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 26, 2011 at 8:46 pm
you still do not undestand the logic of my paper. Don’t you?
Your paper does not have any logic, just invalid use of bad data.
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 oval does not shift very south during solar minima. The position of the oval is determined by the properties of the solar wind only and the oval contracts during low solar activity. And the data you are plotting are dominated [as I have shown here repeatedly] by New England data. At low solar activity auroral activity decreases everywhere south of the oval. In the oval flows millions of amperes; the magnetic effect from these currents are very easily measured at ground-level [can even induce currents to explode transformers and corrode pipelines] Here is the signature of these currents measured at mid-latitude stations all over the world: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-Monthly-Averages-1844-Now-png and their power spectrum http://www.leif.org/FFT-SSN-Ap-Temps.png [no hint of 60-yr cycle in either the currents or in the sunspot number, but well in the global temperatures, reflecting the well-known PDO-cycle]
The auroral oval shifts for multiple reasons, not just by one reason as you think.
No, we can quantitatively determine the position of the oval from known physics. There are no other reasons.
These are hard to get right:
signature of these currents measured at mid-latitude stations all over the world: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-Monthly-Averages-1844-Now.png and their power spectrum http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Ap-Temps.png [no hint of 60-yr cycle in either the currents or in the sunspot number, but well in the global temperatures, reflecting the well-known PDO-cycle]
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 26, 2011 at 8:46 pm
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.
What peak? There were only 18 aurorae on Fritz’s European list of which 14 were singletons, so only 4 that should be listed according to the criterion of there being more than one for inclusion in the table. Actually 9 made it [possibly because of some region IV aurorae from New England]. Do you call this a peak? Now, the LOO list added another 41, now we have sort of a peak, but that came from New England, and BTW, minimum was in 1843, not in 1845.
While Leif continues to place his own assumptions on Krivsky’s data, here are some interesting excerpts from Loomis’s book.
“The range of the maxima and minima of auroral displays is considerably greater than that of the solar spots, and the observations of magnetic declination seem to indicate a similar peculiarity. There seems then to be no room for doubt that auroral displays exhibit the ten yearly period of solar spots, but the range of the changes on different years is subject to influences which may be independent of the sun.”
“The successive maxima of auroral displays are more variable than those of the solar spots, so that the ten-yearly period might be easily overlooked, and it might be inferred that the maxima only occurred at intervals of about 60 years.”
BTW I attempted to contact Krivsky, but it appears he may have passed away in 2007. It would be good to have a copy of his 1996 supplement.
1850 is an interesting year. The Krivsky data tells us 136 aurora for the year. The Fritz data gives us 142 (if I counted correctly) possible aurora. Around 62% of the Krivsky data has LOO listed for 1850. This is an obvious example of the American data only appearing as a reference because it also had auroras on the same day.
The LOO data label is very prevalent around 1850, but as shown earlier the New England data from Silverman which should mirror the Loomis data is very different in most places when comparing the green line (Silverman) and the black line (Krivsky). The New England 1850 record is much lower than the European record (about 90 compared to 136) with the total Loomis count coming in at around 85. This shows a big disconnect between Europe and America. A comparison of Silverman and Loomis would be interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/world_silverman.png
(Leif, don’t ask me to plot the difference, the match up is graphical)
Bad use of the bold tag previously.
Leif seems to think the Krivsky record is all about Fritz and Loomis. An example of Krivsky’s procedure is 1850 Feb 26. The Fritz record is blank, but the table records Seydl from the Czech region. The Seydl record must be from the first Kravsky list as the paper is recorded with the 1988 Krivsky record, which means another European record other than Fritz must exist on the same day.
Sorry, Leif.
But everything looks more complex than what you believe.
Unfortunately, you continuously improperly mix data from physically non-homogeneous regions (mid-lat Europe, New England, Atlantic, etc) to support your faith and you reject the actual data because they do not fit your faith.
As also Geoff noted above, people expert in these data have many times acknowledged that the aurora records show a complex dynamics that cannot be simply reproduced by the sunspot number record.
Your theory is too simplistic. Accept it, and move on.
As I said above and explained in my paper the auroral oval moves south and north with apparently a 60-year cycle because of additional reasons than just sunspots! This pattern is very clear if you look at the curve connecting the aurora at the sunspot number minima.
Moreover, as explained above, even your German record support my assumption.
These are the recorded aurora during solar minima from 1951 to 1954 in Germany
—————–Kp
01/05/51 —–7
02/05/51 —-7
25/09/51 —–8
07/10/51 —–8
28/10/51 —–9
These are the recorded aurora from 1961 to 1964
——————–Kp
08/01/61 ——4
04/02/61 ——7
17/02/61 ——-6
26/05/61 ——-4
17/07/61 ——-6
11/08/61 ——-5
11/10/61 ——-4
28/10/61 ——-3
10/01/62 ——-6
29/06/62 ——-3
28/07/62 ——-4
24/10/62 ——-5
29/07/63 ——-3
30/07/63 ——-5
03/10/64 ——-4
As you can easily see from the above numbers, the data agree with my expectations, not with yours. In fact, not only in 1961-64 we see much more german aurora than during the period 1951-1954 as my model predicts, but we often see them also with a very low Kp index 3, 4, 5 and 6 and always below Kp=8 which do not fit at all your theory of Kp>=8 for Germany (not even with the several hundred kilometer hypothesis jump, which should be more than 1500 Km to cover the 10 necessary degrees).
It is evident from those data that the auroral oval moved south from 1950 to 1965 for reasons different from Sunspots, so that also weak auroras with a very low Kp index could reach the mid-low latitudes in Germany despite the numerous and strong german street lights.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 27, 2011 at 1:07 am
1850 is an interesting year. The Krivsky data tells us 136 aurora for the year. The Fritz data gives us 142 (if I counted correctly) possible aurora.
It seems you are confusing ‘aurora’ with ‘days with aurora’. Let me explain, if on April 1, 10 aurora were seen at different people or places, and on April 2, 15 were seen, then there were 2 days with aurora, but 25 aurora seen. For 1850 the Fritz list for Europe [cited by Angot] had 60 days with aurorae (most singletons), not 142 days.
Around 62% of the Krivsky data has LOO listed for 1850. This is an obvious example of the American data only appearing as a reference because it also had auroras on the same day.
There were 87 days with aurorae from the LOO list, all of which are from New England. Since Fritz only had 60 days with aurorae, any American data can at most confirm 60 days. Since Krivsky lists 136 days with aurorae for 1850, at most 60 of those can be from Europe, the rest [plus all of those used for confirmation] are from New England, thus confirming that the Krivsky list is dominated by American entries.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 27, 2011 at 8:53 am
Sorry, Leif.
You are a sorry person, it seems
Unfortunately, you continuously improperly mix data from physically non-homogeneous regions (mid-lat Europe, New England, Atlantic, etc) to support your faith and you reject the actual data because they do not fit your faith.
I mix nothing, you are using the catalogs that are mixing data from different regions. I make do make catalogs or data, just plot what existing catalogs say. You use the catalogs that are mixtures of different regions and claim they are from only one region [Europe].
Geoff Sharp says:
November 27, 2011 at 2:00 am
An example of Krivsky’s procedure is 1850 Feb 26. The Fritz record is blank, but the table records Seydl from the Czech region. The Seydl record must be from the first Kravsky list as the paper is recorded with the 1988 Krivsky record, which means another European record other than Fritz must exist on the same day.
Perhaps Seydl recorded two aurora on that day. Or perhaps Krivsky didn’t follow his rule. He apparently didn’t do so for Jan. 31st, either, or Feb. 18, or Mar. 9th, and so on. As these have only one aurora in the Fritz list, and would thus not qualify.
@ur momisugly Leif, “I mix nothing, you are using the catalogs that are mixing data from different regions. ”
the catalogs that I used are made with appropriate criteria that you are not using in your personal mixing. There is a difference in mixing things without criteria and with criteria.
you continuously improperly mix data from physically non-homogeneous regions (mid-lat Europe, New England, Atlantic, etc) to support your faith and reject the data that contradict you. This is not a serious way of acting, Leif.
1) First you appealed to a German aurora record, when I prove to you that it supports me, you have abbandoned it.
2) You continuosly insisted that New England and Germany are equivalent for the Auroras. Then Geoff and I proved to you that New England is compatible with norther regions such as Denmarck and Norway and Sweden.
3) you continuously insisted that Loomis record was made of American auroras alone. Then I proved to you that it is made of mostly European catalogs.
4) You claimed to have found a lot of mid-latitude auroras from 1875 to 1890 in the Angot’s list . Then I proved to you that by far the majority of those auroras come from the middle of the Atlantic and are physically incompatible with the land auroras because the aurora visibility in the open ocean is far superior than on the land, moreover, those auroras frequencies are function of ship traffic patterns and trends, so this record cannot be simply added to the land auroras but needs to be carefully calibrated to take off several biases, before a comparison can be properly made.
It is evident that the things are more complex than what you believe.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 27, 2011 at 11:52 am
the catalogs that I used are made with appropriate criteria that you are not using in your personal mixing. There is a difference in mixing things without criteria and with criteria.
You can’t read? I don’t do any mixing, I’m not using any catalogs, you are.
1) First you appealed to a German aurora record, when I prove to you that it supports me, you have abbandoned it.
I’ll come back to that in due time. We’ll deal with your more serious errors first
2) You continuosly insisted that New England and Germany are equivalent for the Auroras. Then Geoff and I proved to you that New England is compatible with northern regions such as Denmark and Norway and Sweden.
You did not do any such thing. Norway is too far north, southern Sweden and Denmark dip into the less than 55N area and behave just like it.
3) you continuously insisted that Loomis record was made of American auroras alone. Then I proved to you that it is made of mostly European catalogs.
Again, you did not do that. Read his catalog.
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.”
From the Sisco review RG018i003p00647: “Lovering demonstrated the close similarity between auroral variations recorded in Europe and in America. Fritz and Elias Loomis [Loomis, 1873] in the United States separately established that the variations in the frequency and intensity of the aurora conform closely to variations in solar spottedness.”
He compared his data with European catalogs from the area he outlined and concluded that his New England data were very similar to the European data. The authors of the catalog you are suing states specifically: ““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. So entries in your cataloig marked LOO are from North America.
4) You claimed to have found a lot of mid-latitude auroras from 1875 to 1890 in the Angot’s list . [..] the aurora visibility in the open ocean is far superior than on the land
And thus closer to the REAL number of aurorae. Anyway Fritz had no problems with ships and don’t either.
It is evident that the things are more complex than what you believe.
Bad data and bad logic and deficient knowledge always make things look complex, and even bewildering. In the cold light of valid data and sound physics, things make more sense.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 27, 2011 at 1:07 am
This shows a big disconnect between Europe and America. A comparison of Silverman and Loomis would be interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/world_silverman.png
(Leif, don’t ask me to plot the difference, the match up is graphical)
Your graphic conceals more than reveals. Here is a better comparison: http://www.leif.org/research/Auroral-Frequencies-per-Year.png
The blue curve shows all of Silvermans 20602 New England aurorae in bins of one year [simply counting how many anybody saw everywhere in each year]. This shows the combined effect of real effect and varying number of observers, with the typical curve fitting the lower boundary http://www.leif.org/research/Numbers-of-Observers-Influence.png .
The pink curve is counting the days per year when one or more aurorae were seen [also showing, of course, an effect of varying number of observers]. BTW, the Bentley 1883-1931 data were not included but they match the blue curve closely anyway.
The brown curve is the most interesting. It shows the number of days with aurorae in the updated Krivsky & Prejml mixed catalog used by Scafetta. It matches the Silverman New England curve very well until the end of Lovering’s catalog [showing how auroral frequency is a global thing, depending one the same cause: the solar wind as disturbed by solar flares and CMEs]. Loomis used Lovering’s data when available and reported somewhat fewer thereafter. The blue arrow shows the end of the Fritz and Loomis catalog, at which time the ‘bottom fell out’ of the Krivsky data. The conclusion is clear: the Krivsky catalog after 1872 is useless as it is much too low. The Krivsky catalog before that is dominated by the American data [partly because there are more of those on account of New England being at a slightly higher isochasm]. I think we can now put the whole thing to rest with confidence, unless you wish to fight some rearguard action, slowly petering out.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 27, 2011 at 9:22 am
It seems you are confusing ‘aurora’ with ‘days with aurora’. Let me explain, if on April 1, 10 aurora were seen at different people or places, and on April 2, 15 were seen, then there were 2 days with aurora, but 25 aurora seen. For 1850 the Fritz list for Europe [cited by Angot] had 60 days with aurorae (most singletons), not 142 days.
I counted the individual days but inadvertently also counted 1851. Apologies.
Around 62% of the Krivsky data has LOO listed for 1850. This is an obvious example of the American data only appearing as a reference because it also had auroras on the same day.
There were 87 days with aurorae from the LOO list, all of which are from New England. Since Fritz only had 60 days with aurorae, any American data can at most confirm 60 days. Since Krivsky lists 136 days with aurorae for 1850, at most 60 of those can be from Europe, the rest [plus all of those used for confirmation] are from New England, thus confirming that the Krivsky list is dominated by American entries.
You are still assuming that the LOO records can only confirm Fritz records, They can also confirm the Seydl and other European records of the year.
The LOO record is not clear, you state 87 for 1850 which looks right on the Krivsky data, but according to the Loomis book there are 36 auroras recorded at Boston and New Haven during 1850. I have 19 pages of the book which looks to be the total amount of pages but wonder if there is more, there does not seem to be daily data. I have found a copy of the original book online for $40.00 if anyone is interested.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/loomis.png
Geoff Sharp says:
November 27, 2011 at 4:57 pm
You are still assuming that the LOO records can only confirm Fritz records, They can also confirm the Seydl and other European records of the year.
You are assuming there were many such. From I know, there were but a few, so your point is moot.
The LOO record is not clear, you state 87 for 1850 which looks right on the Krivsky data, but according to the Loomis book there are 36 auroras recorded at Boston and New Haven during 1850.
Are you still counting aurorae? You should be counting days with aurorae. And there are other places in New England than Boston and New Haven. BTW, Loomis used the data given by Lovering before~1853. Counting Lovering for 1850 I get 90 days with aurorae [plus minus a few – these are hard to count], which shows that the LOO records are just Lovering.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 27, 2011 at 4:57 pm
You are still assuming that the LOO records can only confirm Fritz records
I think [from the evidence] that the confirmation business was only done for the original list. And that the LOO records were just dumped in there, overwriting whatever occasional Fritz records there might have been here and there. The number of LOO records seems to match the Lovering counts closely. It is unlikely that there were a matching Fritz or Seydl record for every LOO record, and if there were, it would just prove that the list is thoroughly mixed which has been my point all along. Pick you poison.
See, Leif.
although the mid-latitude aurora record may be incomplete since 1872,
untill you explain the patterns in the Faroes record that starts in 1872 and merges quite well with the other record as shown in the figure your argument may be inconclusive.
New England auroras are located too north and in another place, and the solar activity was increasing since Dalton minima, which may have changed the patterns and may explain the divergence observed in the data since 1850.
Angot’s list after 1880 contains too many Atlantic auroras at latitude norther than 40N , which are also located too north because the mid-latitude European Auroras would correspond to Atlantic latitude lower than 42N in the middle atlantic beteen Europe and USA. Those Atlantic auroras may be more compatible with the New England ones.
So, the issues may be fully resolved only by carefully trying to build an updated aurora catalog.
The fact thatthe aurora oval can expand and contract and other patterns may explain a divergence of the dynamical patterns and negative correlations among the records.
Then there are many other issues that need to be explained at the same time concerning the properties of these cycles in other solar and climatic records and in the records before 1700, etc.
So, the issue needs to be interpreted according to the big picture.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 27, 2011 at 5:17 pm
You are assuming there were many such. From I know, there were but a few, so your point is moot.
Do you have evidence that there are few European records other than Fritz that occur during 1850. They are available from the original and supplementary data. There may be a lot of European records that were not confirmed in the first past. The explanation text does state that the verification process applied to other records outside of Fritz.
Are you still counting aurorae? You should be counting days with aurorae. And there are other places in New England than Boston and New Haven. BTW, Loomis used the data given by Lovering before~1853. Counting Lovering for 1850 I get 90 days with aurorae [plus minus a few – these are hard to count], which shows that the LOO records are just Lovering.
I am just reading of the data table in the Loomis book (36). The 87 LOO records from Krivsky is your figure. We seem to have no verification of the actual LOO data. In his book he states many areas of reference for aurora.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/loomis1.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 27, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Your graphic conceals more than reveals. Here is a better comparison: http://www.leif.org/research/Auroral-Frequencies-per-Year.png
I think we can now put the whole thing to rest with confidence, unless you wish to fight some rearguard action, slowly petering out.
Your graph asks more questions than perhaps giving answers.
The LOO data in Krivsky by eyeballing is stated in around 50-60% of the cases from 1770-1872.
1. If your assumption that the LOO data is adding to the European record why does the Silverman/Krivsky data not diverge greatly before 1850.
2. If your assumption that the LOO data is adding to the European record why does the record between 1850 and 1872 show the Krivsky data much lower than the Silverman New England data. If the LOO data was adding you would expect it to over power the SIlverman Data. (the number of observers is not a strong argument).
3. The Krivsky data between 1872 and 1900 does perhaps look suspect. Angot continues the European record after 1872 (with a fairly high proportion of ocean sightings) that does show a fall after 1872 but also shows a rise after 1880. Maybe the Krivsky record is incomplete from 1872 to 1900. A graph of the Angot complete data might be helpful.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 27, 2011 at 5:59 pm
untill you explain the patterns in the Faroes record that starts in 1872 and merges quite well with the other record as shown in the figure your argument may be inconclusive.
The Faroes record is opposite to all other records.
Angot’s list after 1880 contains too many Atlantic auroras at latitude norther than 40N , which are also located too north because the mid-latitude European Auroras would correspond to Atlantic latitude lower than 42N in the middle atlantic beteen Europe and USA. Those Atlantic auroras may be more compatible with the New England ones.
Nonsense, the Kp=7 line that determines where aurorae can be seen overhead with the same frequency as in Germany and England in the middle Atlantic is well north of 50N: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Aurora/globeNW.html
So, the issues may be fully resolved only by carefully trying to build an updated aurora catalog.
One should not draw premature conclusions on a catalog that is in doubt. It will probably be impossible to improve on existing catalogs as there is no new data. But since we know that there are currents associated with aurorae and we know the strengths of those currents back to the 1830s, we can calculate what the auroral record will look like. The existing aurorae catalog are too dependent on number of observers and things not under control to be useful, except in a very general sense.
The fact that the aurora oval can expand and contract and other patterns may explain a divergence of the dynamical patterns and negative correlations among the records.
How the oval expands and contract is well-known and completely understood.
So, the issue needs to be interpreted according to the big picture.
No, the issue must be interpreted in according to the data and the well-known physics.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 27, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Do you have evidence that there are few European records other than Fritz that occur during 1850.
Fritz did a very thorough job and it is unlikely that a large number of non-Fritz records exists. But even if every record marked LOO had an unknown European record to match, it would still mean that the catalog is a thorough mix which is what I trying to show. I would gladly assume with you that every LOO record was just a confirmation of an unknown European record, because that would mean a complete mix. Are you ready to agree with that?
The explanation text does state that the verification process applied to other records outside of Fritz.
No, it says “If the source of an auroral observation given by H. Fritz [2] was also given by another author, the latter has been mentioned”. No other records than Fritz’s.
I am just reading of the data table in the Loomis book (36). The 87 LOO records from Krivsky is your figure.
No, they are Krivsky’s
We seem to have no verification of the actual LOO data. In his book he states many areas of reference for aurora.
Yes, he used the others to verify that the New England aurorae in his catalog [mostly drawn from Lovering] behave just like the European records.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/loomis1.png
He says: “In the Vierteljahrsschrift, vol 10, p.232 [I have that book and that catalog] is given a very complete catalog of European auroras classified by parallels of latitude, and I have used this as my principal basis in the subsequent comparisons”. He did not, of course, include them in his own list. For once, because the the list in Vierteljahrsschrift [compiled by Rudolf Wolf] gives yearly counts only.
Wolf writes: [my translation from the German]:
“I publish with pleasure the following report that my dear colleague and collaborator, Herr Fritz, has made about the periodic appearance of the aurora:
‘The aurora, the light produce by the Earth, has long been known to be a periodic phenomenon in mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere, as Mairan, Hansteen, Ritter, Muncke, Olmstedt and others have shown in excellent works […]. For this investigation I had before me the some 5800 days with observed aurorae published by Wolf in number V of his report series [I have that data too]. The result of the investigation was so compelling that it seemed worthwhile to compile a catalog, being as comprehensive and as complete as possible. […] The resulting catalog contains ~9500 days with observed aurorae, from at least 40,000 observations.'”
Geoff Sharp says:
November 27, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Your graph asks more questions than perhaps giving answers.
The LOO data in Krivsky by eyeballing is stated in around 50-60% of the cases from 1770-1872.
The exact counts are 2344 LOO and 4175 Total, or 56%
1. If your assumption that the LOO data is adding to the European record why does the Silverman/Krivsky data not diverge greatly before 1850.
I’m not assuming that. I’m saying that the LOO records are not European, but American. They do not diverge because the Krivsky data is dominated by American counts.
2. If your assumption that the LOO data is adding to the European record why does the record between 1850 and 1872 show the Krivsky data much lower than the Silverman New England data.
See above. Because at the end of the Lovering data in the 1850s, LOO found a smaller number of observations than Silverman eventually was able to produce, so Silverman has more data than LOO
(the number of observers is not a strong argument).
It is the only argument, see just above, as Silverman dug up more observations than Loomis had.
3. The Krivsky data between 1872 and 1900 does perhaps look suspect. Angot continues the European record after 1872 (with a fairly high proportion of ocean sightings) that does show a fall after 1872 but also shows a rise after 1880.
That ‘rise’ is hardly of significance, but could be caused by heavier ship traffic after 1880. Ocean sightings would be expected to better approximate the REAL frequency because of no street lights.
Maybe the Krivsky record is incomplete from 1872 to 1900. A graph of the Angot complete data might be helpful.\
Not ‘maybe’. Definitely. I gave you a link to Angot. Be constructive: Go make a graph.
2. If your assumption that the LOO data is adding to the European record why does the record between 1850 and 1872 show the Krivsky data much lower than the Silverman New England data.
See above. Because at the end of the Lovering data in the 1850s, LOO found a smaller number of observations than Silverman eventually was able to produce, so Silverman has more data than LOO.
(the number of observers is not a strong argument).
It is the only argument, see just above, as Silverman dug up more observations than Loomis had.
3. The Krivsky data between 1872 and 1900 does perhaps look suspect. Angot continues the European record after 1872 (with a fairly high proportion of ocean sightings) that does show a fall after 1872 but also shows a rise after 1880.
That ‘rise’ is hardly of significance, but could be caused by heavier ship traffic after 1880. Ocean sightings would be expected to better approximate the REAL frequency because of no street lights.
P.S. I have added the Wolf data:
http://www.leif.org/research/Auroral-Frequencies-per-Year.png
Eventually Fritz almost doubled the size [9500] of his list compared with the Wolf list [5800].
Not ‘maybe’. Definitely. I gave you a link to Angot. Be constructive: Go make a graph.
The Angot record must be used with care. Since 1881 there are a lot of mid-atlantic auroras that were not present before 1880.
For consistency the atlantic data need to be excluded and only the land data should be used from
Spain, Italy, France, England, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Bavaria, Saxony, Austria, Hungary, Russia.
In any case, in 1872 about 100-150 total land auroras are observed as in the Angot record catalog, and these are all from Europe, for what I could see . However , during the following solar maxima in 1882, about 25 auroras are seen on the land. This is more than in the Krivsky record, but in 1882 it is much much less (5 times less) than in the New England catalog.
At the faroes about 15-23 auroras are seen on average betwen 1881-1883
So, there is a clear divergence between Angot and New England, and before 1872 the data refers to European land auroras and correspond to Hermann Fritz’s catalogue and does not appear to be too different from Krivsky record which uses some criteria that would reduce the number of auroras. The other years after 1872 the number of auroras is much less than the New England one, and it appears that the 1875-1890 was generally low compared to previous decades.
Geoff, if you can plot a figure, it would be nice. Just count all land auroras since 1850, You should get something larger than Krivsky record.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 27, 2011 at 8:45 pm
For consistency the atlantic data need to be excluded and only the land data should be used from Spain, Italy, France, England, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Bavaria, Saxony, Austria, Hungary, Russia.
First we should exclude ship data from the Fritz/Krivsky catalog you are using.
But there is no reason the exclude the ships. They are perfect ‘rural’ sites in perfect locations. So give closer to the TRUE activity.
In any case, in 1872 about 100-150 total land auroras are observed as in the Angot record catalog, and these are all from Europe, for what I could see
The Angot record is for Europe and Eastern Atlantic.
This is more than in the Krivsky record
The Krivsky record is severely deficient after 1872.
At the faroes about 15-23 auroras are seen on average betwen 1881-1883
The Faroes are abnormal and no good.
The other years after 1872 the number of auroras is much less than the New England one, and it appears that the 1875-1890 was generally low compared to previous decades.
As I said, the Krivsky record is severely deficient
Just count all land auroras since 1850, You should get something larger than Krivsky record.
Since the Krivsky record includes ships, you would be comparing apples and oranges, right?
Anyway, the Argot number for land only for 1882 is 27, Krivsky is 3. For 1881, Arnot has 10, Krivsky 1; for 1885, Arnot has 12, Krivsky 1; for 1884, Arnot has 9, Krivsky has 0, and so on…
Angot record does not contain ship atlantic records before 1881. All auroras before 1881 are from the European mid-latitude cities and land regions and islands such as Malta in the mediterranium .And this criteria needs to be kept after 1881 too for a proper comparison.
Forget Krivsky for now, his cartalog should contain less auroras than Angot because Angot uses all observations, while Krivsky uses as criteria that an aurora needs to be seen in multiple regions, not just in one city.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 27, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Angot record does not contain ship atlantic records before 1881. All auroras before 1881 are from the European mid-latitude cities and land regions and islands such as Malta in the mediterranium .And this criteria needs to be kept after 1881 too for a proper comparison.
Angot just cites Fritz. And Fritz certainly used ship records, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1859-Jan-Mar-Original.png
And there is nothing wrong using the ships. They give even a truer picture.
Forget Krivsky for now, his cartalog should contain less auroras than Angot because Angot uses all observations, while Krivsky uses as criteria that an aurora needs to be seen in multiple regions, not just in one city.
No, that is not correct. This was only the case for Fritz records. Krivsky uses the LOO records uncritically without any exclusion criteria. And we can hardly forget Krivsky as your paper is based on his catalog.
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 27, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Angot record does not contain ship atlantic records before 1881. All auroras before 1881 are from the European mid-latitude cities and land regions and islands such as Malta in the mediterranium .And this criteria needs to be kept after 1881 too for a proper comparison.
Angot just cites Fritz. And Fritz certainly used ship records, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1850-Jan-Mar-Original.png