Aurora Borealis and surface temperature cycles linked

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes about a new paper from Nicola Scafetta.:

New Paper “A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature” By N. Scafetta 2011

File:Northern light 01.jpg
Northern light over Malmesjaur lake in Moskosel, Lappland, Sweden Image: Wikipedia

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.

Fig. 11. Astronomical harmonic constituent model reconstruction and forecast of the global surface temperature.

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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
795 Comments
December 4, 2011 6:16 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 3, 2011 at 6:35 pm
So, please avoid to be an official referee of my work , because you are not an unbiased person on these topics, and let other people to judge my work.
—————————
Some already have: e.g. http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

Quoting skepticalscience.com as a valid source of rebuttal is like saying Al Gore is an expert in climate science. Very bad form.

December 4, 2011 6:22 am

William says:
December 4, 2011 at 4:33 am
This paper finds the data does not support the hypothesis that the burn marks were caused by an extraterrestrial impact.
Does it support your ‘massive strikes’?
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 4, 2011 at 5:33 am
“the whole thing is just curve fitting that doesn’t work backwards in time and therefore cannot claim predictive power going forward.”
Look at figure 3 of my paper where I show the 60-year cycle since 1700, and numerous other references, where the 60 year cycle and the other cycles have been found up to thousand years uninterrupted.

Climate is one thing, which is not what I’m discussing.
there is no need for me to continue to discuss with you.
Yet you keep coming back for more.
About my results the future will tell, Leif, do not worry.
What? me worry? I don’t. Science is self-correcting, so time will do the necessary weeding.

December 4, 2011 6:23 am

Geoff Sharp says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:16 am
is like saying Al Gore is an expert in climate science.
Or worse: that Nicola is.

December 4, 2011 6:33 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:05 am
Geoff Sharp says:
December 4, 2011 at 5:44 am
We have just been this process…do we have to do the ground hog day thing?
——————–
?????

It has already been shown that left over singletons from the first Krivsky list line up with a proportion of the Loomis data…do we have to go over that again.
Rubbish, he has provided his own examples and witnessed others proved here. Please try to refrain from your sophist type behavior
————————
Which examples?

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:47 pm
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.
Not rocket science, cant see why you want to go over old ground. Nicola and I have both shown you the left over Fritz singletons that coincide with Loomis.
It is not bad style to investigate the full data in a proper open manner, taking your word for it is not good enough. Every record referenced by Krivsky must be examined in full.
I agree, and I have done that for all European data he lists. Which catalog would you like to look at? I asked you before, you didn’t answer.

Yes I did, we need to look at every single paper. The first paper to look at is Loomis, the only table I could find in the paper is in complete disagreement with the Loomis data provided in the Krivsky supplement. We need to see the daily Loomis data and check it against the supplement.
“The final list [not used by the paper] has 33 records of which 25 are LOOs, thus American.”
So Nicola’s point stands, the 1988 Krivsky list used in the Charvatova paper is not in any doubt of adulteration
————————————————
My point stands, the list in the Chartatova paper is just the old 1988 list [which I have in my hand, book 151 pages]. Nobody ‘adulterates’ anything.

You have no point. Nicola stated the original Krivsky 1988 data used in Charvatova’s paper shows a 60 year period in the aurora data. The aurora data in the 1988 Krivsky data has no doubt of an American bias.

December 4, 2011 6:35 am

Dr. Scafetta
I am a bit disappointed to see that you are still wasting your valuable time on this 60 year periodicity affair; the FFT analysis is not good enough for the purpose. I use different software and what it shows you can see here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spectra.htm
In general, it agrees what the BEST team presented at the recent Santa Fe conference, they found for the land temperatures 22-24 and 72 year peaks 72=3×24.
You are welcome to ignore it, but if you email me your data file I will check it out.

December 4, 2011 6:48 am

Geoff Sharp says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:33 am
It has already been shown that left over singletons from the first Krivsky list line up with a proportion of the Loomis data…do we have to go over that again.
Yes, as per definition there are no singletons in Krivsky’s 1st list.
<"Which examples?"
Nicola and I have both shown you the left over Fritz singletons that coincide with Loomis.
A great aurora is a global phenomenon and will be seen both in Europe and in New England, so if you add New England data, then you’ll see some that coincide with the scattered Euro data.
Yes I did, we need to look at every single paper. The first paper to look at is Loomis, the only table I could find in the paper is in complete disagreement with the Loomis data provided in the Krivsky supplement. We need to see the daily Loomis data and check it against the supplement.
So, you are saying that Krivsky did a bad job on those. The LOO data is North American, so are hardly relevant for Euro data, but the original Loomis paper is on its way to me, so we’ll soon see.
The aurora data in the 1988 Krivsky data has no doubt of an American bias.
Do you mean ‘no doubt has an American bias’?

tallbloke
December 4, 2011 6:55 am

William says:
December 3, 2011 at 5:48 pm
The surface burn marks that coincide with the timing of the Younger Dryas abrupt climate event are charge discharges from the ionosphere to the surface of the planet.

Hi William,
I’m certain you’ll find this paper to be of interest. Ionospheric glows before and after the Tunguska event:
http://meetings.copernicus.org/epsc2010/abstracts/EPSC2010-429-1.pdf

December 4, 2011 7:04 am

tallbloke says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:55 am
I’m certain you’ll find this paper to be of interest. Ionospheric glows before and after the Tunguska event
The paper is somewhat diminished by the report of glows four days before the event. Did the ionosphere know the bolide was coming?

December 4, 2011 7:09 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:48 am
Geoff Sharp says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:33 am
It has already been shown that left over singletons from the first Krivsky list line up with a proportion of the Loomis data…do we have to go over that again.
————————————
Yes, as per definition there are no singletons in Krivsky’s 1st list.

So this is how a sophist works his protractors? You know full well there are Fritz records that did not make the first list. How do we take you seriously with those kind of comments. Your reputation again in question.
Yes I did, we need to look at every single paper. The first paper to look at is Loomis, the only table I could find in the paper is in complete disagreement with the Loomis data provided in the Krivsky supplement. We need to see the daily Loomis data and check it against the supplement.
————————–
So, you are saying that Krivsky did a bad job on those. The LOO data is North American, so are hardly relevant for Euro data, but the original Loomis paper is on its way to me, so we’ll soon see.

I am saying the data I have does not agree. Will wait for your delivery.
The aurora data in the 1988 Krivsky data has no doubt of an American bias.
————
Do you mean ‘no doubt has an American bias’?

The base data in the Krivsky first list (1988) is all European…without doubt.

December 4, 2011 7:22 am

Geoff Sharp says:
December 4, 2011 at 7:09 am
So this is how a sophist works his protractors? You know full well there are Fritz records that did not make the first list. How do we take you seriously with those kind of comments. Your reputation again in question.
Clarity in thought and subsequent expression is of the essence, and you were a bit deficit in that comment.
The base data in the Krivsky first list (1988) is all European…without doubt.
With reference to what I just said, why obscure your comment by saying ‘base data’? What does that mean? and why didn’t you just say so?

December 4, 2011 7:52 am

Geoff Sharp says:
December 4, 2011 at 7:09 am
So this is how a sophist works his protractors? You know full well there are Fritz records that did not make the first list. How do we take you seriously with those kind of comments. Your reputation again in question.
Clarity in thought and subsequent expression is of the essence, and you were a bit deficit in that comment. So, now you get a second chance, here are the data for 1844 again:
1844 1 8 LOO
1844 1 12 LOO
1844 01 13 F As 1st
1844 01 19 F As 1st
1844 1 24 LOO
1844 1 27 LOO
1844 2 11 LOO
1844 02 20 F As 1st
1844 3 4 LOO
1844 3 7 LOO
1844 4 5 LOO
1844 04 17 F As 1st
1844 5 7 LOO
1844 5 8 LOO
1844 5 14 LOO
1844 5 22 LOO
1844 6 12 LOO
1844 6 16 LOO
1844 6 22 LOO
1844 6 24 As
1844 08 01 F As 1st
1844 08 09 F As 1st
1844 8 11 LOO
1844 8 22 As
1844 8 29 LOO
1844 9 30 LOO
1844 10 20 LOO
1844 11 5 LOO
1844 11 6 LOO
1844 11 13 LOO
1844 11 14 LOO As
1844 11 16 LOO
1844 12 08 F As 1st
1844 12 14 LOO
1844 12 29 F A 1st
Entries marked A are from Angot’s list of Fritz’s European list. Explain what you think is going on with each entry.

December 4, 2011 7:55 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 4, 2011 at 7:52 am
1844 12 08 F As 1st
1844 12 14 LOO
1844 12 29 F A 1st

Forgot to say that a small ‘s’ like in As denotes a singleton and that ‘1st’ means that the entry is on the first 1988 list.

December 4, 2011 9:18 am

M.A.Vukcevic says:
Please study my papers before criticize them.
Do not imitate Leif that does not understand any more of what he is talking about.
Leif continues to talk about LOO record while results similar to mine have been found by other people also without LOO record using only the European record. And it was documented for centuries even considering aurora data collected before the discovery of America. Thus, Leif continues in his misleading agenda and his poor understanding of data mining thecniques..
In my papers, several power spectra analisis are extensively used together with other thecniques of analisis and with proxy comparisons and a large list of references that further support the claim. Moreover, your way of using FFT is also not appropriate for several mathematical reasons.
The BEST record must be used with great care, because 1) it refers to only land temperature, 2) before 1860 it is made of very few questinable records just from Europe and Atlantic North America which together represent less than 2% of the globe.
Your peak at 72 year is spurious, the peaks in the temperature are around 1880, 1940 and 2000. Which makes 60-year cycles. See figures here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/14/dr-nicolas-scaffeta-summarizes-why-the-anthropogenic-theory-proposed-by-the-ipcc-should-be-questioned/
If you do not believe in my reserch, look at other studies. For example, on this blog there is another discussion on hurricanes
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/02/hurricanes-and-global-warming-opinion-by-chris-landsea/
where you find this comment about the 60-year cycle
“The remaining data still shows a variation in storm activity that Landsea, like Bill Gray before him, ascribes to the 60 year cycle of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). We entered a warm AMO phase in 1995 which coincided with the current period of high storm activity.”

William
December 4, 2011 9:50 am

In reply to Leif Svalgaard says:
December 3, 2011 at 6:23 pm
LS: It is the massive flow of charge that creates the geomagnetic excursion
By doing what: magnetizing surface rocks? (William: No. By current flow from the surface of the planet to the core.)
LS: The west component is due to the motion of the earth as the massive strikes occur.
There are no ‘massive strikes’. And the earth does not move as a result.
(William: The electrical discharge from the ionosphere to the surface of the planet occurs over a period of time. Look at the pictures of the Carolina Bays burn marks. There are an estimated 500,000 burn marks. The longest burn marks are 8 km long. There is evidence of restrike. The earth rotates while the event is going on which creates the westward component of the burn marks. Yes, there are currently no discharges from the ionosphere to the surface of the planet. This specific event occurs when the solar magnetic cycle restarts. Provided above is a paper that notes five geological separate Auckland volcanoes erupted geologically simultaneously capturing a geomagnetic excursion – I can provide other papers that provide geological evidence of this event. There would be and is evidence of this event’s affect on the other planets – the massive discharge from the ionosphere to the surface of the planet. The point is this event happens regularly. There is in the geological record correlation with climate events and volcanic eruption in both hemispheres. This event causes the sudden increase in volcanic activity in both hemispheres for regions that are obviously geologically separated. (Think of individual magma chambers feeding volcanoes that located on different faults and completely separated plates.)
As I stated there are published papers and observational data of very large objects, super massive “black holes” that provides a guide to the physics of what is happening. There is an entire set of astronomical anomalies which are explained by this phenomenon. There is a physical reason why this happening. There obviously would be and are dozens of different observational evidence of the phenomenon.)
LS: Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5^10
The current field is 50,000 nT. to drop by a factor of 5^10 [weird number, must be typo?] the field must fall to 0.005 nT which is way below what we can measure.
(William. Yes that is a typo. The geomagnetic field intensity drops by a factor of 5 to 10.)
Solar cycle 24 is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle as opposed to a slow down in the cycle. The outcome after an interruption is dependent on the solar cycles prior to the interruption and on orbital factors.
The Heinrich events have a periodicity of roughly 6000 to 10000 years. There was a major event during the Younger Dryas cooling event 12800 year BP and during the 8200 year BP cooling event.
http://sheridan.geog.kent.edu/geog41066/7-Overpeck.pdf
ABRUPT CHANGE IN EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM
“The earliest Holocene abrupt climate changes occurred at 12,800, 8200, 5200, and 4200 B.P. . . .”
The 8200 B.P. event, “lasted four hundred years (6400-6000 B.C.) and, like the Younger Dryas, generated abrupt aridification and cooling in the North Atlantic and North America, Africa, and Asia (Alley et al. 1997; Barber et al. 1999; Hu et al. 1999; Street-Perrot and Perrot 1990).

December 4, 2011 11:20 am

Dr. Scafetta
I use a tailor made software, which doesn’t use the FFT , it produces large output of 4000 data points, regardless of the data-set length, pinpointing frequencies with extreme accuracies.
Here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETspec.gif
I show the output for the annual CET from
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
last column
run it through your best software and compare. If you for some reason find it significantly different than spectrum resolution may not be good enough.
My offer still stands to run spectrum, will keep it confidential, email address is on the graph.
I have no reason to doubt the BEST, I get very similar result for the global etc, and the LOD is exactly 72 years as you can see here.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spectra.htm
As far as dr. S concerned we ‘get on just fine’; don’t we doc?
All the best in your endeavours.

December 4, 2011 12:05 pm

Sorry, Vukcevic
as I said, you need to read my papers first with an open mind, together with their numerous references. And you need to undestand better timeseries analysis. I have already explained you the problems with CET and other local records.
Do not presume to know everything as Leif. Time series analysis is a complex process, it is not only about software, it is about physics, geometry and mathematics as well.

December 4, 2011 12:43 pm

I have no time for references if I can’t get hold of the data, everything I do starts with data. One has to now when is the time to give up, and I think it is time I gave-up on this one.
Good lack.

December 4, 2011 6:09 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 4, 2011 at 7:52 am
1844 1 8 LOO
1844 1 12 LOO …Hamburg
1844 01 13 F As 1st
1844 01 19 F As 1st
1844 1 24 LOO
1844 1 27 LOO
1844 2 11 LOO
1844 02 20 F As 1st
1844 3 4 LOO
1844 3 7 LOO
1844 4 5 LOO
1844 04 17 F As 1st
1844 5 7 LOO
1844 5 8 LOO
1844 5 14 LOO
1844 5 22 LOO
1844 6 12 LOO
1844 6 16 LOO
1844 6 22 LOO
1844 6 24 As …NVR
1844 08 01 F As 1st
1844 08 09 F As 1st
1844 8 11 LOO
1844 8 22 As …NVR
1844 8 29 LOO
1844 9 30 LOO
1844 10 20 LOO
1844 11 5 LOO
1844 11 6 LOO
1844 11 13 LOO
1844 11 14 LOO As …Hamburg
1844 11 16 LOO
1844 12 08 F As 1st
1844 12 14 LOO
1844 12 29 F A 1st
1844 is a lean year for Fritz with 12 total entries (Angot). Two of those entries have (?) beside them that Krivsky (one would assume) does not use or (NVR.. no verifying record). The two remaining singletons are verified by LOO (Hamburg). All “As 1st” type records are either verifying another non Fritz Euro record or are verified by another region in the original Fritz list. I do not have the original Fritz list. The remaining LOO entries are yet to be confirmed. I am not sure what your entry Nov 14 represents “LOO As”

William
December 4, 2011 6:16 pm

Thank you for interest. That is all that I have to say for for now.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016/suppl/DC1#F7
Quote:
Fig. 7. Aerial photo (U.S. Geological Survey) of a cluster of elliptical and often overlapping Carolina Bays with raised rims in Bladen County, North Carolina. …
…The largest Bays are several kilometers in length, and the overlapping cluster of them in the center is ≈8 km long.
http://www.paleomag.net/members/qingsongliu/References/EPSL/Thouveny%20excursions%20since%20400%20ka%20EPSL%202004.pdf
Geomagnetic moment variation and paleomagnetic excursions since 400 kyr BP: a stacked record from sedimentary sequences of the Portuguese margin
A paleomagnetic study was performed in clayey-carbonate sedimentary sequences deposited during the last 400 kyr on the Portuguese margin (Northeast Atlantic Ocean). Declination and inclination of the stable remanent magnetization present recurrent deviations from the mean geomagnetic field direction. The normalized intensity documents a series of relative paleointensity (RPI) lows recognized in other reference records. Three directional anomalies occurring during RPI lows chronologically correspond to the Laschamp excursion (42 kyr BP),the Blake event (115-122 kyr BP) and the Icelandic basin excursion (190 kyr BP). A fourth directional anomaly recorded at 290 kyr BP during another RPI low defines the ‘Portuguese margin excursion’. Four non-excursional RPI lows are recorded at the ages of the Jamaica/Pringle Falls, Mamaku, Calabrian Ridge 1, and Levantine excursions. The RPI record is characterized by a periodicity of V100 kyr, paleointensity lows often coinciding with the end of interglacial stages. This record sets the basis of the construction of an authigenic 10Be/9Be record from the same sedimentary sequences [Carcaillet et al.,this issue].
Spectral analyses of the RPI record reveal a dominant periodicity at 100 kyr,already reported by other studies (e.g. [41,59,60]). The RPI and N18O records also present a phase shift of 18 kyr: RPI lows often coincide with the end of interglacial or interstadial stages. The geomagnetic moment loss (greater than 30%) over the last two millennia deduced from archeomagnetic results (e.g. [38,39]) might foreshadow the next excursion for the end of our present interglacial, even though this loss started 2200 years ago from an exceptionally high geomagnetic moment value.

December 11, 2011 7:14 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:09 pm
>i>1844 is a lean year for Fritz with 12 total entries (Angot). Two of those entries have (?) beside them that Krivsky (one would assume) does not use or (NVR.. no verifying record). The two remaining singletons are verified by LOO (Hamburg). All “As 1st” type records are either verifying another non Fritz Euro record or are verified by another region in the original Fritz list. I do not have the original Fritz list. The remaining LOO entries are yet to be confirmed. I am not sure what your entry Nov 14 represents “LOO As”
I have collected all available data from all catalogs for 1844 and entered them into this spreadsheet: http://www.leif.org/research/Aurorae-1844.xls The format should be self-evident. I get 21 pure North American records and 3 pure Euro records and 5 mixed ones. Try your hand on the file and see what you get. It is clear that many LOO records are validated by there being more than one North American record on the days.

December 12, 2011 12:14 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 11, 2011 at 7:14 pm
It is clear that many LOO records are validated by there being more than one North American record on the days.
So, it is now established that the latest Krivsky list is dominated [by approx. a factor of three over Euro records] by American entries. This is also clear from the run of the isochasms. In Fritz’s 1881 book ‘Das Polarlicht’ he gives a long list of the isochasm values for all places that have contributed to his catalog. It is instructive to look at a plot of these values [of auroral days per year] as a function of latitude for three regions: America, Europe, and Asia: http://www.leif.org/research/Fritz-Isochasms-vs-Latitude.png
Because of the lopsidedness of the Auroral Oval, the three regions show different tracks, but if you plot against geomagnetic latitude [bottom], they are largely agree. The top plot shows that it is really not a good idea to use the same latitude cutoff [55 degrees] for all regions. If one does that [as Krivsky did], then you end up with about three times as many aurorae in the American sector compared to the European sector [and even more for the Asian sector]. Therefore any compilation or catalog that employs the same cutoff for all regions would end up with many more American entries than Euro entries, just as we find.

December 12, 2011 1:20 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 12, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Therefore any compilation or catalog that employs the same cutoff for all regions would end up with many more American entries than Euro entries, just as we find.
This therefore invalidates Nicola’s claim that his paper is based on European entries.

December 14, 2011 4:34 pm

“This therefore invalidates Nicola’s claim that his paper is based on European entries.”
Leif,
by any chance, did you read my paper?
Page 2, second column, last paragraph:
“Fig. 2B shows the annual frequencies of mid-latitude auroras obtained from the supplement of the catalogue of mid-latitude auroras <55N from 1700 to 1900. This record contains the historical aurora observations reported MOSTLY in central Europe since 1000AD"
I am not saying that the aurora record is based "only" on European auroras.
This is what you are saying, but that is not what it is written in the paper. 🙂
In any case, even if you are right and some New England "only" auroras are included in the record, this does not justify you to add a huge amount of new England northern auroras inside the record as you want to do, which will definitely bias the record toward norther geomagnetic latitudes and the record will totally lose its character of being a record "mostly" indicative of central Europe and the lower geomagnetic latitudes. In fact, as Silverman and everybody says New England auroras are more likely similar to those in Southern Sweden.
Moreover similar results to mine have been found by using only European Auroras.
Thus, your criticism is totally unjustified and just proves only your biases and prejudices and closed mindness! 🙂
In italian we say: "te la suoni e te la canti da solo"
(something like "you are singing your own praises" or like "You dance to your own tune")
as your self references shows!

Carla
December 14, 2011 7:22 pm

From the outside looking in..it appears as though someone here is getting someone else to do their homework for them .. or not..

December 14, 2011 9:40 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 14, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Leif, by any chance, did you read my paper?
I think nobody has read your paper as carefully as I. It is by this that I have laid bare its flaws.
This record contains the historical aurora observations reported MOSTLY in central Europe since 1000AD” I am not saying that the aurora record is based “only” on European auroras.
I have shown that the Krivsky data that you use is MOSTLY North American. The ‘only’ bit comes from Geoff’s (mis)understanding of your paper.
does not justify you to add a huge amount of new England northern auroras inside the record as you want to do, which will definitely bias the record toward northern geomagnetic latitudes and the record will totally lose its character of being a record “mostly” indicative of central Europe and the lower geomagnetic latitudes
I did not add any entries, Krivsky did [most of the LOO records], and you uncritically used what he provided.
In fact, as Silverman and everybody says New England auroras are more likely similar to those in Southern Sweden.
Aurorae are ordered in geomagnetic coordinates and a good part of the data come from England up to the Scottish border at 55N geographic. The geomagnetic latitude of that is such that Denmark and Southern Sweden are in the same geomagnetic latitude range as England. So if you want to exclude Denmark and Southern Sweden, you must exclude England as well. This is even more important in North America, where one should really exclude most records from New England for the same reason. Or, to get better statistics, include New England, England, Denmark, and Southern Sweden on the same footing. After all, the aurora is a global phenomenon and all areas at the same geomagnetic latitude see aurorae with the same frequency.
Thus, your criticism is totally unjustified and just proves only your biases and prejudices and closed mindness! 🙂
Thus, my criticism goes to the core of the flaws in your paper.
Carla says:
December 14, 2011 at 7:22 pm
From the outside looking in..it appears as though someone here is getting someone else to do their homework for them
This is what scientists do: criticizing flawed papers and forcing their authors to do some needed homework [which they should have done beforehand]. In this way, science becomes self-correcting by weeding out low-quality or erroneous work.

1 26 27 28 29 30 32