The comment you posted links to a post made user u/msimms in the r/confidentlyincorrect subbreddit which describes itself in it’s About section as “For those times when people are way too smug about their wrong answer”. This user titled their post “Red on Instagram confidently incorrect about climate change affecting aurora’s”. The accompanying photo features an anonymous comment exchange without context on what posts the comments are about. The initial commenter says “It’s pretty but it isn’t normal to see them this frequent in places that far south. This is a direct result of climate change.”Someone responds to this comment: “the aurora’s are one of the few things climate change does NOT affect. Aurora’s have to do with charged particles from a solar flare and the earth’s magnetic field. Climate is not part of that equation. Solar activity affects the auroras, and we’re at or just past the solar maximum, the peak of solar activity in the solar cycle. Climate change is real though”. Two comments follow this from another two anonymous users “wrong” and “Cyclical climate change has always existed” respectively.
Though this post makes a lot of claims, your particular question is about whether climate change is affecting typical locations where aurora borealis appear and/or if climate change directly affects aurora borealis. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) and Aurora Australis (Southern Lights) are the result of electrons colliding with the upper reaches of Earth’s atmosphere”. Further, that aurora occur due to accelerated electrons following the magnetic field of Earth into Polar Regions where they collide with oxygen and nitrogen atoms in the Earth’s upper atmosphere, thus causing a transfer of energy that ultimately produces light.
Further, the NOAA explains that “When space weather activity increases and more frequent and larger storms and substorms occur, the aurora extends equatorward. During large events, the aurora can be observed as far south as the US, Europe, and Asia. During very large events, the aurora can be observed even farther from the poles.” It is unclear where OP meant by “that far south” in their post but perhaps this explains increased observation of aurora borealis.
In terms of climate change in particular, there is no direct effect on aurora but there are indirect effects. This is perfectly summarized by Rashmitha Diwyanjalee of Climate Fact Checks, an independant environmental journalists trained in the field of fact-checking. In their article titled The Northern Lights: A Spectacular Display Influenced by Climate Change, Diwyanjalee explains how climate change may influence aurora’s appearences in terms patterns and intensity, visibility, and trackability (climate change does affect ability to monitor and predict solar events). Diwyanjalee backs up these claims with resources from British Geological Survey, Advancing Earth and Space Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Central and NASA. In sum, while the relationship is complex “climate change can indirectly affect the Northern Lights by altering atmospheric and geomagnetic conditions.”
In sum, there is not enough context nor enough explanation to know what OP meant about “normalcy” and “frequent viewing” so “far south” due to “climate change.” Solar phenomena and Earth’s magnetic field are influenced by factors still not completely understood and the connection of climate change has still not been fully investigated.
