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 30, 2011 at 5:44 am
Geoff Sharp says:
November 30, 2011 at 3:29 am
I said every LOO record is covering a Fritz or other European record, this is what the Author is also saying
————————————
No, that is not what the Author said. Here is what he said:
“If the source of an auroral observation given by H. Fritz [2] was also given by another author, the latter has been mentioned”
You forgot this bit “That is why authors of this catalogue did not adopt
all the occurrences of aurorae, given by the authors of the partial catalogues
or sets of their observations”
Geoff Sharp says:
November 30, 2011 at 5:56 am
“No, that is not what the Author said. Here is what he said:
“If the source of an auroral observation given by H. Fritz [2] was also given by another author, the latter has been mentioned””
You forgot this bit “That is why authors of this catalogue did not adopt all the occurrences of aurorae, given by the authors of the partial catalogues or sets of their observations”
Irrelevant for this. You are grasping for weak straws here. Krivsky simple explained why he wanted more than just one observation per day. Nothing to do with Fritz.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 30, 2011 at 3:29 am
I said every LOO record is covering a Fritz or other European record, this is what the Author is also saying
I consulted my medium in Berkeley who got the original data from Krivsky. Here is a comparison:
http://www.leif.org/research/Krivsky-1831.png showing that the LOO records were simply added to the old list and did not cover any Fritz or other European record, not a single one. Other years show the same. So, the LOO records [from America] inflate 1831 from 21 original European [and American] records recorded by Fritz to 56 records. That is: the final list is dominated by American records and is not a pure European record. That puts the discussion to rest.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 30, 2011 at 10:59 pm
That puts the discussion to rest.
Actually your medium has made things rather difficult for you. Of the new LOO records on the revised Krivsky list there are 10 corresponding Fritz entries that are singletons that were not able to be used in the first list because there was no verifying record. So this proves the LOO record is just a qualifier. The remaining LOO records that don’t correspond with a Fritz record are obliviously covering single records that appear in the other 35 odd European lists that Krivsky used. Did you ever wonder why there is not a lot of the non Fritz Euro data in the Krivsky list?…simple answer, they needed to be verified.
Keep trying Leif, you will have to do better. Perhaps your medium can find Krivsky’s original work sheets?
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:40 am
i>The remaining LOO records that don’t correspond with a Fritz record are obliviously covering single records that appear in the other 35 odd European lists that Krivsky used. Did you ever wonder why there is not a lot of the non Fritz Euro data in the Krivsky list?…simple answer, they needed to be verified.
You are beginning to sound like Baghdad Bob, http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljoke-iraqinfominister.htm
There were only 5 non-Fritz entries in the Krivsky list, from 3 other lists. The simple answer is that there are no other. BTW, Krivsky also comment on the sudden drop after 1872 and why there are so few records in the list after that: “In an attempt to preserve homogeneity, the aurorae observed towards the end of the whole period, including those from the southern mid-latitudes, were not taken into account”
The data from NOAA that is ‘the final list’ starts out with a note from the editor:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/AURORAE/aurorae.dat.rev
EDITOR’S NOTES (25 July 1996): A supplemental list of data found in
“Supplement of the Catalogue of Polar Aurorae <55N in the Period 1000-
1900" and text were added to the original list.
Krivsky did not produce the combined list.
Time to let go of those straws you a clinging to.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 1, 2011 at 6:15 am
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:40 am
The remaining LOO records that don’t correspond with a Fritz record are obliviously covering single records that appear in the other 35 odd European lists that Krivsky used. Did you ever wonder why there is not a lot of the non Fritz Euro data in the Krivsky list?…simple answer, they needed to be verified.
You are beginning to sound like Baghdad Bob, http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljoke-iraqinfominister.htm
“There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!”
“My feelings – as usual – we will slaughter them all”
“Our initial assessment is that they will all die”
“I blame Al-Jazeera – they are marketing for the Americans!”
“God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of Iraqis.”
‘We have destroyed 2 tanks, fighter planes, 2 helicopters and their shovels – We have driven them back.”
“These cowards have no morals. They have no shame about lying”
…
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 30, 2011 at 10:59 pm
showing that the LOO records were simply added to the old list and did not cover any Fritz or other European record, not a single one.
This so patently wrong. You are getting sloppy.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 6:28 am
“showing that the LOO records were simply added to the old list and did not cover any Fritz or other European record, not a single one.”
This so patently wrong.
Like Baghdad Bob again.
—-
EDITOR’S NOTES (25 July 1996): “A supplemental list of data found in “Supplement of the Catalogue of Polar Aurorae <55N in the Period 1000-1900" and text were added to the original list.”
Krivsky did not produce the combined list.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:03 am
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 6:28 am
“showing that the LOO records were simply added to the old list and did not cover any Fritz or other European record, not a single one.”
—-
This so patently wrong.
——–
Like Baghdad Bob again.
So are you saying you were not patently wrong when you said the LOO record was not backing up one single Euro record, although I found 10 records easily?… or are you just playing the Ad Hominem card?
Here is you chance to finally admit you can be wrong. And while you are at it perhaps apologize to the scientists you have maligned in this thread.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 1:55 pm
So are you saying you were not patently wrong when you said the LOO record was not backing up one single Euro record, although I found 10 records easily?… or are you just playing the Ad Hominem card?
Since aurorae that are active enough to be seen below 55N are typically global, it is very likely that the same aurora will be seen both in New England and in Europe. That does not mean that the LOO records are covering entries in the original catalog, they are not coinciding with a single one. In fact, there are, as you point out, still a further 35 LOOs that do not coincide with any other record. Krivsky did not compose the final list, “EDITOR’S NOTES: The digitization of these data were part of a data rescue project funded by the NOAA Earth Systems Data and Information Management (ESDIM) program and the NASA Space Physics Data System (SPDS) Data Set Preservation and Supply program (NASA 01026). Data were key entered using ESDIM funds and processed and quality controlled using NASA SPDS funds.” and “A supplemental list of data found in “Supplement of the Catalogue of Polar Aurorae <55N in the Period 1000-
1900" and text were added to the original list.” No attempt was made to ‘verify’ or ‘validate anything.
Take another example: November, 1834:
1834 11 2 LOO
1834 11 03 F
1834 11 5 LOO
1834 11 6 LOO
1834 11 28 LOO
Fritz’s list has only one [and it is a singleton] entry in November, 1834, on Nov. 3 and only observed in England. The case is clear.
And while you are at it perhaps apologize to the scientists you have maligned in this thread.
What scientists?. The one and only committing scientific malfeasance is Nicola. Perhaps you know of several others that also did and should properly be maligned…
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 1:55 pm
So are you saying you were not patently wrong when you said the LOO record was not backing up one single Euro record
Of the 2344 LOO records between 1776 and 1872, not a single one replaces any of the 1482 F records in the original 1988 Krivsky list, although, as you and Nicola, so strenuously have maintained “If the source of an auroral observation given by H. Fritz [2] was also given by another author, the latter has been mentioned”. But no LOO has ever replaced an F. It is impossible that over ~100 years, it never happened that a LOO record happened on a day that was already validated as an F day. The case, again, is clear.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 1, 2011 at 3:38 pm
It is quite amazing what lengths you will go to in an attempt to save face. I see no retraction about your incorrect statement “showing that the LOO records were simply added to the old list and did not cover any Fritz or other European record, not a single one.”. Instead you continue with another incorrect statement That does not mean that the LOO records are covering entries in the original catalog, they are not coinciding with a single one
The LOO records in your data provided coincide with 9 Fritz singleton entries that did not make the first list. Is this so hard to conceptualize? Check the Angot record for yourself and come back to me. You can apologize then.
In fact, there are, as you point out, still a further 35 LOOs that do not coincide with any other record
You are all over the place…I said 35 odd European lists (authors) that Krisvksy used. There are 34 LOO entries in your example. There are 9 (I counted one incorrectly) Fritz singleton records that occur on the same day as the LOO entry that were not in the original Krivsky list. So for 9 out of 34 LOO entries we have undeniable proof of Krivsky’s method of confirming Euro records with American records. The rest you will have to contact your medium for. (they will reside in the remaining 35 euro lists)
Krivsky did not compose the final list,
I am very aware of who put together the final list. The Supplementary list is constructed by Krivsky using his rules. So any supplementary record has already had the verification process applied, all NOAA did was add them together. Krivsky talks about this process in his notes. Do you really think Krivsky who was a life long professional would change his method of verification on part two of his project? He is one of the scientists you owe an apology to, the referees to Nicola’s paper are others. All this based on an unproven assumption…shame, shame.
@ur momisugly Leif.”and text were added to the original list. No attempt was made to ‘verify’ or ‘validate anything.”
really!
LOO and Fritz were not the only catalogs used, there were others.
The fact that there was an attempt to verify and validate the records with at least two entries is proved by comparing other data in 1834
1834 1 5 LOO Jan. -5, Catterick Bridge (Yorkshire).
1834 1 7 LOO
1834 1 15 LOO Jan. —15th. Brussels.
1834 2 7 LOO
1834 2 8 LOO
1834 2 10 LOO Feb. 10. Augsburg.
1834 2 20 LOO Feb. —20th. Kendal.
where the European record on the right is taken from Fritz.
Note that in Fritz it is listed only one city! So the data needed a validation which was given by LOO.
You are a very good sophist, Leif. Good work!
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 1, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Of the 2344 LOO records between 1776 and 1872, not a single one replaces any of the 1482 F records in the original 1988 Krivsky list,
One more time. The LOO record allows previously (1980 Krivsky list) omitted Fritz records (because they were not verified ie singleton record) to be added. Because the LOO record was the confirming record it gets the name in the database as per Krivsky’s method. What is so hard to understand? Your statement is completely wrong.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 1, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Of the 2344 LOO records between 1776 and 1872, not a single one replaces any of the 1482 F records in the original 1988 Krivsky list,
I think I can see the error of your ways. You are thinking that a LOO record from the 2nd list is confirming a Fritz record in the 1st list?
Each list has the confirmation process applied separately.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Instead you continue with another incorrect statement That does not mean that the LOO records are covering entries in the original catalog, they are not coinciding with a single one
That is something you can verify yourself. Do that and tell us which ones do coincide.
There are 34 LOO entries in your example. There are 9 (I counted one incorrectly)
So, we can both miscount, but that still leaves 34-9 = 25 not accounted for.
So for 9 out of 34 LOO entries we have undeniable proof of Krivsky’s method of confirming Euro records with American records.
And the remaining 25 are proof of the opposite.
(they will reside in the remaining 35 euro lists)
Show that!. There are not that many list with lots of data. And the only picked up a few stragglers that Fritz missed. Fritz was pretty good.
I am very aware of who put together the final list.
Does not show. Perhaps you state who you are aware of.
The Supplementary list is constructed by Krivsky using his rules.
This is an unfounded speculation. Krivsky himself states that the LOO entries are predominantly North American.
Do you really think Krivsky who was a life long professional would change his method of verification on part two of his project?
I do not think the supplement was verified, simply because there are not enough other records out there to do that.
He is one of the scientists you owe an apology to
He is not responsible for your mistakes or Nicola’s misuse of the data.
the referees to Nicola’s paper are others.
Not doing due diligence on the Krivsky list and its provenance is bad enough, but letting slip by the splicing together of dominantly New England data and near Auroral Zone Faroes data and calling the whole thing mid-latitude European data is unpardonable. Showing either sloppiness
or core incompetence. Neither deserves any favorable consideration.
All this based on an unproven assumption…shame, shame.
Trying to out-compete Baghdad Bob again?
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:47 pm
LOO and Fritz were not the only catalogs used, there were others.
containing very records compared to LOO and Fritz, so have negligible impact.
The fact that there was an attempt to verify and validate the records with at least two entries is proved by comparing other data in 1834
1834 1 5 LOO Jan. -5, Catterick Bridge (Yorkshire).
1834 1 7 LOO
1834 1 15 LOO Jan. —15th. Brussels.
1834 2 7 LOO
1834 2 8 LOO
1834 2 10 LOO Feb. 10. Augsburg.
1834 2 20 LOO Feb. —20th. Kendal. Perhaps continue the list:
1834 3 3 LOO
1834 3 4 LOO
1834 5 3 LOO
1834 6 28 LOO June 28 Brussels
1834 7 28 LOO
1834 9 30 LOO
1834 10 1 LOO
1834 10 8 LOO
1834 10 23 LOO
1834 11 2 LOO
1834 11 5 LOO
1834 11 6 LOO
1834 11 28 LOO
1834 12 3 LOO
1834 12 4 LOO
1834 12 6 LOO
1834 12 23 LOO
24 LOOS and only 5 matches. And since a strong aurorae is not a local phenomenon, it will be seen over a wide area, so some matches is to be expected.
You are a very good sophist, Leif. Good work!
You misspelled ‘scientist’. Bad!
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:57 pm
One more time. The LOO record allows previously (1980 Krivsky list) omitted Fritz records (because they were not verified ie singleton record) to be added. Because the LOO record was the confirming record it gets the name in the database as per Krivsky’s method. What is so hard to understand? Your statement is completely wrong.
There are many, many more LOO records than singleton Fritz records. Try your hand on 1844 which has 25 LOO records and 9 Fritz singletons. Even you should be able to understand that.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 6:50 pm
I think I can see the error of your ways. You are thinking that a LOO record from the 2nd list is confirming a Fritz record in the 1st list?
No, I don’t think the LOO records are confirming any records at all. Loomis was dead long before Krivsky was born, so did not know about Krivsky’s method [which BTW is not always applied]. The LOO list is what Loomis reported back in the 1870s.
Leif, do not be so naive!
There are a lot of LOO data that are present in the european record of Fritz.
The fact that not all LOO data are present in Fritz was because many other minor catalogs were used as well. It is evident that you need to cross -compare all catalogs to undrstand what Krivsky did.
These are tha catalogs used by Krivsky :
B BOTLEY C. M.: Some Great Tropical Aurorae. J. British Astr. Assoc. 67,
1957, 188.
BOTLEY C. M.: Aurora in S. W. Asia 1097 – 1300. J. British Astr. Assoc.
74, 1964, 293.
Ba BARNARD E. E.: Observations of the Aurora made at the Yerkes Observatory,
1897-1902. Astrophys. J. 16, 1902, 135.
BF Bulletin de la Societe Astronomique de France, 1895 – 1907. (Excerpts
prepared by L. Krivsky).
D DALL’ OLMO U.: An Additional List of Auroras from European Sources from
450 to 1466 A.D., J. Geophys. Res. 84, 1979, 1525.
F FRITZ H.: Verzeichniss beobachteter Polarlichter. C. Gerold’s Sohn, Wien
1873.
JB Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 1890 – 1976. (Excerpts
prepared by L. Krivsky)
JZ JIN L., ZENG Z.: A chronology of ancient aurorae observed in China.
Academia Sinica Peking. Preprint 1982.
K KEIMATSU MITSUO: A Chronology of Aurorae and Sunspots Observed in China,
Korea and Japan (VII). Ann. Sci. Kanazawa Univ. 13,1976,1.
L1 LINK F.: Observations et catalogue des aurores boreales apparues en
occident de -626 a 1600. Trav. de l’Inst. Geophys. de l’Acad.
Tchecoslov. des Sci. No. 173 (1962) Praha 1963, 297.
L2 LINK F.: Observations et catalogue des aurores boreales apparues en
occident de 1601 a 1700. Trav. de l’Inst. Geophys. de l’Acad.
Tchecoslov. des Sci. No 212 (1964), Praha 1965, 501.
L3 LINK F.: Astronomicke zpravy v kronice vysehradskeho kanovnika. Ceskosl.
cas. hist. 9, 1961, 559.
M MATSUSHITA S.: Ancient Aurorae Seen in Japan, J. Geophys. Res. 61, 1956,
297.
Mo MOSSMAN R. C.: The Aurora Borealis in London from 1707 to 1895, J. of the
Scottish Meteorological Soc., Ser. III, Vol. XI, Nos XIII – XVI,
March 1898, 58.
N NEWTON R. R.: Medievel Chronicles and the Rotation of the Earth. Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore 1972.
P PEJML K., KRIVSKY L.: Unknown Observations of Aurorae from Bohemia (Part
I of the Solar Activity, Aurorae, and Climate in Central Europe, in the
Last 1000 Years). 1980, unpublished. See also Part I of this
Publication No 606 Krivsky L., Pejml. K.
R RETHLY A., BERKES Z.: Nordlichtbeobachtungen in Ungarn (1523 – 1960).
Ung. Akad. d. Wissensch. Budapest 1963.
S SEYDL O.: A List of 402 Northern Lights Observed in Bohemia, Moravia and
Slovakia from 1013 till 1951. Trav. de l’Inst. Geophys. de l’Acad.
Tchecoslov. des Sci., No 17 (1954), Praha, 1955, 159.
Sc SCHODER W.: Auroral Frequency in the 17th and 18th Centuries and Maunder
Minimum. J. Atm. Terr. Phys. , 41, 1979, 445.
Sch SCHOVE D. J.: English Aurorae of A. D. 1660/61, J. Brit. Astr. Assoc.,
62, 1951, 38.
SCHOVE D. J.: London Aurorae of A. D 1661, J. Brit. Astr. Assoc. 63,
1953, 266.
SH SCHOVE D. J., HO P. Y.: Chinese Aurorae: I, A.D.1048 – 1070, J. Brit.
Astr. Assoc. 69, 1959, 295.
Sp SPILGER L.: Markus zum Lamm (1544 – 1606) als Meteorologe, Zeitschr. f.
angw. Meteorologie 56, 1939, 371.
T TYLDESLEY J. B.: Gilbert White and the Aurora, J. Brit. Astr. Assoc., 86.
1976, 214.
V VYSSOTSKY A. N.: Astronomical Records in the Russian Chronicles from
1000 to 1600 A.D. (as Collected by D. O. Sviatsky). Medd. Lunds Astr.
Obs. II-126, 1949, 40.
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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 1, 2011 at 6:52 pm
There are many, many more LOO records than singleton Fritz records. Try your hand on 1844 which has 25 LOO records and 9 Fritz singletons. Even you should be able to understand that.
I am wondering how it is going to take before the penny drops. Let us take it slow, one point at a time.
If you are looking at the Krivsky list there are 8 Fritz entries for 1844. They are not singletons, they are verified Fritz entries probably? from the first list. Only 1 of the 8 has a verifying record within Fritz’s list, so to make the Krivsky list another Euro record must exist, but is hidden because of Krivsky’s method. A singleton in my book is a Fritz entry that does not make either of Krivsky’s lists. If you look at the Fritz (Angot) data you will see a very large proportion of days where only one town or country is listed. This is a singleton if not verified by another record from Europe of America. Later when the Loomis data was used some of these singletons are now added to the 2nd list but have a LOO label on them according to the Krivsky method. Other singleton (non verified records) from the other 35 odd Euro data sets are also dealt with in the same way.
Your earlier state if correct Of the 2344 LOO records between 1776 and 1872, not a single one replaces any of the 1482 F records in the original 1988 Krivsky list, is proof that the LOO records are confirming singletons left over from the old list along with new singletons available in the later Euro data.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Leif, do not be so naive!
I think it is naive [or worse! – dumb comes to mind] to believe that the following catalogs have material relevance for 1776-1872:
B BOTLEY C. M.: Some Great Tropical Aurorae. J. British Astr. Assoc. 67,
1957, 188.
BOTLEY C. M.: Aurora in S. W. Asia 1097 – 1300. J. British Astr. Assoc.
74, 1964, 293.
Ba BARNARD E. E.: Observations of the Aurora made at the Yerkes Observatory,
1897-1902. Astrophys. J. 16, 1902, 135.
BF Bulletin de la Societe Astronomique de France, 1895 – 1907. (Excerpts
prepared by L. Krivsky).
D DALL’ OLMO U.: An Additional List of Auroras from European Sources from
450 to 1466 A.D., J. Geophys. Res. 84, 1979, 1525.
JB Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 1890 – 1976. (Excerpts
prepared by L. Krivsky)
JZ JIN L., ZENG Z.: A chronology of ancient aurorae observed in China.
Academia Sinica Peking. Preprint 1982.
K KEIMATSU MITSUO: A Chronology of Aurorae and Sunspots Observed in China,
Korea and Japan (VII). Ann. Sci. Kanazawa Univ. 13,1976,1.
L1 LINK F.: Observations et catalogue des aurores boreales apparues en
occident de -626 a 1600. Trav. de l’Inst. Geophys. de l’Acad.
Tchecoslov. des Sci. No. 173 (1962) Praha 1963, 297.
L2 LINK F.: Observations et catalogue des aurores boreales apparues en
occident de 1601 a 1700. Trav. de l’Inst. Geophys. de l’Acad.
Tchecoslov. des Sci. No 212 (1964), Praha 1965, 501.
M MATSUSHITA S.: Ancient Aurorae Seen in Japan, J. Geophys. Res. 61, 1956,
297.
N NEWTON R. R.: Medievel Chronicles and the Rotation of the Earth. Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore 1972.
P PEJML K., KRIVSKY L.: Unknown Observations of Aurorae from Bohemia (Part
I of the Solar Activity, Aurorae, and Climate in Central Europe, in the
Last 1000 Years). 1980, unpublished. (contains but 20 auroral days 1776-1872)
Sc SCHODER W.: Auroral Frequency in the 17th and 18th Centuries and Maunder Minimum. J. Atm. Terr. Phys. , 41, 1979, 445.
Sch SCHOVE D. J.: English Aurorae of A. D. 1660/61, J. Brit. Astr. Assoc.,
62, 1951, 38.
SCHOVE D. J.: London Aurorae of A. D 1661, J. Brit. Astr. Assoc. 63,
1953, 266.
SH SCHOVE D. J., HO P. Y.: Chinese Aurorae: I, A.D.1048 – 1070, J. Brit.
Astr. Assoc. 69, 1959, 295.
Sp SPILGER L.: Markus zum Lamm (1544 – 1606) als Meteorologe, Zeitschr. f.
angw. Meteorologie 56, 1939, 371.
T TYLDESLEY J. B.: Gilbert White [died 1793]and the Aurora, J. Brit. Astr. Assoc., 86.
1976, 214.
V VYSSOTSKY A. N.: Astronomical Records in the Russian Chronicles from
1000 to 1600 A.D. (as Collected by D. O. Sviatsky). Medd. Lunds Astr.
Obs. II-126, 1949, 40.
Br BREZAN VACLAV:Zivoty poslednich Rozmberku (I,II). Svoboda, Praha 1985.Before ~1610
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 Maunder 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.
Ma MAKO P.: Dissertationes Physicae, Tupis Regiae Universitatis Budae, 1781.
MB MAREK BYDZOVSKY (z Florentina): Chronicle Notes of Czech. Svoboda, Praha
1987.before 1600
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. Mentioned twice!
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. Last mentioned in 1318
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:50 pm
If you are looking at the Krivsky list there are 8 Fritz entries for 1844. They are not singletons, they are verified Fritz entries probably? from the first list. Only 1 of the 8 has a verifying record within Fritz’s list, so to make the Krivsky list another Euro record must exist, but is hidden because of Krivsky’s method.
You have this completely backwards. Fritz’s full list [not just the European subset Angot gives] included a lot of aurorae from region IV [America], so these 7 have a matching aurora from region IV if they are not on the region II list [Angot’s], region I has so few that it doesn’t matter. So, again the list shows that the Original list is not a European list, in fact, dominantly an American list when you add the 25 LOO records from North America..
Your earlier state if correct Of the 2344 LOO records between 1776 and 1872, not a single one replaces any of the 1482 F records in the original 1988 Krivsky list, is proof that the LOO records are confirming singletons left over from the old list along with new singletons available in the later Euro data.
There are very few new Euro data and they are after 1872 [SC2]. The LOO record is, as Krivsky tells us, predominantly American data.
Leif,
do your homework!
for example
Mo MOSSMAN R. C.: The Aurora Borealis in London from 1707 to 1895, J. of the
Scottish Meteorological Soc., Ser. III, Vol. XI, Nos XIII – XVI, March 1898, 58.
for the year 1834, that you like so much, it has 5 auroras each for month from Aug to Dec. However Fritz does not have auroras in Aug and Oct. So, there are two additional auroras which may match two auroras used in LOO.
Ann we can continue for the other ones
Geoff Sharp says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:50 pm
If you are looking at the Krivsky list there are 8 Fritz entries for 1844. They are not singletons, they are verified Fritz entries probably? from the first list.
You are forgetting I have the first list from 1988. Not a single one has been replaced by a LOO entry, so they must be verified by an region IV [North American] entry, making that 7+25=32 American entries vs. only 1 (Dec 29th) verified pure European entry. So, again, the Krivsky list is overwhelming an American list.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 1, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Leif, do your homework!
Perhaps you do yours. The Mo list was not on my dumb list
And we can continue for the other ones
Please do, to regain some credibility.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 1, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Mo MOSSMAN R. C.: The Aurora Borealis in London from 1707 to 1895, J. of the
Scottish Meteorological Soc., Ser. III, Vol. XI, Nos XIII – XVI, March 1898, 58. […]
there are two additional auroras which may match two auroras used in LOO.
May? Which ones?