A review of East Asian reports of aurorae and comets circa AD 775

Chapman, J.; Neuhäuser, Dagmar L.; Neuhäuser, R.; Csikszentmihàlyi, Mark

doi:10.1002/asna.201512193

Cited by 21 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the former event in 774/775 became widely discussed (e.g. Usoskin et al, 2013;Chapman et al, 2015;Hayakawa et al, 2016a), the latter event received far less attention and has only been discussed by Hayakawa et al (2015) and Stephenson (2015). The former, Hayakawa et al (2015), examined Chinese official history and found no relevant records between 988 and 996, but suggested a possibility of records in 992 in the Ulster Annals (Annala Uladh) and in German chronicles (Fritz, 1873) to be related with this event.…”

Section: Introduction: Carbon-14 Variations In 994mentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical Auroras in the 990s: Evidence of Great Magnetic Storms

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, a significant carbon-14 enhancement in the year 994 in tree rings has been found, suggesting an extremely large cosmic ray flux event during a short period. The origin of this particular cosmic ray event has not been confirmed, but one possibility is that it is of solar origin.Contemporary historical records of low latitude auroras can be used as supporting evidence for intense solar activity around that time. We investigated the previously reported as well as the new records found in contemporary observations from the 990s to determine potential auroras. Records of potential red auroras in the late 992 and early 993 were found around the world, i.e. in the Korean Peninsula, Germany, and the Island of Ireland, suggesting the occurrence of an intense geomagnetic storm driven by solar activity.2

show abstract

Section: Introduction: Carbon-14 Variations In 994mentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical Auroras in the 990s: Evidence of Great Magnetic Storms

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One could imagine that Marius and his visitor would have at least tried to observe spots together during the visit. If the weather was too overcast on that or those day(s), then he would instead have 13 In occidental records, words like fire or burning indicate both red colour and some (apparent) motion for aurorae, flame(s) do(es) not necessarily indicate red colour; in oriental reports, the phrases like fire and like flame(s) do not mean red colour nor motion; most oriental reports are written by astronomers, they mention explicitly colour and changes, see and Chapman et al (2015) for more discussion about aurora criteria. For the possible aurora on 1611 Nov 29, we know only that Lee et al (2004) describe them as red, but we cannot exclude that the original text reports only flames, i.e.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sunspot numbers based on historic records in the 1610s: Early telescopic observations by Simon Marius and others

Neuhäuser

Neuhäuser²

2016

Astron Nachr

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hoyt & Schatten (1998) claim that Simon Marius would have observed the sun from 1617 Jun 7 to 1618 Dec 31 (Gregorian calendar) all days, except three short gaps in 1618, but would never have detected a sunspot – based on a quotation from Marius in Wolf (1857), but mis‐interpreted by Hoyt & Schatten. Marius himself specified in early 1619 that for one and a half year... rather few or more often no spots could be detected... which was never observed before (Marius 1619). The generic statement by Marius can be interpreted such that the active day fraction was below 0.5 (but not zero) from fall 1617 to spring 1619 and that it was 1 before fall 1617 (since August 1611). Hoyt & Schatten cite Zinner (1952), who referred to Zinner (1942), where observing dates by Marius since 1611 are given but which were not used by Hoyt & Schatten. We present all relevant texts from Marius where he clearly stated that he observed many spots in different form on and since 1611 Aug 3 (Julian) = Aug 13 (Greg.) (on the first day together with Ahasverus Schmidnerus); 14 spots on 1612 May 30 (Julian) = Jun 9 (Greg.), which is consistent with drawings by Galilei and Jungius for that day, the latter is shown here for the first time; at least one spot on 1611 Oct 3 and/or 11 (Julian), i.e. Oct 13 and/or 21 (Greg.), when he changed his sunspot observing technique; he also mentioned that he has drawn sunspots for 1611 Nov 17 (Julian) = Nov 27 (Greg.); in addition to those clearly datable detections, there is evidence in the texts for regular observations. For all the information that can be compared to other observers, the data from Marius could be confirmed, so that his texts are highly credible. We also correct several shortcomings or apparent errors in the database by Hoyt & Schatten (1998) regarding 1612 (Harriot), 1615 (Saxonius, Tard´e), 1616 (Tard´e), 1617–1619 (Marius, Riccioli/Argoli), and Malapert (for 1618, 1620, and 1621). Furthermore, Schmidnerus, Cysat, David & Johann Fabricius, Tanner, Perovius, Argoli, and Wely are not mentioned as observers for 1611, 1612, 1618, 1620, and 1621 in Hoyt & Schatten. Marius and Schmidnerus are among the earliest datable telescopic sunspot observers (1611 Aug 3, Julian), namely after Harriot, the two Fabricius (father and son), Scheiner, and Cysat. Sunspots records by Malapert from 1618 to 1621 show that the last low‐latitude spot was seen in Dec 1620, while the first high‐latitude spots were noticed in June and Oct 1620, so that the Schwabe cycle turnover (minimum) took place around that time, which is also consistent with the sunspot trend mentioned by Marius and with naked‐eye spots and likely true aurorae. We consider discrepancies in the Hoyt & Schatten (1998) systematics, we compile the active day fractions for the 1610s, and we critically discuss very recent publications on Marius which include the following Maunder Minimum. Our work should be seen as a call to go back to the historical sources. (© 2016 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

show abstract

“…What is reported as a white vapour penetrating the Moon may well be some halo effect around the Moon, which is quite possible 2 days before the full moon. For a discussion of the aurora sightings around the full moon, see Chapman, Neuhäuser, Neuhäuser, and Csikszentmihalyi ().…”

Section: Discussion Of the Early Observationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpretation of the historic Yemeni reports of supernova SN 1006: Early discovery in mid‐April 1006?

Neuhäuser

Neuhäuser²,

Rada

et al. 2017

Astron Nachr

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recently published Yemeni observation report about SN 1006 from al‐Yamānī clearly gives AD 1006 April 17 ± 2 (mid‐Rajab 396h) as the first observation date. Since this is ∼1.5 weeks earlier than the otherwise earliest reports (April 28 or 30) as discussed so far, we were motivated to investigate an early sighting in more depth. We searched for additional evidences from other areas like East Asia and Europe. We found that the date given by al‐Yamānī is fully consistent with other evidence, including the following: (a) SN 1006 rose several times half an hour after sunset (al‐Yamānī), which is correct for the location of Ṣancā' in Yemen for the time around April 17, but it would not be correct for late April or early May. (b) The date (third year, third lunar month, 28th day wuzi, Ichidai Yoki) for an observation of a guest star in Japan is inconsistent (there is no day wuzi in that lunar month), but may be dated to April 16 by reading a wuwu date rather than a wuzi date. (c) There is observational evidence that SN 1006 was observed in East Asia in early or mid‐April; for the second half of April, a bad weather (early monsoon) period is not unlikely— there is a lack of night reports. (d) The observer in St. Gallen reported to have seen SN 1006 for 3 months, which must have ended at the very latest on AD 1006 July 10, given his northern location, so that his observations probably started in April. We conclude that the correctly reported details give quite high confidence in the fully self‐consistent report of al‐Yamānī, so that the early discovery date should be considered seriously.

show abstract

A review of East Asian reports of aurorae and comets circa AD 775

Cited by 21 publications

References 21 publications

Historical Auroras in the 990s: Evidence of Great Magnetic Storms

Historical Auroras in the 990s: Evidence of Great Magnetic Storms

Sunspot numbers based on historic records in the 1610s: Early telescopic observations by Simon Marius and others

Interpretation of the historic Yemeni reports of supernova SN 1006: Early discovery in mid‐April 1006?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About