James F. Evans (09:07:57) :

Bob,

Part of the problem is that there are so many agenda’s running around we don’t know who is qualified to review the science or not.

James: Welcome to the club.

You might start by acknowledging that there are a lot of physics neophytes out here (like me, for instance) who are just trying to learn something.

Why not make a distinction between what you know (and giving attribution), what is theoretical, and your pet theories (whicy you may identify as “my pet theories.”)

Hope this helps.

No chance!”

Actually I’ve designed and implemented the electronics, DSP firmware, drivers and process control software on a number of temperature apps over the years-beginning with a 500 degree C ceramic circuitboard firing furnace- variously running CPM, thru PSOS/Unix to Windows.

If I don’t know what I’m talking about a programmer(see Brinch Hansen, Scherrer or Straka), sometime “scientist” certainly does not. Scientists write the grants but engineers(often the same individual in other disciplines) do the work and the abstract need bear no certain relation to the reality.

Spare us the vaudeville act, please.

It is also sensible (& efficient) to let a matter go to avert dissonance.

Reiterating: You misunderstand.

Perhaps there will be future opportunities to discuss this fruitfully – for example if new & important information comes to our attention.

Back to research …

Research takes priority over fruitless online exchanges. (Fruitful online exchanges, by sharp contrast, spark creativity.)

I hope your research is going well. (Society is depending on you – I wish you efficiency.)

Here is a laboratory experiment showing the existence of frozen-in field and magnetic reconnection:
http://www.cfn.ist.utl.pt/EPS2001/fin/pdf/OR.07.pdf and I quote: “Fig. 2, in which the density evolution is represented as a function of magnetic flux Ψ and time. The density contours follow the evolution of Ψ, demonstrating that the plasma is frozen-in to the magnetic field.”
One of the issues with real plasmas is a phenomenon called ‘anomalous resistivity’ that allows reconnection to occur at a much faster rate than in an MHD formulation. In the ideal MHD case [which is not realized in Nature] reconnection cannot occur.

What Alfven was rejecting were some misuses of the concept, not the concept itself.

But again, all of this is just fluff serving to obscure the wrong idea of there somehow being much more energy flowing to us that we can observe [but that somehow, nevertheless, influences the climate].

Dr. Eugene Parker: “In the laboratory we create static magnetic fields by driving an electric current through a coil of wire. The emf [electromotive force] and the current are clearly the cause of the magnetic field.” (p. 25, Conversations)

Please, your understanding of physics is so rudimentary that it is better for you to begin to learn something, instead of parroting things you do not understand. The very next paragraph of Parker’s is what you need to understand. But perhaps a simpler case: that of a dynamo: http://www.explainthatstuff.com/generators.html
where the mechanical energy that rotates a magnetic generates a current.

You misunderstand.