Transient Van Allen radiation belt discovered

NASA's Van Allen Probes Discover a Surprise Ci...

NASA’s Van Allen Probes Discover a Surprise Circling Earth (Photo credit: NASA Goddard Photo and Video)

From the University of California – Los Angeles

How did a third radiation belt appear in the Earth’s upper atmosphere?

Since the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts in in the Earth’s upper atmosphere in 1958, space scientists have believed that these belts consisted of two doughnut-shaped rings of highly charged particles — an inner ring of high-energy electrons and energetic positive ions, and an outer ring of high-energy electrons.

However, in February of this year, a team of scientists reported in the journal Science the surprising discovery of a previously unknown third radiation ring. This narrow ring had briefly circled the Earth between the inner and outer rings in September 2012 and then almost completely disappeared.

How did this temporary radiation belt appear and dissipate?

In new research, the radiation belt group in the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences explains the development of this third belt and its decay over a period of slightly more than four weeks. The research is available in the online edition of the journal Geophysical Research Letters and will be published in an upcoming print edition.

By performing a “quantitative treatment of the scattering of relativistic electrons by electromagnetic whistler-mode waves inside the dense plasmasphere,” the investigators were able to account for the “distinctively slow decay of the injected relativistic electron flux” and demonstrate why this unusual third radiation belt is observed only at energies above 2 mega-electron-volts.

Understanding the processes that control the formation and ultimate loss of such relativistic electrons is a primary science objective of the NASA Van Allen Probe Mission and has important practical applications, because the enormous amounts of radiation the Van Allen belts generate can pose a significant hazard to satellites and spacecraft, as well to astronauts performing activities outside a spacecraft.

The current research was funded by the NASA, which launched the twin Van Allen probes in the summer of 2012.

###

The lead author of the research is Richard Thorne, a UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, who was a co-author of the Feb. 28 research paper in Science. Co-authors of the new research include Wen Li, a graduate student who works in Thorne’s laboratory; Binbin Ni, a postdoctoral scholar who works in Thorne’s laboratory; Jacob Bortnik, a researcher with the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences; Daniel Baker, a professor at the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics and lead author of the February Science paper; and Vassilis Angelopoulos, a UCLA professor of Earth and space sciences.

About these ads

67 thoughts on “Transient Van Allen radiation belt discovered

  1. How did this temporary radiation belt appear and dissipate? I cannot help myself: It has to be anthropogenic CO2.

  2. I would surmise it was part of a CME or solar flare, but yeah, the above regarding CO2 and AGW are a likely cause to be blamed initially by those running on a depleting gravy train.

  3. I have to agree with WWS, “It’s George Bush’s fault.” After all he gets blamed for everything else.

  4. Truly, the take home is how little we know. The models are treated as sacrosanct as they fail, and our knowledge is miniscule in context. The earth is old, the universe is mostly dark matter about which we are almost clueless. And we get that we need to reduce co2? Really?

  5. AWG it appears is also transient. I wonder if it will disappear also. It seems like whack a mole, however, perhaps a bout of cooling will do it in.

    The following is more information concerning the transient third Van Allan belt. For a period of time there was only one Van Allan belt and then back to two. The cause is apparently related to solar particle ejections. The observations cannot be explained by the current Van Allan belt theory.

    http://www.nature.com/news/ephemeral-third-ring-of-radiation-makes-appearance-around-earth-1.12529

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6129/186

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change

    “A cooling consensus
    if … temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models.”

  6. It saw the month long anomaly within 6 months of it getting to space? Perhaps we should wait at least a few years for more data, so correlations can be sought. Why jump the gun on yet another topic?

  7. Of course this is consistent with AGW predictions…………
    And it worse than projected……..

  8. I would suggest that “belts” is not the appropriate term. I would further suggest the proper term would be “fields”.

  9. Makes you wonder if Earths internal motor is about to get very active. If you follow seismic activity it peeked about the same time this appeared and went away as it calmed..

    Earths dynamo of molten fluid.. creating a new (or at least new to us) gravitational band…

    hmmmmmmm….

    To many people crushing the earth… Or CAGW… Or…..I really dont know…

  10. That’s kind of exciting. Fun to see new things discovered and look forward to hearing more about it.

  11. It’s an energy field caused by the US peoples outrage about the IRS, NSA, Benghazi, etc. scandals. Sadly, this will slowly decay with no lasting effects.

  12. Daniel Baker gives the “Van Allen Lecture” at the AGU fall meeting, last December 2012.
    If you want to learn a little history of the Van Allen Belts, a little history on Van Allen himself and the recent data from the new Van Allen belt probes, give the lecture a looky see.

  13. The solar system is awesome!

    Ya think climate is a complex discussion?

    Considering this find is very young (2012),does anyone think we fully understand the energy projected upon this planet from afar is known?

    Let’s see,,,,,,,,,,,,,exactly where are we in known space?

    I hope some enjoy this version, I did! :-)

  14. By performing a “quantitative treatment of the scattering of relativistic electrons by electromagnetic whistler-mode waves inside the dense plasmasphere,” the investigators were able to account for the “distinctively slow decay of the injected relativistic electron flux” and demonstrate why this unusual third radiation belt is observed only at energies above 2 mega-electron-volts.

    Offhand it sounds like the highest-energy particles could escape the forces creating the individual rings, but not the larger field keeping the rings existing and in place. So they wound up not in the normal two but in the area, where they formed a new ring in the space between, which naturally degraded until only the normal two remained.

    Thus nothing to worry about, it’s still not the time to fire off the nuclear-tipped ICBM’s from the submarine to rupture the Van Allen Radiation Belts and eject them away from the planet. Which is a shame, would have made a nice light show.

  15. So how much energy is ‘used’ by the third field, where did it come from, and where did it go?

  16. The usual two belts also disappear at times and a 3rd has never been looked for, so with new studies comes new funding and that seems to be the flavor of the day:)

  17. Great film, O Superstar Qua Superstar [;)]. (could have done without Sagan’s being the narrator (ugh), like Gordon Lightfoot — great lyrics and music, LOUSY voice and expression)

    “When I consider your heavens the work of your fingers, … what is humanity that you are mindful of them… ?” Psalm 8:4

    Yet, we are it. We are the centerpiece of all creation. Why is the earth in the “juuuust right” orbit with a “juuuust right,” amazingly stable, global temperature range suitable for life, etc, etc? Because God made it just — for — us.

    And that powerful Intelligence loves me. I am important. And so are you!

    Even the very hairs of your head are numbered… .

    “In the beginning God created the heavens

    and

    the earth.”

    Genesis 1:1

  18. Effects of interaction between solar and the Earth’s magnetic fields in the atmosphere, hydrosphere and the lithosphere are poorly understood and consequently readily dismissed as a climate change factor.
    From the data available it can be readily calculated that the ocean temperature oscillations and consequently climate natural variability are strongly correlated to the above mentioned interaction:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm

    Dismissing obvious can be either is sign of ignorance from uninformed of the deliberate obscurantism from the conversant.

  19. typo correction
    Dismissing obvious can be either sign of ignorance from uninformed or the deliberate obscurantism from the conversant.

  20. From vukcevic on June 20, 2013 at 11:39 pm:

    Effects of interaction between solar and the Earth’s magnetic fields in the atmosphere, hydrosphere and the lithosphere are poorly understood and consequently readily dismissed as a climate change factor.
    From the data available it can be readily calculated that the ocean temperature oscillations and consequently climate natural variability are strongly correlated to the above mentioned interaction:

    Vuk, this is about an extra Van Allen belt. Your link has nothing to do with this. Either you’re spamming, or you’ve mistakenly posted on the wrong thread, twice.

    And now you’ve made up another “secret sauce”, take it on your word, indecipherable mysterious index, the “Geo-Solar cycle”. Oh joy.

  21. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    June 21, 2013 at 12:27 am
    ……..
    Thank you for your comment.
    It is neither spamming nor mistakenly posted. All known Van Allen belts are due to the interaction of the Earth’s magnetic field with the charged particles emanating mainly from the solar activity, and carry imprint of the sun’s magnetic field itself.
    For the time being, it is not conclusively shown that geomagnetic field is not a climate factor, hence any knowledge attained from the changes in the Van Allen belts would be a positive contribution to the further understanding of interactions of the two principal magnetic fields.
    As far as
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm ‘index’
    is concerned, data used and the resulting correlation from the calculation are unquestionable. The paper was forwarded to Dr. Svalgaard, his objection as far as I understand it, is not to the data and actual numerical result, but that ‘interaction’ has no known physical mechanism which can be applied and transformed into the oceanic temperature oscillations.
    I appreciate your choice to disagree and object; in view of the above I am inclined to think the post was above the required relevance minimum.

  22. Just to show we know less than we thought. These radiation belts must have some control over the volume of energy transfer from sun to surface which will have an effect on climate.

  23. Bob B. says:
    June 20, 2013 at 7:19 pm
    “It’s an energy field caused by the US peoples outrage about the IRS, NSA, Benghazi, etc. scandals. Sadly, this will slowly decay with no lasting effects.”

    Is there an underlying assumption that these energy fields are caused ONLY by the outrage of “US peoples” and that 5¾Billion other people in the world never have any effect?

  24. johnmarshall said on June 21, 2013 at 3:11 am:

    Just to show we know less than we thought. These radiation belts must have some control over the volume of energy transfer from sun to surface which will have an effect on climate.

    Except the “radiation” in the belts is charged particles, and the Sun overwhelmingly sends us its energy as photons around the visible range. Electric fields alone are not known for being able to modulate visible light. If the belts had significant optical “density” to block visible light, or diffusive properties, or at least some sort of refractive properties, then they might have an effect on climate.

    But as the belts have no such optical properties, which would have made for distortion and their discovery centuries earlier by astronomers, it’s pretty obvious they do not have such control over the Sun to surface energy transfer.

    Unless the charged high-energy particles are capable of generating cloud coverage, a la the Svensmark mechanism perhaps, creating more clouds when more Sun activity makes the Van Allen belts more active, thus acting as a negative feedback against increased solar energy transmission rates… Now that would be interesting if true, or at least if the Sun/clouds/surface temperatures over land can be shown to have a high enough correlation to indicate a relationship.

  25. It always goes without asking but I will: how in the wide wide world of sports does the 4.54 Billion year old earth still have such an active radiation belt?

    After almost 5 Billion years this should be a dead hard rock in space instead of as it currently appears, with all the radiation long ago dissipated, no? (not to mention volcanoes, moon, magnetic field, water, spiral galaxies, dino soft tissue, et al that should be long gone.)

    off topic but thought I’d mention the giant pink elephant standing on those vibrant yellow and green rings that show no signs of dissipation or entropy over 5 Billion years. nothing in that photo says ‘wound down’ to me. Somepin going on, but pay no attention to the pachyderm behind the radiation explosion…

  26. [snip . . either off topic or sarcasm in which case you need to indicate that as many readers do not have English as their first language, thanks . . mod]

  27. To kadaka (KD Knoebel):

    This transient belt is nothing new. The Argus experiments of 1958 and the
    Starfish experiment of 1962 created temporary radiation belts by exploding
    nuclear weapons in space. The subsequent beta decay of the fission products
    injected charged particles into a temporary Van Allen belt. Starfish was
    particularly impressive in this regard, with a 1.4 Megaton weapon being
    exploded 400 km up, nearly right overhead of Johnston island in the tropical
    Pacific. Working from memory, the trapped particles forming the belt lasted weeks
    to months. Funnily enough, they also knocked out 2 of the 5 U.S. satellites
    in orbit at that time, by radiation damaging their circuits.

    Obviously, one of the stronger CMEs of the past year injected these particles
    into the Earth’s magnetic field structure. Do we know the L-value structure
    of this transient belt?

  28. ““It was so unexpected that we thought there was something wrong with the instrument,” says Daniel Baker, a space physicist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.”http://www.nature.com/news/ephemeral-third-ring-of-radiation-makes-appearance-around-earth-1.12529 = link from William Astley (June 20, 2013 at 5:30 pm)

    I just laugh at what “experts”, “leaders”, and other such sneakily-industrious entrepreneur-, politician-, & “science”-types say when observation clearly illuminates their goofy conceptions & theories in a thoroughly unflattering spotlight. These are the types of doublespeakers who don’t always concern themselves with observations. In order to deal with them effectively it’s crucial to recognize this. If the day can be survived by weaseling, they always take that option. They cross bridges toward reality only when forced by inescapable immediate necessity, so it’s never sensible to let them tie you up in arguments. Wait patiently and take them on squarely & decisively each time circumstances are right.

  29. To vukcevic:

    You wrote: “There is a remote possibility that the starfish experiment reversed PDO”

    My response is: whaaat? I’d say this is really far out. As I understand it,
    the PDO has to do with ocean circulation in the North Pacific. While 1.4 MT
    of energy is a lot of energy, the energy required to change the sign of the PDO
    seems to me to be orders of magnitude higher. Your graph is suggestive.
    However, it seems to show a reversal in early 1962, while Starfish was detonated
    on July 9, 1962.

    It’s an intriguing thought, but I would like a lot more data before I take it
    seriously. Oh, the link to the report from NASA’s GSFC gives a 404 Page
    Not Found error.

  30. To ,strong>Paul Vaughan:

    Watch who you’re casting aspersions about. I know Dan Baker, and he is the
    last person to fit your snarky description. He is a serious scientist. One thing
    you probably don’t know, in space science the data is not straightforward to
    interpret. This is especially true of energetic particle experiments.

  31. Chris R. says June 21, 2013 at 10:11 am

    Funnily enough, they also knocked out 2 of the 5 U.S. satellites in orbit at that time, by radiation damaging their circuits.

    Outright ‘damage’ or a temporary ‘upset’ (the latter being more a more common occurrence)? Bipolar devices as used in that era were susceptible to Lattice displacement caused by neutrons, protons, alpha particles, heavy ions, and very high energy gamma photons. As bipolar devices are dependent on minority carriers in the base regions, decreasing device gain by causing majority and minority charge ‘carrier’ recombination (causing the loss of a transistor’s gain). Think of it as in situ ‘doping’ or ion implantation!

    But, the other effect being an ‘upset’ had this effect: “ionization effects are caused by charged particles, including the ones with energy too low to cause lattice effects … are usually transient, creating glitches and soft errors, …

    One is a ‘recoverable’ situation (the latter), the other not so much …

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening#Fundamental_mechanisms

    .

  32. To __Jim:

    No, this was permanent degradation of the circuitry from cumulative radiation
    damage. I’m working from memory here. An older physicist who I worked with when
    I was working on contract to NASA gave me that 2 of 5 figure.

    Telstar 1 went up 1 day after the blast, and lasted for 4 months before radiation
    damage took it offline. Since this was in a low Earth orbit, it could only relay
    transmissions for ~25 minutes of its 2+ hour orbit. Nevertheless, AT&T (Bell Labs)
    managed to send several hundred phone and television transmissions before it failed.
    They managed to get a workaround going in early 1963, but that only lasted about
    1 month.

    If I’m remembering correctly, the other U.S. satellite that failed was one of the
    Injun series (from University of Iowa, where Dr. James Van Allen was at that
    time). It might have been Injun 1, which was only a partial success anyway
    since it never separated from its booster. I do know that Injun 1 stopped
    sending data in March, 1963.

  33. Chris R. says:
    June 21, 2013 at 12:43 pm
    ……….
    Re: points you make
    I’ve just added graph for the (what I consider to be) PDO’s natural driver

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Starfish.htm

    Highly speculative for both; the11 year average will give only general indication, I think build up started earlier and 1962 may have been final straw.
    Loose correlation was broken in 1960’s for the PDO to return a bit stronger and earlier than anticipated with the latent energy from the lost peak may have contributing to the 2000’s excess global warming :) .
    The graph was on the WUWT

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/04/mysterious-electron-stash-found-hidden-among-van-allen-belts/#comment-1239280

    when the link was available, but then it diapered soon after, Rog Tallbloke may have copy of it (perhaps late 1960’s and 1970s period was an embryo of a possible ‘nuclear winter’. :).

  34. wws says:
    June 20, 2013 at 4:47 pm
    Gail Combs says:
    June 20, 2013 at 5:01 pm

    It’s sad to see this shopworn tactic appear here.

    As for the transient Van Allen belt, I reckon it’s a good thing such didn’t occur during TLI.

  35. Steve P.,

    Take heart! Gail Combs and wws were, I am pretty sure, joking. The Puppet-in-Chief’s teleprompter has a default mode which is: “George Bush [fill in the blank]”.

    Janice

  36. Chris R. (June 21, 2013 at 12:50 pm) wrote:
    “[…] in space science the data is not straightforward to interpret.”

    So then why call a finding “unexpected” (voluntarily exposing a closed mind &/or incorrectly biased preconception)? That’s not a wise move even if a scientist actually was legitimately surprised.

    Maybe your acquaintance just made an unfortunate choice of words — something we all do at times — but still one supposed good apple (your acquaintance by your testimony) doesn’t correct a rotten barrel (all the others). If you pay attention there’s a systematic pattern of “surprise” at “unexpected” findings in science news articles. This has the effect of undermining public confidence. It leaves the impression of closed minds with incorrectly biased instinct. Even if a researcher had no instinct, they wouldn’t be “surprised” and they wouldn’t find anything “unexpected” if they at least had an open mind. What concerns me most is that “surprise” at “unexpected” findings is exactly what’s expected from people who lack ability to recognize paradox — society can’t afford to have such people in leadership roles.

    My concern is general — (it’s not aimed at your friend specifically). Apologies for any misunderstanding.

  37. Kadaka disagrees with me,
    BUT solar energy is only partly visible light, all the energy has a climate effect so changing part will affect the whole.
    And yes I agree with Svensmark since his theory has been vindicated in the atmosphere and laboratory. ie. it works unlike the GHE.

  38. Just a comment about the ‘transient 3rd radiation belt.’
    The image below is from the lecture video I had posted earlier.(June 20, 2013 at 7:22 pm)http://snag.gy/bqPgD.jpg
    Looking like the transient 3rd belt is Solar Wind Speed dependent for the production of deadly electrons.
    But things in the belt may not be always as they appear. Time of year of this transient belt is near Equinox. So may be related to LOCATION and angle perimeters.

    But another relationship to the Van Allen belts, from the bottom, up may also be a competing for a role. which looks to me like a feedback role..

    Next video is from Science at NASA related to “Earth Song.”
    Earth Song was captured by the EMFISIS (Electric and Magnetic Field Instrument Suite and Integrated Science) antennae aboard the Van Allen belt probes.

    Can waves produce deadly electrons in the OUTER belt??? huh

  39. Welcome Vuks.
    Wondering if you might answer a question if you can?
    What is meant by, “low geomagnetic cutoff rigidities?”
    Is it like short hairs in the magnetic field within those regions?
    Are they like permanently open field areas? Where high energy particles get in. (close to Greenland)?
    How close is the inner Van Allen belt to Earths magnetic poles?
    How close is the inner Van Allen belt to Earths equator?

    Clues are in the abstract and excerpts below.
    Influence of energetic Solar Proton Events on the development of cyclonic processes at extratropical latitudes
    S Veretenenko1 and P Thejll2
    Abstract. Effects of energetic Solar Proton Events (SPEs), with energies above 90 MeV, on the development of cyclonic processes at extratropical latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres were studied, using NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data. The study revealed that these events are accompanied by a noticeable intensification of cyclonic activity at middle latitudes, mainly over oceans. In the Northern hemisphere this effect is observed for the SPEs occurring in October-March, whereas in the Southern hemisphere it is most pronounced for the events in April-September. In the Northern hemisphere the largest cyclone deepening takes place in the North Atlantic near the south-eastern coasts of Greenland, this area being characterized by high temperature contrasts and low geomagnetic cutoff rigidities. In the Southern hemisphere most appreciable cyclone intensification was found over the Southern Ocean near the Antarctic coasts next to the South Magnetic Pole, the region is characterized by low geomagnetic cutoff rigidities and high temperature contrasts, too. The results obtained show an importance of ionization changes produced by cosmic ray variations for the mechanism of solar activity influence on the lower atmosphere circulation.
    ..Just on the day
    of the SPE onsets pressure starts sharply decreasing near the Greenland coasts, the effect is maximum
    on the next day. Air outflow from cyclones deepening near Greenland results in the formation of a
    height crest (an area of pressure increase) over Europe. As the cyclone development is accompanied
    by the formation of an anticyclone at the cold front in its rear, simultaneously with cyclone
    intensification near Greenland an area of high pressure appears over North America…

    Storm Time Meridional Wind Perturbations in the Equatorial Upper Thermosphere
    R.A. Haaser1, R. Davidson2 R.A. Heelis1, G.D. Earle2, S. Venkatraman1, and J. Klenzing3

    ..First storm observations by C/NOFS occur about 3-5 hours after the first southward-turning of the Bz reported by ACE/Wind, in agreement with previous studies suggesting that phase fronts in the thermosphere propagate from the polar regions toward the equator with velocities of about 500 – 800 m/s…
    ..Most of the storms are observed in the southern magnetic latitudes, except for the [IV.] Jan 2012 storm. As expected, a majority of the observed storms, demonstrated equatorward perturbations of meridional neutral winds (including the Jan 2012 storm), propagating away from the nearest magnetic pole, on the order of about 100 m/s…

  40. vukcevic says:

    June 22, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    That’s ok Vuks.
    More Van Allen belt related..According to Wiki the inner Van Allen belt is only 200km (124mi) above the South Atlantic anomaly. As our magnetic field continues to weaken in that area, belt gets closer..and the anomaly gets bigger.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly

    Vuks have a looky see of the images here.

    http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/tour/AAvan.html

    In particular the 4th image that looks like a giant wood tick attached to the polar regions I’m living in the country now so wood tick would come to mind.

  41. Yet a better definition for: “low geomagnetic cutoff rigidities”
    The near-Earth particle environment

    Geomagnetic cutoff effects
    The ability of charged particle radiation to penetrate into the magnetosphere from outside is limited by the Earth’s magnetic field. The number of magnetic field lines a cosmic ray must cross to reach a given point within the magnetosphere approximately determines the minimum energy it must possess. To cross more magnetic field lines more energy will be required. A particle’s penetrating ability is determined uniquely by its momentum divided by its charge, a quantity called magnetic rigidity.
    Particles having low magnetic rigidity (i.e. momentum per unit charge) are preferentially turned back by the field, so they are unable to penetrate beyond some depth in the magnetosphere. For each point in the magnetosphere and for each direction of approach to that point, there exists a threshold value of magnetic rigidity, called the geomagnetic cutoff. Below this value, no charged particle can reach the specified point from the specified direction. Above this cutoff value, particles arrive at the specified point from the specified direction as though the magnetic field were not present at all (Lemaître and Vallarta, 1933). Regions in the outer magnetosphere and near the poles can be reached at much lower magnetic rigidities than are required to reach points near the Earth’s equator.

    http://www.spenvis.oma.be/help/background/creme/creme.html#ENV

  42. Vuks.. one more thing. Dr. S. said you need a mechanic ism.

    So when I ran across this.. well
    VARIATIONS OF EXTRATROPICAL CYCLONIC ACTIVITY
    IN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN HEMISPHERES
    ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGETIC SOLAR PROTON EVENTS
    S.V. Veretenenko1, P. Thejll2
    pg. 3
    ..Thus, we can see that the North Atlantic area near the south-eastern coasts of Greenland is the area of
    most pronounced cyclone deepening associated with energetic SPEs. Indeed, the data in Fig.3 show that this
    region is characterized by a favorable structure of the tropospheric thermo-baric field. We can see a
    divergence of isohypses in the middle troposphere (Fig.3a) that contributes to air outflow from a deepening
    cyclone. At the same time high temperature contrasts in the Arctic frontal zone near the Greenland coasts
    create favorable conditions for cold advection. It is known that cold advection contributes to the generation
    and intensification of cyclonic vortices, as well it is the main reason for secondary cyclone deepening (so
    called cyclone regeneration) [Vorobjev, 1991]. On the other hand, the Greenland coasts are in the area of low
    geomagnetic cutoff rigidities that allow precipitation of particles with energies 90 MeV and above (Fig.3b).
    Polar frontal zones in the North Atlantic and especially in the North Pacific turn out to be in the areas with
    noticeably higher geomagnetic rigidities (see Fig.4), and no strong cyclone deepening associated with
    studied events is observed in these regions. Thus, all the factors, both meteorological and geophysical, seem
    to create the best conditions for the effects of energetic SPEs on extratropical cyclone development namely
    near the Greenland coasts.

    http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko2_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf

  43. Vuks, I thought it important too. 90 Mev, with free precipatation access, due to low geomag cutoff rigidities, near Greenland coast. What is the gyro radius at 90 Mev. At terra electron volts, gyro radius in scale of AU.? Gotta, remember there is a larger scale at play in the system.

  44. William Astley says:
    June 20, 2013 at 5:30 pm
    The observations cannot be explained by the current Van Allan belt theory.

    As usual you overstate your case; we have a pretty good understanding of radiation belts. What Baker said was “Nonetheless, details about the dramatic reshaping of the outer belt and the location of the month-long middle ring cannot be explained by current theory”. This is a far cry from what you imply. The observations are important in helping us better understand the details. This is the case with any set of new data: helping us refine the current, already successful, theory.

    vukcevic says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:11 am
    data used and the resulting correlation from the calculation are unquestionable.
    Spurious correlations by definition need not be questioned in the first place. They are simply that: spurious, end of story.

  45. Dr.S.
    I have looked at many sets of data, all result of solid observation, and found strong correlations from solar activity, tectonic records, geomagnetic fields etc, etc; do not contravene basic physics but can’t be unquestionably supported by the relevant quantative parameters as currently known.
    True science tries to understand unexpected, blunt rejection is a symptom of dogmatic rather than rational approach.
    Either nature is far more complex that the current state of science is prepared to give it credit for, or there is a god up there who likes to play games with the universe.
    I happen to think reality is the first rather than the second.
    It appears you favour the second.

  46. vukcevic says:
    June 24, 2013 at 1:02 am
    I have looked at many sets of data … Either nature is far more complex than the current state of science is prepared to give it credit for

    Having ‘discovered’ spurious relations myself, e.g.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/180/4082/185.short

    even widely praised, e.g. here

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v276/n5686/abs/276348a0.html

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/291304a0-Ionosphere-GCRs.pdf

    https://utd500.utdallas.edu/physics/faculty/tinsley/ROP%20paper.pdf

    But spurious nevertheless, I know what it feels like.

    The best way to proceed is to write your ideas up in a clear, concise, and understandable manner and then to submit the work to a reputable scientific journal. You are hereby encouraged to do so.

  47. But spurious nevertheless, I know what it feels like.
    Hi Dr. S.
    Difference is that you are professional scientist and have consider all aspects etc, etc. I have no such concerns, sometime correct and more often wrong. I have not done exact count, but I dug out at least dozen ‘spurious correlations’, so by law of probability at least one or two could be true.
    Back to your old article

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/291304a0-Ionosphere-GCRs.pdf

    first page (304) top, right hand side column, top 2-3 sentences.
    I think you need to reconsider your view about being wrong.
    You wrote it 32 years ago, and here is another article (Carla’s link), from less than a year ago

    http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko2_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf

    which more or less confirms your old findings.
    I have to read whole of your old article, but you may not have been wrong after all.
    Solar electromagnetic factors do influence weather in addition and bypassing the TSI !

  48. vukcevic says:
    June 24, 2013 at 8:40 am
    by law of probability at least one or two could be true.
    Quite the opposite. We once had a student that claimed to have looked at over a hundred datasets and showed us a correlation from that collection with a 95% confidence of being correct. By the ‘law of probability’ she should have found five. The more data you look at the smaller is the chance that you are correct.

    I have to read whole of your old article, but you may not have been wrong after all.
    There are people who still think I was correct, e.g. Tinsley, but that does not make me correct. Your particular case is spurious on its face. But, as I said, write it up and submit it to a respectable journal if you want a second opinion.

    Solar electromagnetic factors …
    The paper you referred to does not advocate any such.

  49. lsvalgaard says:
    June 24, 2013 at 7:09 am

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v276/n5686/abs/276348a0.html

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/291304a0-Ionosphere-GCRs.pdf

    Spurious or not thanks for the links. Cause..some of us still need to read some of the ‘then,’ to help us understand the ‘now.’ Our global electric circuit, has strange ‘mankind’ footprints.

    We have some great new models on the Van Allen belts. It is like it is breathing. And where does the 3rd belt ‘stuff’ go when the belt goes missing?
    I seem to be missing some ring currents in my top down view. And what role ..they may have in all this.

    I do know my radio reception has had its ups and downs lately. Mixing over other stations. Changing angles on the antenna a lot.

    Had a power surge AM Sunday out here. Fried some insulation, main breaker cooked. But it did stop the surge from running into the rest of the power supply.

    And Vuks, Dr. S. might be saying ahh you missed something..

Comments are closed.