A review of East Asian reports of aurorae and comets circa AD 775
Authors:
Jesse Chapman,
Dagmar Neuhaeuser,
Ralph Neuhaeuser,
Mark Csikszentmihalyi
Abstract:
Given that a strong 14C variation in AD 775 has recently been suggested to be due to the largest solar flare ever recorded in history, it is relevant to investigate whether celestial events observed around that time may have been aurorae, possibly even very strong aurorae, or otherwise related to the 14C variation (e.g. a suggested comet impact with Earth's atmosphere). We critically review severa…
▽ More
Given that a strong 14C variation in AD 775 has recently been suggested to be due to the largest solar flare ever recorded in history, it is relevant to investigate whether celestial events observed around that time may have been aurorae, possibly even very strong aurorae, or otherwise related to the 14C variation (e.g. a suggested comet impact with Earth's atmosphere). We critically review several celestial observations from AD 757 to the end of the 770s, most of which were previously considered to be true, and in some cases, strong aurorae; we discuss in detail the East Asian records and their wording. We conclude that probably none among the events after AD 770 was actually an aurora, including the event in AD 776 Jan, which was misdated for AD 774 or 775; the observed white qi phenomenon that happened "above the moon" in the south-east was most probably a halo effect near the full moon - too late in any case to be related to the 14C variation in AD 774/5. There is another report of a similar (or identical) white qi phenomenon "above the moon", reported just before a comet observation and dated to AD 776 Jan; the reported comet observed by the Chinese was misdated to AD 776, but actually sighted in AD 767. Our critical review of East Asian reports of aurorae circa AD 775 shows some very likely true Chinese auroral displays observed and reported for AD 762; there were also several events prior to AD 771 that may have been aurorae but are questionable.
△ Less
Submitted 26 August, 2015;
originally announced August 2015.
The Chinese comet observation in AD 773 January
Authors:
Jesse Chapman,
Mark Csikszentmihalyi,
Ralph Neuhaeuser
Abstract:
The strong 14C increase in the year AD 774/5 detected in one German and two Japanese trees was recently suggested to have been caused by an impact of a comet onto Earth and a deposition of large amounts of 14C into the atmosphere (Liu et al. 2014). The authors supported their claim using a report of a historic Chinese observation of a comet ostensibly colliding with Earth's atmosphere in AD 773 Ja…
▽ More
The strong 14C increase in the year AD 774/5 detected in one German and two Japanese trees was recently suggested to have been caused by an impact of a comet onto Earth and a deposition of large amounts of 14C into the atmosphere (Liu et al. 2014). The authors supported their claim using a report of a historic Chinese observation of a comet ostensibly colliding with Earth's atmosphere in AD 773 January. We show here that the Chinese text presented by those authors is not an original historic text, but that it is comprised of several different sources. Moreover, the translation presented in Liu et al. is misleading and inaccurate. We give the exact Chinese wordings and our English translations. According to the original sources, the Chinese observed a comet in mid January 773, but they report neither a collision nor a large coma, just a long tail. Also, there is no report in any of the source texts about "dust rain in the daytime" as claimed by Liu et al. (2014), but simply a normal dust storm. Ho (1962) reports sightings of this comet in China on AD 773 Jan 15 and/or 17 and in Japan on AD 773 Jan 20 (Ho 1962). At the relevant historic time, the Chinese held that comets were produced within the Earth's atmosphere, so that it would have been impossible for them to report a "collision" of a comet with Earth's atmosphere. The translation and conclusions made by Liu et al. (2014) are not supported by the historical record. Therefore, postulating a sudden increase in 14C in corals off the Chinese coast precisely in mid January 773 (Liu et al. 2014) is not justified given just the 230Th dating for AD 783 \pm 14.
△ Less
Submitted 13 August, 2014;
originally announced August 2014.
