To highlight:

“Since then, an extensive body of evidence from space measurements
has been accumulated, and the existence and importance of magnetic-field aligned electric fields in space plasmas is now generally accepted.” — Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, Division of Plasma Physics, Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

From the PDF file paper linked below:

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/falthammar_ajp_74_454_06.pdf

Electric Field and Plasma Flow: What Drives What? byVytenis M. Vasylifinas

“As long as the inertia of the plasma is dominated by the rest mass of the plasma particles and not by the relativistic energy-equivalent mass of the magnetic field, flows produce electric fields, but electric fields do not produce flows, …..”

Here is an exposition you’ll like [it is on your level of ignorance]:
http://www.electric-sun.info/main.html#other

Be specific, run with the above. and find NASA releases that confirm each point made. Who would you rather believe: NASA or this guy?

astronomers and astrophysicists alike are most reluctant to acknowledge electromagnetic dynamics.
Because they know better.

The crisis is here, today, in astronomy.
I think there crisis is in you. It is getting a little tiresome to keep saying it, but you claimed that NASA ‘explicitly’ said that the currents were coming from the Sun. Where is that explicit quote?
Alfven was cautioning against misuse of the concept the created, not against proper use. What the recent NASA releases you referred to were about was confirmation of the picture we basically had correctly since the 1970s, as my 1973 paper so clearly illustrates.

Nature does not conform to Man’s beliefs
and most certainly not to yours. What we believe today has been wrung out of a reluctant Mother Nature. Hundreds of scientists have been involved in this great undertaking.

Admittedly, these points are ancillary to the larger discussion, but it goes to the underlying basis for the conclusions given about Sun/Earth energy budget determinations, principally the significance of solar maximum and solar minimum variations.

Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The magnetic field and the moving plasma create the current, not the other way around.”

You’re getting warmer, but you aren’t there, yet.

The moving plasma creates the electric current because “moving plasma” as seperated charges, constitutes electrons having ordered movement (the charged particles are flowing linerally away from the Sun). In addition, charged particles when in motion have electric potential. Flows of charged particles are electric currents.

Also, Science knows the charged particles (electrons and ions) in the “solar wind” accelerate away from the Sun, and even continue accelerating past the Earth. Electric fields accelerate charged particles across interplanetary space.

There can be an electric field without a magnetic field, but there can’t be magnetic field without an electric field.

There simply is no way to avoid it: The “solar wind” is a diffused radial electric current.

I know NASA subscribes to “magnetic reconnection” (you can’t get ‘em all right).

But here is a quote from the original developer of MHD Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize winner in physics, from his book Cosmic Plasma:

“Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of ‘magnetic merging’ or of ‘magnetic field-line reconnection’, or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration. In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).” Page 33, Chapter 2

So-called “magnetic reconnection” is really ‘electrical current re-configuration’. There are no ‘open magnetic field lines’, all magnetic fields exist in a circuit.

Hannes Alfven considered “magnetic reconnection” as pseudo-science.

In 1970, Hannes Alfvén, the ‘father of plasma physics,’ warned that cosmology was headed into crisis. He was referring to the treatment of plasma—which makes up about 99.9% of the visible universe—as a magnetizable gas. Alfvén was responsible for the theory, known as ‘magnetohydrodynamics’ or MHD. But he publicly repudiated its use for space plasma in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech:

“The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come.” —H. Alfvén, Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970

Too many astrophysicists are pure mathematicans and fail to appreciate that plasma and electromagnetism does not behave as the mathematical equations would have it in Nature because it is non-linear.

Nature does not conform to Man’s beliefs, in other words, even if every person subscribes to a belief — it can be wrong.

Dr. Svalgaard presented my [Anaconda's] statement: “It would seem that what you presented [descriptions of electric currents and electric fields] in 1973 was forgotten by many in the interim possibly.”

Dr. Svalgaard responds: “No, this has not been forgotten, it is part of mainstream science.”

In general (yes, lip service is given), but when getting down to the details of physical relationships of many astrophysical objects and processes, astronomers and astrophysicists alike are most reluctant to acknowledge electromagnetic dynamics.

The crisis is here, today, in astronomy.

Another good source to help you dispel your misconceptions is Vasyliunas’ paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2001GL013014.pdf

Red Vasyliunas’ letter. I think the main problem there is the assumption of motion controlled by inertia of plasma’s mass as an initial condition. I think the starting point should be thermal chaotic gas motion, brought into order through Lorentz forces generated by initial chaotic movement of both types of charged particles. My maths is not up to the level required to set out an alternative set of equations, which could lead to a different conclusion.

And I’m not going to go down the road of all my prior interactions with some in the scientific community
Not all, just ONE, a single ONE.

It shows their own insecurities.
So, the whole world is insecure. Better come to and pay mister-know-it-all, eh?

Gene Parker, the ‘father’ of the solar wind, put the matter best:
“The theoretical structure of electric and magnetic fields is presented in the standard textbooks, and one may ask why further conversation on the subject is useful or interesting. What is new that has not already been said many times before? The reply is that the emphasis in the usual formulation of electromagnetism is directed toward static electric and magnetic fields and then to electromagnetic radiation, whereas we are interested here in the electromagnetism of the cosmos — the large-scale magnetic fields that are transported bodily in the swirling ionized gases (plasmas) of planetary magnetospheres, stars, and galaxies, and, indeed, hroughout intergalactic space. The plasma and the magnetic fields appear to be everywhere throughout the universe. The essential feature is that no significant electric field can arise in the frame of reference of the moving plasma. Hence, the large-scale dynamics of the magnetic field is tied to the hydrodynamics (HD) of the swirling plasma in the manner described by theoretical magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). So we shall have a fresh look at the theoretical foundations of both HD and MHD. The conventional derivations of the basic equations of HD and MHD are correct, of course, but the derivations ignore some fundamental questions, allowing a variety of misconceptions to flourish in the scientific community. We work out a minimal physical derivation, laying
bare the simplicity of the necessary and sufficient conditions for the validity of HD and MHD to describe the large-scale bulk motion of plasmas and their magnetic fields. The essential condition for HD is that there be enough particles to give a statistically precise definition of the local plasma density; the essential condition for MHD is that there be enough free electrons and ions that the plasma cannot support any significant electric field in its own moving frame of reference. Both of these requirements are satisfied almost everywhere throughout the cosmos, with the result that HD and MHD accurately describe the large-scale bulk dynamics of the plasmas and fields. The magnetic field is transported bodily with the bulk motion of the plasma, and the dynamics is basically the mechanical interaction between the stresses in the magnetic field B and the pressure p and bulk momentum density NMv of the plasma velocity v. The associated electric current j and the electric field E in the laboratory frame of reference play no direct role in the dynamics. They are created and driven by the varying B and v. If needed for some purpose, they are readily computed once the dynamics has provided B and v. [...]
The essential point is that we live in a magnetohydrodynamic universe in which the magnetic field B is responsible for the remarkable behavior of the gas velocity v, and vice versa. Then we must recognize that the large-scale magnetic stresses in the interlaced field line topologies created by the plasma motions have the peculiar property of causing the field gradients to increase without bound. The resulting thin layers of intense field shear and high current density “eat up” the magnetic fields at prodigious rates. The effect is commonly called rapid reconnection of the magnetic field because the field lines are cut and rejoined across the intense shear layer, and it is a universal consequence of the large-scale field line topology. Rapid reconnection is evidently responsible for such phenomena as the solar flare, the million degree temperature of the solar X-ray corona, and the terrestrial aurora. ”

Eugene N. Parker:
Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos, Princeton University Press 2007
http://books.google.com/books/princeton?hl=en&q=&vid=ISBN9780691128412&btnG.x=12&btnG.y=11&btnG=Search+This+Book
then click on ‘Preview this bok’ for more.
Parker engages readers in a series of “conversations” that are at times anecdotal and even entertaining without ever sacrificing theoretical rigor. The dynamics he describes represents the Maxwell stresses of the magnetic field working against the pressure and inertia of the bulk motion of ionized gases, characterized in terms of the magnetic field and gas velocity. Parker shows how this dynamic interaction cannot be fully expressed in terms of the electric current and electric field.

Buy or read the book http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8454.html on-line.

Perhaps that should be telling you something…

——-
It does. It shows their own insecurities. This is your playground as well as some other forums and you do not like it when an outsider comes around and challenges your expertise. At least in regards to forecasting. So you beat around the bush when it comes to answering forecast questions. Like what your Cycle 23 forecast was.

And this is why I can not understand how you mock others for not answering your questions when you have dodged this question three or four times over the past 1-2 months. With silly comments about post maximum research which showed what it “should” have been.

And for the sake of it, let’s consider that you did put one out, but it was wrong. Well this is also a red herring because you obviously wouldn’t have put out a Cycle 23 forecast if you did not have solid evidence to back you up. But your prior research had to have flaws if you redeveloped it again, (Or changed completely), for Cycle 24. So all of us could have easily been having all of these recent conversations thirteen years ago while entering Cycle 23. And you would have thought that you had all the answers back then also.

See a pattern? Which is par for the course for your community. You’ve been portrayed as experts by those who have no idea about the subject matter. But your community as a whole are not experts when it comes to “actually forecasting things”. And this is a myth for the most part and we both know it.

So let’s stop acting like the planetary use is a psuedoscience. Because some of you keep coming up with these supposedly solid statistical correlations time and time again, with scientific foundation, but they end up failing….pseudoscience…..pot meet kettle.

Jim, that wager would be worth considering but only if you describe your methods, codes, indices, calculations, and data sources like any other researcher worth a wager would do. Otherwise, it would be a sucker bet. That kind of bet says way more about the wager’er than it does his audience’s unwillingness to bite the bait.

Pamela,

Why is it worth considering when I shell out my reasoning but not when I don’t when I am already telling him what I rely upon. Or consider an important factor ? (Which he said before that he does not believe in.)

So this type of goating can be seen as someone who wants something for free. Which I go through quite frequently on the weather side. Even most recently with an offer from a long range outlet. So the sucker would be me if I took your bait. But I’m not some naive kid who just got out of college.

And I’m not going to go down the road of all my prior interactions with some in the scientific community, for my reasoning of not wanting to divulge certain methods, whether they be for long term weather forecasting, or the sun’s behavior.

And I’ve already mentioned around here or even elsewhere that I do not claim to know why these planetary relationships have such an influence on the sun, as in A -Z cause an effect. But I obviously have good company and Leif is one of them.

Due to the effect of entrainment of superconducting protons by rotating superfluid neutrons, a nonuniform magnetic field, the average value of which is constant, is formed in the vortex zone of the neutron star, directed parallel to the star’s axis of rotation.
Note:superconducting protons

A neutron star has extreme magnetic fields and no apparent charge??

-On subatomic and sub molecular level, it is particles spin or bond currents that generate magnetic field.
- Steady (DC) current will generate magnetic field in a medium including vacuum.
- Fixed (steady) magnetic field to generate electric current requires a conductor intercepting variable flux, a moving charged particle, or the field itself has to be variable (time or space).
No magnetic field can generate electric current in a vacuum.
- If charged particle carries so called ‘frozen magnetic field’ there is nothing frozen there, the field it generates in its vicinity is due to the spin of its electric charge.

Whichever way you look at it, magnetic field is always linked to some kind of movement of electrical charges, commonly known as electrical currents.
I would be interested to know if anyone can name a source of a magnetic field, which in final analysis is not linked to an electric charge. For permanent magnets look up Ampère’s model and bond currents.

Leif Svalgaard (17:23:38) :
“The magnetic field and the moving plasma create the current, not the other way around.”

What generates ‘magnetic field’ (preferably trace it to its ultimate source) in the above sentence ?

On the separate matter of the climatic influences, I would go with Dr. Svalgaard’s views until such time as it is conclusively shown otherwise, beyond what we already know (W/m2).