.org/research/Krivsky-Pejml-Aurorae.png
your extracted American record from Loomis appears very similar to your extracted record from Europe+Asia. Note the common peaks in 1730, 1790 and 1850, which form three 60-year cycles.
On the contrary, the New England Aurora record peak in 1880 and 1940, exactly like the auroras from Iceland.
Moreover, you need to think that it is very unlikely that the Faroes record is seriously erroneous, as you claim. In fact, for example between 1905-1920 at Faroes were observed an average of 50 auroras per year. During the same time in Iceland were observed less than 5-10 auroras per year, while in New England were observed about 25 auroras per year.
See figures here:
New England
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/newengland.png
Faroes and Iceland
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/pages-from-92rg01571.jpg
In particular, note the period 1910-1915:
New England does not see almost any Auroras, the same in Iceland.
On the contrary, at the Faroes about 30-40 auroras per year were seen.
Do you think that at the Faroes, all people were always drunk and were recording imaginary auroras that nobody in Iceland nor in New England could see?
It is evident that a catalog way be wrong because it is missing aurora events, not because it is recording imaginary auroras!
It is evident that Faroes are an anomalous place that makes those islands more compatible with the mid-latitude auroras in Europe. Perhaps this is due to the ocean currents around Faroes that change the magnetic properties of the zone.
@ur momisugly jjthom says: I have never heard of mariners getting lost around the Faroes.
Nobody get lost, do not worry.
Back from Turkey Day.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 24, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Europe (Region l and ll) AND at the same time Region lV (America).
Apart from the time before 1776 when there were no American data, the criterion for including in the original catalog of 3878 entries was that [because of the AND] only simultaneous observations in Europe [E] and America [A] were included. So if in a months there were E aurorae on say the 1st, 5th, 10th, 17th, 22nd, and 30th, and A aurorae on the 2nd, 5th, 12th, 22nd, 27th, and 30th, only aurorae on the 5th, 22nd, and 30th would be included in the list. This guarantees that the list will contain exactly the same number of E and A observations, making it thoroughly mixed [as I said]. Now this applies only to the original catalog. The new data includes some 1500 new American observations that were added to the original list making the total 5380 entries.
“This[1996] supplement presented contains corrections and new data about occurrences of north polar aurorae (<55 degrees). New data are based <i>predominantly on the two Catalogues, i.e. of Loomis (LOO) and of Schroder (SC2). In the Catalogue Loo are collected the aurorae which were observed in North America.”.
Since in the old list there was an equal mix of E and A, adding 1500 new A means that the final list is now dominated by American observations [as I said]. So, Scafetta’s
If I overlay the New England Data (green line 1800-1948) over the Krivsky Data on Nicola’s graph (black line) there is an obvious divergence after 1850.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/world_silverman.png
The divergence begins ~1875 when the Fritz data ends. And is not between Nicola’s black line, but with his blues Faroe line, showing again that the Faroe data is not to be trusted. The green line follows the sunspot activity nicely, clearly showing the deep minima around 1700, 1760, 1810, 1900. Unfortunately the red curve has the obvious divergence after 1850, showing the breakdown of the correlation.
This is likely because the European data is being verified by the American data with the American data being the latter record that appears in the table.
The other way around: no Fritz data is included unless it verifies an American observation [your ‘AND’]. Bottom line is 1500 more new observations, almost all American [LOO and Ba].
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 24, 2011 at 8:08 pm
It is evident that Faroes are an anomalous place that makes those islands more compatible with the mid-latitude auroras in Europe. Perhaps this is due to the ocean currents around Faroes that change the magnetic properties of the zone.
The Faroes are quite opposite to the mid-latitude aurorae in Europe, e.g. the Danish aurora and Scroeder’s. But, you are right they are anomalous and shouldn’t be used. The reason for their strange behavior is simply the varying number of observers. In any case, your data in Figure 2B is dominated by American aurorae as I showed just above.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 25, 2011 at 3:06 pm
“This[1996] supplement presented contains corrections and new data about occurrences of north polar aurorae (<55 degrees). New data are based predominantly on the two Catalogues, i.e. of Loomis (LOO) and of Schroder (SC2). In the Catalogue Loo are collected the aurorae which were observed in North America.”.
Since in the old list there was an equal mix of E and A, adding 1500 new A means that the final list is now dominated by American observations [as I said]. So, Scafetta’s claim that the list is primarily European is not valid.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 24, 2011 at 8:08 pm
The catalog I used is quite clear, no single American auroras are added to the list.
From 1776 on, any European [+Asian] aurorae was only included if there was ALSO an aurora in America, and about 1500 new American [only] aurorae were added to the list from the supplement.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 25, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Since in the old list there was an equal mix of E and A, adding 1500 new A means that the final list is now dominated by American observations [as I said].
You are making this up as you go along. The original list only has a handful of American crosschecking records (N & Ba).
The amount of records in the list is 6291, all records are European with American entries only used for cross checking, so there is no American Bias. This is clearly laid out by the authors.
From 1776 on, any European [+Asian] aurorae was only included if there was ALSO an aurora in America, and about 1500 new American [only] aurorae were added to the list from the supplement
How do you know about 1500 “only” American records are added, you are assuming the authors added the American record without an initiating European record, this is clearly against their guidelines. The supplementary list has many new mainly European datasets, and you have ignored the new Schoder data. You are also forgetting that two sets of European data occurring on the same day can be utilized (region I,II,III & V). Simply put for an American reference to be listed, a European record has to exist on the same day. Therefore there is no American bias.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/world_silverman.png
The divergence begins ~1875 when the Fritz data ends.
No the divergence is seen between 1850 and 1870, when there are a lot of “LOO” American cross checking records listed because the last record ends up on the list. If there was American bias in the record the black line would have followed the green line which it obviously doesn’t, showing again there is no American bias.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 25, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 25, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Since in the old list there was an equal mix of E and A, adding 1500 new A means that the final list is now dominated by American observations [as I said].
You are making this up as you go along. The original list only has a handful of American crosschecking records (N & Ba).
The amount of records in the list is 6291, all records are European with American entries only used for cross checking, so there is no American Bias. This is clearly laid out by the authors.
From 1776 on, any European [+Asian] aurorae was only included if there was ALSO an aurora in America, and about 1500 new American [only] aurorae were added to the list from the supplement
How do you know about 1500 “only” American records are added, you are assuming the authors added the American record without an initiating European record, this is clearly against their guidelines. The supplementary list has many new mainly European datasets, and you have ignored the new Schoder data. You are also forgetting that two sets of European data occurring on the same day can be utilized (region I,II,III & V). Simply put for an American reference to be listed, a European record has to exist on the same day. Therefore there is no American bias.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/world_silverman.png
The divergence begins ~1875 when the Fritz data ends.
No the divergence is seen between 1850 and 1870, when there are a lot of “LOO” American cross checking records listed (because the last record ends up on the list). If there was American bias in the record the black line would have followed the green line which it obviously doesn’t, showing again there is no American bias.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 25, 2011 at 5:18 pm
The amount of records in the list is 6291
We are only considering the part of the record after 1700, for which there are 5381 entries.
all records are European with American entries only used for cross checking, so there is no American Bias.
The European entries are only included [for the time after 1776 for which we have American data] if there is an American entry.
you are assuming the authors added the American record without an initiating European record, this is clearly against their guidelines.
As you point out only if there is a record from I or II AND an American record is the I,II record included.
The supplementary list has many new mainly European datasets, and you have ignored the new Schoder data.
There are only 34 Schroeder entries and the text says that ” New data are based predominantly on the two Catalogues, i.e. of Loomis (LOO) and of Schroder (SC2). In the Catalogue LOO are collected the aurorae which were observed in North America.”
You are also forgetting that two sets of European data occurring on the same day can be utilized (region I,II,III & V). Simply put for an American reference to be listed, a European record has to exist on the same day. Therefore there is no American bias.
No, the other way around: For a European+Asian record to be used and American record has to exist on the same day: “provided they were recorded at a number of stations in Region I or II (i.e.
Europe), or in Region I or II and at the same time in Region IV (i.e. America)”
The first rule only applies before 1776 where there were no American records. Otherwise the text would make no sense. These rules also only applies to the original list.
No the divergence is seen between 1850 and 1870, when there are a lot of “LOO” American cross checking records listed because the last record ends up on the list. If there was American bias in the record the black line would have followed the green line which it obviously doesn’t,
It does for the last deep dip. The LOO records are not cross checking as that rule only applied to the original list. The original list had 3878 entries [from 1700] and ended with Fritz in 1872. For this list the American entries are already folded into the list. There are 2345 new LOO entries. If those were just ‘verifications’ of existing Fritz entries then with the LOO there should be exactly the same number of entries if the LOOs have already been counted and ‘not a single new American observation was added. Yet the final list has 5281 entries or 5257-3878 = ~1400 new entries added from LOO, proving that not all the LOOs were just ‘verifications’ of existing entries.
Soo, the final list is dominated by American entries, because of the 2345 LOO entries that were added.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 25, 2011 at 5:18 pm
No the divergence is seen between 1850 and 1870
Plot the difference between the black and the green curve [show us] and you shall behold the divergence after ~1875.
Leif,
you are mistaking the authors.
The purpose of the authors is to produce a record on mid-latitude large auroras observed in a large regions.
The catalog authors knew very well that the american auroras are different from the mid-low European Auroras. There are much more auroras in New England and north US (where the american auroras were collected) than in the mid-low latitude European-Asian auroras.
So, to make a consistent record they used a clear criterion based on multiple cross tests:
“The authors adopted the occurrences of aurorae on the basis of the following
criteria: possible recurrence after roughly 27 days, roughly since 1792 (and
partly also before) auroral data were adopted provided there was guarantee
that they were simultaneously observed in a larger geographical region. i.e.
provided they were recorded at a number of stations in Region I or II (i.e.
Europe), or in Region I or II and at the same time in Region IV (i.e.
America). ”
Note the sentence
“they were recorded at a number of stations in Region I or II ”
This means that if an aurora in a given day was recorded only in “one” or very few stations in Europe that aurora would not have been included in the original catalog. This criterion left out of the catalog a lot of European auroras that did not satisfy the ctiterion because recorded in just one or too few locations.
Once that the American catalog was used as reference, even if an aurora was recorded in just “one” European station, that aurora would have been listed in the catalog under the condition that also the American record had it. This added to the general catalog
2345 new entries which were references as LOO. These were not single american auroras, but auroras already present in the individual European+Asian catalogs which were not previously included in the general catalog because of the criterion requirement that the aurora had to be ” recorded at a number of stations in Region I or II “.
On the contrary all auroras seen in the USA, but not recorded in any mid-latitude European stations were excluded from the catalog because considered compatible with norther European auroras, not with the mid-latitude ones.
Thus, the catalog refers to auroras seen in mid-latitude Europe and Asia which partially overlap with the american one for which we can be sufficiently sure of their real occurrence or because simultaneously recorded in numerous European stations, or because symultaneously recorded somewhere in Europe+Asia AND in the USA.
Indeed, it is Silverman who in his figure 3, by improperly adding the mid-latitude aurora records to the new England ones has mixed apples and oranges. In fact, Silverman did not uses any serious criterion but simply added the two catalogs based on the simplistic claim that the New England Auroras were geografically located at mid-latitudes <55N, which is not the right criterion to follow.
In fact, as it is evident in this figure
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/aurora_oval.png
the New England Aurora isochasm zone is far northern than the mid-latitude aurora isochasms in Europe and Asia which correspond to the South of the United Stated of America zone down to Mexico. The isochasm figure above is quite clear.
"Plot the difference between the black and the green curve [show us] and you shall behold the divergence after ~1875."
The mid-latitude catalog did not stop in 1875, but in 1900. If the records were not reliable any more after 1875, the authors would have stopped in 1875, not in 1900.
Moreover, you still need to explain the patterns in the Faroes record. that show a pattern that is negative-correlation with the New England auroras and with the Iceland Auroras.
Were people in the Faroes always drunk to see a lot of imaginary auroras not seen in Iceland nor in New England? Note the huge difference between 1910 and 1915 during the solar minima.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 25, 2011 at 7:45 pm
The European entries are only included [for the time after 1776 for which we have American data] if there is an American entry.
Incorrect, European entries can be verified by other European entries from other latitudes. The text is clear on this.
As you point out only if there is a record from I or II AND an American record is the I,II record included.
This is not clear.
No, the other way around: For a European+Asian record to be used and American record has to exist on the same day
Incorrect as stated above.
The first rule only applies before 1776 where there were no American records. Otherwise the text would make no sense. These rules also only applies to the original list
This is your assumption (living in hope). The rules make perfect sense. European records can be validated by other European records OR by American records.
It does for the last deep dip. The LOO records are not cross checking as that rule only applied to the original list. The original list had 3878 entries [from 1700] and ended with Fritz in 1872. For this list the American entries are already folded into the list. There are 2345 new LOO entries. If those were just ‘verifications’ of existing Fritz entries then with the LOO there should be exactly the same number of entries if the LOOs have already been counted and ‘not a single new American observation was added. Yet the final list has 5281 entries or 5257-3878 = ~1400 new entries added from LOO, proving that not all the LOOs were just ‘verifications’ of existing entries.
Soo, the final list is dominated by American entries, because of the 2345 LOO entries that were added.
That is the most convoluted piece of text and what I can make of it you are making many assumptions.
The new LOO entries are verifying new European entries (1996) and possibly older European entries from the initial list that did not have a verification. The authors have set out clearly the prerequisites for all auroral records along with the naming convention in the table that you are ignoring. The American record if used to verify gets the “LOO” label in the table.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 24, 2011 at 5:10 pm
The authors are very clear […] There are no single records from America added to the list.
I have in my hand Fritz’s original list from 1873 covering Europe below 55N. It is instructive to look at an extract. Here are the first three months of 1850: http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1850-Jan-Mar.png T
The columns are
Year, Month, Day, Fritz Cat, Krivsky Final Cat
An ‘F’ in the Fritz column means that there was an entry in Fritz’s list. An ‘F’ in the Krivsky column means that there was an entry marked ‘F’ in Krivsky’s list [and thus confirmed by another American observer than Loomis]. An ‘L’ means that there was a LOO, and an ‘S’ means the entry came from Seydl. As you can see there are 40 entries in the Krivsky list, and 21 of those are LOOs that are new [there are no entries on those days in Fritz’s original list] and thus added to the list.
1850 is not particular special, all the other years show similar behavior. So, the list is dominated by American entries.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 24, 2011 at 5:10 pm
The authors are very clear […] There are no single records from America added to the list.
I have in my hand Fritz’s original list from 1873
I case, you wonder what the list look like: http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1850-Jan-Mar-Original.png
Geoff Sharp says:
November 25, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Incorrect, European entries can be verified by other European entries from other latitudes. The text is clear on this.
The text is very clear that this is not the case. It does not make sense the say at I or II AND IV is required while at the same time I and be verified by II. The I and II only verify each other then there is no IV.
“As you point out only if there is a record from I or II AND an American record is the I,II record included.”
This is not clear.
As you say: “the authors are very clear”
This is your assumption (living in hope). The rules make perfect sense. European records can be validated by other European records OR by American records.
The text says AND.
” If those were just ‘verifications’ of existing Fritz entries then with the LOO there should be exactly the same number of entries if the LOOs have already been counted and ‘not a single new American observation was added.”
That is the most convoluted piece of text and what I can make of it you are making many assumptions.
No, I’m pointing out that under your assumptions there should be exactly the same number of entries. The goal was “auroral data were adopted provided there was guarantee that they were simultaneously observed in a larger geographical region”. You see, that there were many aurorae within the same narrow region does not satisfy the goal.
The American record if used to verify gets the “LOO” label in the table.
See my comment on the new list.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 25, 2011 at 9:18 pm
The catalog authors knew very well that the american auroras are different
The aurorae are not ‘different’
This means that if an aurora in a given day was recorded only in “one” or very few stations in Europe that aurora would not have been included in the original catalog. This criterion left out of the catalog a lot of European auroras that did not satisfy the ctiterion because recorded in just one or too few locations.
No, that is not the way it worked. Study the original list here: http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1850-Jan-Mar-Original.png
and note that these were all recorded in to Krivsky catalog: http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1850-Jan-Mar.png
the New England Aurora isochasm zone is far northern than the mid-latitude aurora isochasms in Europe and Asia which correspond to the South of the United Stated of America zone down to Mexico. The isochasm figure above is quite clear.
No, they are at most a few hundred km different and a strong aurora is visible over 1000 km.
“Plot the difference between the black and the green curve [show us] and you shall behold the divergence after ~1875.”
The mid-latitude catalog did not stop in 1875, but in 1900. If the records were not reliable any more after 1875, the authors would have stopped in 1875, not in 1900.
Moreover, you still need to explain the patterns in the Faroes record
I have explained that already: simply due to the number of observers varying with time.