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.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 25, 2011 at 9:18 pm
The isochasm figure above is quite clear.
At the most that would multiply all the numbers by a factor, not changing the general behavior of the time variation, such as making a minimum into a maximum.
In addition, I have shown just above that the Krivsky catalog is dominated by American aurorae an way. So your ‘analysis’ is basically done with American data.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 25, 2011 at 9:18 pm
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.
Most of the aurorae in the catalog [region II] comes from England [cf. http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1850-Jan-Mar-Original.png ] which as you can see on the isochasm chart http://www.leif.org/research/Isochasms-North-America.png lies in the belt from 5 to 25 aurorae per year where also New York and New England Lie. Mexico is in the 0.1-1 aurorae/year belt, corresponding to ~3 aurorae per solar cycle. As you know that is much lower than the frequency in Fritz’s region II, so you should not be so sloppy to claim that Northern European aurorae have the same frequency as in Mexico and Florida/Texas. If you look at your own Figure 2B you’ll see that the average frequency of [what you call European] aurorae is 27 aurorae per year, or 27 times larger than your ‘south of US’/Mexico isochasm.
Now, in the end, it doesn’t really matter that the catalog is dominated by American aurorae as great aurorae caused by geomagnetic storms are seen over a wide area, and geomagnetic storms are global phenomena.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 24, 2011 at 8:08 pm
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
Geoff thinks the authors are very clear. But you obviously misread them, so they wee not so clear.
The statement in the text was: “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”
Your first condition is clearly wrong, because the real condition is that the aurora is observed at a number of stations in region I or II. Since there are ten times fewer aurora in region I than in II [check the isochasm map], using the AND condition would reduce the number of accepted aurorae by a factor of ten down to just a handful of records per solar cycle, which clearly is not the case.
Leif,
Loomis (LOO) catalog includes a lot of mid-latitude European auroras, not just American one.
Loomis, in fact, did not want to prepare just a local US catalog but a more global one as it is clear in his work.
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.
So the series LOO refers mostly to mid-latitude European Auroras. In fact the chosen boundaries are: “as the eastern boundary the meridian of 40 degrees of longitude east from Greenwich; and as the western boundary the meridian of 80 degrees of longitude west from Greenwich”
These boundaries mean from European Russia to Atlantic USA. Indeed, LOO catalog was predominally made using all European catalogs available to Loomis plus a selection of american catalogs for comparison.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ub8EAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=Comparison+of+the+mean+daily+range+of+the+magnetic+declination+and+the+number+of+auroras+observed+each+year&source=bl&ots=H8YV6C6dq1&sig=AwV2-ycgWqrJoq3go53VYFZKgFI&hl=en&ei=SyLRTt7WDMqgtweThKG5DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Comparison%20of%20the%20mean%20daily%20range%20of%20the%20magnetic%20declination%20and%20the%20number%20of%20auroras%20observed%20each%20year&f=false
So, your claim that the LOO record refers to America auroras alone is blatantly false.
Indeed, LOOMIS excluded a lot of US auroras from his catalog because not consistent with his European catalogs physical properties.
Moreover, the fact is that from 1875 to 1900 we have a lot of additional catalogs from mid-latitude european stations that do not record many auroras such as Mo, S, R, Sc2, Ba, JB, BF. These catalogs agree with the Faroes one, which records few auroras during that period.
And the authors of the catalog were very careful in not mixing the mid-latitude aurora from Europe with auroras from other eegions characterized by different physical properties.
So, atthe conclusion the issue remain the same, Leif.
You may believe that the records that I used are wrong, but the records show what they show.
Of course the records may also be wrong as you claim, but util now you have not proved them to be wrong, and your claims , when not openly rebutted herein, remain to be only your unproved personal opinion.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 10:39 am
So, your claim that the LOO record refers to America auroras alone is blatantly false.
It is not my claim, but the claim of the authors that compiled the catalog you used:
“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.”
Loomis included aurorae from Europe, namely the same as Fritz had, as they both drew from the same sources. As you can see here http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1850-Jan-Mar.png there are, indeed, some that correspond. But that is a minority.
Indeed, LOOMIS excluded a lot of US auroras from his catalog because not consistent with his European catalogs physical properties.
Where does it say that? He excluded data from the Western US because of their sparseness.
Loomis says he got his pre-1868 data exclusively from Lovering. Siscoe reports in RG018i003p00647 that “Lovering demonstrated the close similarity between auroral variations recorded in Europe (by others) and in America”
In his memoir, Lovering asks after having described observations in Europe: “It may be interesting to inquire how the case [occurrence of aurorae] stands in the western hemisphere” and proceeds to do just that. He collect the observations of Americans Winthrop, Holyoke, Wigglesworth, Hale, and many others. This shows where Loomis got most of his observations from. Although one can debate forever the details [without having the original sources], it is clear that the data in Krivsky’s catalog that you used is thoroughly mixed between Europe and America, which in a sense is fine as there is no real difference between them [geomagnetic storms causing the aurorae being global phenomena]. What is false is your claims that the catalog is ‘primarily’ European data. It is not.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 24, 2011 at 8:08 pm
An aurora is added to the list only if it satisfies one of the following condition:
2) it is observed in Region I AND Region IV
3) it is observed in Region II AND Region IV
It seems that you have completely backed off from the above.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 10:39 am
Moreover, the fact is that from 1875 to 1900 we have a lot of additional catalogs from mid-latitude european stations that do not record many auroras such as Mo, S, R, Sc2, Ba, JB, BF. These catalogs agree with the Faroes one, which records few auroras during that period.
Except that of the scant 114 records from 1875-1900 the “Ba” records come from Yerkes in the US…
In http://www.leif.org/EOS/Bentley-Aurorae.pdf Silverman and Blanchards reports on the remarkable 49-yr series 1883-1930 by the dedicated observer William Bentley at Jericho in Vermont of 634 aurorae, showing the dramatic minimum 1900-1920 in accordance with all observations elsewhere, except the faulty Faroes data. http://www.leif.org/research/Bentley-Auroral-Data.png
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 10:39 am
Moreover, the fact is that from 1875 to 1900 we have a lot of additional catalogs from mid-latitude european stations that do not record many auroras such as Mo, S, R, Sc2, Ba, JB, BF. These catalogs agree with the Faroes one, which records few auroras during that period.
As I pointed out The Vermont data agrees well with European data from the same geomagnetic latitude [57N], e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Denmark-Vermont-Aurorae.png as well as Iceland data. Faroes disagree. http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-Figure-2B.png
This invalidates the purported 60-yr cycle supposedly shown by how well the Faroes data agree with the red sine curve.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 10:39 am
So the series LOO refers mostly to mid-latitude European Auroras.
Although I have shown that this is not the case, there is simpler argument. The isochasm maps show that the frequency of aurorae in mid-latitude Europe is between 1 and 25 aurorae per year [one chart] or between 1 and 10 per year [the older chart]. A reasonable overall rate is a number well less than 10 [because of the non-linear variation], say 5. If the Krivsky catalog is dominantly European entries, then during the 200 years from 1700 to 1900 there should have been 5*200 = 1000 entries. In fact, there are more than 5000, or 5 times as many. This is consistent with the isochasm values for New England [or the 60N for Fritz’s region IV] being 20-30, showing that the catalog is mostly American data. This simple argument is so compelling as to make all the rest of your squirming irrelevant. But, as I said, that is OK, as geomagnetic storms [causing aurorae in mid-latitudes] are global. What that means is that the shape of the variation with time is the same, just the amplitude varying with latitude. This holds as long as you are well equatorwards of the auroral zone. At the oval, there is always an aurora, and well polewards of the oval, the frequency decreases to a minimum at the geomagnetic pole. This has been known for more than a century.
Leif,
I am sorry but about the LOO record you just sunk very deep in the ocean.
In addition, as I explained above the fact is that from 1875 to 1900 we have a lot of additional catalogs from mid-latitude european stations that do not record many auroras such as Mo, S, R, Sc2, Ba, JB, BF. These catalogs agree with the Faroes one, which records few auroras during that period.
On the contrary we have a lot of auroras detected at the Faroes from 1900-1920, while very few auroras were deteted in New England and Iceland.
You have not responded my questions.
1) Do you think that in 1900-1920 at the Faroes all people were always drunk to see a lot of auroras (40 per year) that did not exist?
2) Do you think that everybody was blind or was sleeping in mid-latitude Europe from 1875-1900 so that very few auroras were recorded during that period in that period?
So, where are the catalogs from mid-latitude Europe that show that during the period 1875-1900 a lot of aurora were seen during that period in that region? Do you have them? yes or not?
Moreover, also LOO record apparently excludes the Denmark auroras and those auroras are excluded from the mid-latitude count in general. LOO excluded several US catalogs and other catalogs not because they were just sparse but because the frequency of auroras seen in those regions , during the periods when the data were available, did not match the frequency of the European mid-latitude auroras.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 25, 2011 at 10:14 pm
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.
This proves nothing and still shows you do not understand the selection criteria. If the original Fritz entry is confirmed by ANY other entry (being station or different region) the confirming entry is stated in the Krivsky table.
If the source of an auroral observation given by H. Fritz [2] was also given by another author, the latter has been mentioned.“
This convention must have been used for other original European entries other than Fritz.
Your table excludes the possibility of non Fritz European entries being the initial entry. Most of the reference material consists of European data. The Fritz data being a compilation is also capable of confirming itself. Can you post a link for the entire Fritz data.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 4:33 pm
In addition, as I explained above the fact is that from 1875 to 1900 we have a lot of additional catalogs from mid-latitude european stations that do not record many auroras such as Mo, S, R, Sc2, Ba, JB, BF. These catalogs agree with the Faroes one, which records few auroras during that period.
You can’t read? There is not a lot. There are a scant 114 records all together, and the ‘Ba’ you mention contains 28 of those and is from Yerkes in the US.
On the contrary we have a lot of auroras detected at the Faroes from 1900-1920, while very few auroras were deteted in New England and Iceland.
No, you have a lot of aurorae reported, not detected. This is likely due to an increase of the number of observers during that time. Since the Faroes are south of Iceland, they must see fewer aurorae unless the auroral zone has expanded very much, which would have meant that Denmark and New England would have seen an excess which they didn’t. Aurorae are associated with currents in the magnetosphere and geomagnetic activity was at an all-time low, so not many aurorae.
1) Do you think that in 1900-1920 at the Faroes all people were always drunk to see a lot of auroras (40 per year) that did not exist?
No, but I think more were looking and then interest waned or funding ran out..
2) Do you think that everybody was blind or was sleeping in mid-latitude Europe from 1875-1900 so that very few auroras were recorded during that period in that period?
No, but solar activity was declining and and street lighting was increasing.
So, where are the catalogs from mid-latitude Europe that show that during the period 1875-1900 a lot of aurora were seen during that period in that region? Do you have them? yes or not?
I have a catalog from Angot [1895] which lists 323 aurorae for 1875-1890 alone for Europe below 55N. Many more than the 42 that are in the Krivsky compilation for the same interval, so activity was not small at all.
Moreover, also LOO record apparently excludes the Denmark auroras and those auroras are excluded from the mid-latitude count in general.
As are the Faroes aurorae. So if Denmark should not be considered, that would be even more the case for the Faroes on account on their higher latitude [62N].
LOO excluded several US catalogs and other catalogs not because they were just sparse but because the frequency of auroras seen in those regions , during the periods when the data were available, did not match the frequency of the European mid-latitude auroras.
Where does it say that? I don’t think so. LOO excluded some that were at too high latitude as was proper.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 26, 2011 at 6:15 pm
This proves nothing
It proves everything.
and still shows you do not understand the selection criteria. If the original Fritz entry is confirmed by ANY other entry (being station or different region) the confirming entry is stated in the Krivsky table.
That is not what they say. Again: 1) if there were more than aurora for a day in II [‘I’ doesn’t matter as there are so very few of them] for a day, that day is a confirmed entry. 2) If there were only one in II, but that day was also in IV, the entry is confirmed.
This convention must have been used for other original European entries other than Fritz.
Your wishful assumption. Text text says specifically Fritz and no other was mentioned.
Your table excludes the possibility of non Fritz European entries being the initial entry.
The text excludes that as it only talks about Fritz.
Most of the reference material consists of European data.
For the initial 1988 list, but not for the supplementary entries. You can see directly from the sample data below, where every LOO entries are used to validate Fritz entries, but where most LOO entries don’t even have a Fritz entry and thus were not seen in Europe.
The Fritz data being a compilation is also capable of confirming itself.
Of course, if there are several aurorae on a given day.
Take the example I gave you: http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1850-Jan-Mar-Original.png
On Jan. 5 [1850] there was only one sighting (Greenwich) so not confirmed by another entry, but since it is on Krivsky’s list it must have been confirmed by a region IV [American] entry, and sure enough there was a LOO entry for that day. http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1850-Jan-Mar-png
On Jan 19 there was only one sighting [Ship 50N,26W] so not confirmed by another entry but since it is on Krivsky’s list it must have been confirmed by a region IV [American] entry, and sure enough there was a LOO entry for that day.
On Jan 30., same thing
On Jan 31., same thing
On Feb 3., same thing [interesting enough there are two entries for that one day in Krivsky’s list…]
On Feb 6., there are three sightings so the day is confirmed, no region IV needed, and sure enough there was no LOO entry for that day.
On Feb 9-12, 18, there were only one sighting on each day, so the entries cannot be confirmed unless there was a region IV sighting on each day too [which there then must have been, otherwise the day would not have been on the list]
On Feb 23., here were two sightings, one from region II and one [Parma] from region I [this is the only region I – south of 46N in the entire sample] so the day is confirmed.
And so on.
Can you post a link for the entire Fritz data.
I printed it out from Angot’s book. Google ‘angot aurora’. The link you wnat is the first one on the page. The appendix contains the entire Fritz list for regions I and II [only].
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I am sorry but about the LOO record you just sunk very deep in the ocean.
De profundis then:
In http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA085iA06p02991.pdf Silverman and Feynman comments:
“The nonlocal nature of the change in auroral occurrence frequency is confirmed by comparing the Swedish data with data from New England, collected by Loomis [1866], who was one of the pioneers of American auroral research in the nineteenth century. His data were culled from published sources such as journal articles and observatory reports. Figure 5 shows the number of auroras reported per year in Boston and New Haven. We note that from about 1792 to about 1836 almost no auroras were seen, but that before and after those times auroral sightings were very frequent. When the data from Sweden and Boston-New Haven are superposed, as in Figure 6, the agreement is remarkable. When auroras were seen predominately in southern Sweden, they were also seen in New England, which is at more southerly geomagnetic latitude. When they were seen more frequently in northern Sweden, they were rarely observed in New England. Since the change in auroral pattern took place simultaneously at two such widely separated locations, the cause must be in the driver of the aurora, the solar wind.”
Hi Leif,
well you say “I have a catalog from Angot [1895] which lists 323 aurorae for 1875-1890 alone for Europe below 55N. ”
Angot ‘s catalog is here
http://books.google.com/books?id=UD4XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=Angot+auroras&source=bl&ots=frz-8qzB9d&sig=cWQbn5uwANx_zW6ODJBCg7WPVtI&hl=en&ei=UaPRTv2pBsKatweYwZGtDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Angot%20auroras&f=false
A lot of those auroras were seen in just one location and would not fit the criterion for being added to the general catalog: an aurora must been see in a number of locations, not just in one place.
So let us not add apples and oranges.
I get these numbers of auroras per year, when at least two locations record the same event
1875 -1
1876 -4
1877 -0
1878 -0
1879 -0
1880 -2
1881 -10
1882 -~20
1883 -6
1884 -4
1885 -7
1886 -2
1887 -3
1888 – 6
1889 -3
1890 -7
It does not seem to be much! just about 75 in 16 years = 5 per year. Like the general catalog that I use.
Moreover, numerous observations were made in the middle of the Atlantic probably on ships. These auroras may not fit the criterion for the auroras seen on the land because the ocean get really dark and even faint light are seen. In any case, the middle Atlantic record needs to be added also to the other catalogs for a proper comparison. So let us not add apples and oranges., OK?
Moreover, the auroras seen on the ships in the Atlantic are problematic because their frequency is directly related to the trafic on the ocean that has significantly increased in time. So, if you want to use a catalog with a lot of ship records there is the need to opportunely normalizing it in function of the traffic intensity. So, there is a bias
On the contrary, the observation on the land are fixed.
Well Leif, you have discovered that
“When auroras were seen predominately in southern Sweden, they were also seen in New England, which is at more southerly geomagnetic latitude. When they were seen more frequently in northern Sweden, they were rarely observed in New England.”
This confirms my results in the paper that Northern and Southern regions act in the opposite way!
When a lot of Auroras are seen in Iceland less aurora are seen at the Faraoes (or mid-latitudes), when less Auroras are seen in Iceland more auroras are seen in Faroes (or mid-latitudes). 🙂
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 7:53 pm
A lot of those auroras were seen in just one location and would not fit the criterion for being added to the general catalog
That criterion was only applied to the Fritz list, not to the LOO data. And not to the ‘Ba’ list. And close study throws doubt on the use of the criterion overall. In 1850 all [except 2] of the entries in Argot [which is actually just the original Fritz] ended up on Krivsky’s list even though most of them only had one aurora on the day [two conclusions possible: 1) the criterion was not used, or 2) for every one on Fritz’s European list there was also a matching one on his region IV list). Pick your poison].
Moreover, numerous observations were made in the middle of the Atlantic probably on ships. These auroras may not fit the criterion for the auroras seen on the land because the ocean get really dark and even faint light are seen. In any case, the middle Atlantic record needs to be added also to the other catalogs for a proper comparison. So let us not add apples and oranges., OK?
Angot’s list is a copy of Fritz’s list until 1872, so Fritz used those same ships too. OK?
“When auroras were seen predominately in southern Sweden, they were also seen in New England, which is at more southerly geomagnetic latitude. When they were seen more frequently in northern Sweden, they were rarely observed in New England.”
This also implies that New England is more compatible with southern Sweden than with the Mid-latitude auroras which are still more south
“Angot’s list is a copy of Fritz’s list until 1872, so Fritz used those same ships too. OK?
”
No, Leif. The ships from 1875 to 1890 are by far the majority of the records while before 1975 there are very few ships and almost all records are from lands
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 26, 2011 at 7:09 pm
You are starting to see the format where the European data is being validated by other Euro data OR LOO data, but you are missing another important point I think.
For the initial 1988 list, but not for the supplementary entries. You can see directly from the sample data below, where every LOO entries are used to validate Fritz entries, but where most LOO entries don’t even have a Fritz entry and thus were not seen in Europe.
Here you are assuming that the LOO entries are only validating Fritz entries. The LOO entry is capable of validating ALL European entries.
This convention must have been used for other original European entries other than Fritz.
——————————————————
Your wishful assumption. Text text says specifically Fritz and no other was mentioned.
Not wishful thinking, there is only ever one name in the data table. Are you suggesting that Krivksy adopted another convention for other data sets?
So, you cannot add a ship record to a record that is made mostly of land observations. Do not mix apples with oranges.
In Angot ‘s catalog after 1875 there are every few land observations
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Moreover, the auroras seen on the ships in the Atlantic are problematic
Angot’s list up to 1872 is a copy of Fritz’s. So either no problem or same problem. Thus no bias.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 8:08 pm
This confirms my results in the paper that Northern and Southern regions act in the opposite way!
That is not a result of your paper.
When a lot of Auroras are seen in Iceland less aurora are seen at the Faraoes (or mid-latitudes), when less Auroras are seen in Iceland more auroras are seen in Faroes (or mid-latitudes). 🙂
The facts are: when the oval is over Iceland there are many aurora there and few in the Faroers and south thereof [mid-latitudes]. If the oval shifts to the Faroes there will be fewer in Iceland and more in New England and Denmark and South thereof. But in 1900-1920 there were fewer aurora in Denmark and New England. Furthermore 1900-1920 were areas with very low solar activity so the oval if anything would have shifted north of Iceland with meaning fewer aurora over Iceland, Denmark, Southern Sweden, and New England as observed.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 8:21 pm
This also implies that New England is more compatible with southern Sweden than with the Mid-latitude auroras which are still more south
Southern Sweden extends to 55N and what is seen South of that is just a diminished amplitude of that region, not the opposite. Define ‘compatible’
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 8:25 pm
The ships from 1875 to 1890 are by far the majority of the records while before 1875 there are very few ships and almost all records are from lands
Not the polnt. Fritz had no problems using ships. And using ships would in any case give a truer view as European observers were increasingly hampered by street lights.
Leif,
you still do not undestand the logic of my paper. Don’t you?
As I said you many times you need to look at the auroras at the mid-latitudes at the 11-year solar cycle minima. And you will see the 60-year cycle. Look at the peak data in 1845. That peak in mid-latitude auroras during the solar mimimum can be explained only if the auroral oval shifted very south during that period.
The auroral oval shifts for multiple reasons, not just by one reason as you think.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 26, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Here you are assuming that the LOO entries are only validating Fritz entries. The LOO entry is capable of validating ALL European entries.
As you can see they were only used to validate Fritz entries. And the LOO entries as I have shown were New England data. As noted earlier:
In http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA085iA06p02991.pdf Silverman and Feynman comments:
“The nonlocal nature of the change in auroral occurrence frequency is confirmed by comparing the Swedish data with data from New England, collected by Loomis [1866], who was one of the pioneers of American auroral research in the nineteenth century. His data were culled from published sources such as journal articles and observatory reports. Figure 5 shows the number of auroras reported per year in Boston and New Haven.
No matter how this is sliced the simple fact remains that the catalog used by Nicola is in no way European data only, but by the very nature of the construction and the validation used, a thorough mix from both regions, and that is the point.
Are you suggesting that Krivksy adopted another convention for other data sets?
I go with what he says. Not with what one might assume.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 8:29 pm
So, you cannot add a ship record to a record that is made mostly of land observations. Do not mix apples with oranges.
Fritz had no problems doing that, and I don’t have either.