It has been said that “the science is settled” regarding what we know about Earth’s atmosphere and climate. But recently scientists discovered that something we had accepted as a basic truth for a very long time is not true at all. One of the “basic truths” we all learned is that Earth’s atmosphere is “protected” from the solar wind by its magnetic field, unlike Mars which has lost most of its atmosphere due to the solar wind.
But when some space scientists compared notes recently, they discovered something startling:
“We said, ‘Oh my goodness — what we’ve been telling people about the magnetic shield is not correct.'”
And so what we thought to be true about our atmosphere, isn’t.
Earth Losing Atmosphere Faster than Venus, Mars
Irene Klotz, Discovery News
June 2, 2009 — Researchers were stunned to discover recently that Earth is losing more of its atmosphere than Venus and Mars, which have negligible magnetic fields.
This may mean our planet’s magnetic shield may not be as solid a protective screen as once believed when it comes to guarding the atmosphere from an assault from the sun.
“We often tell ourselves that we are very fortunate living on this planet because we have this strong magnetic shield that protects us from all sorts of things that the cosmos throws at us — cosmic rays, solar flares and the pesky solar wind,” said Christopher Russell, a professor of geophysics and space physics at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“It certainly does help in some of those areas but … in the case of the atmosphere, this may not be true,” he said.
Russel and others came to this realization while meeting at a comparative planetology conference last month.
“Three of us who work on Earth, Venus and Mars got together and compared notes,” Russell told Discovery News. “We said, ‘Oh my goodness — what we’ve been telling people about the magnetic shield is not correct.'”
The perpetrators are streams of charged particles blasting off the sun in what is known as the solar wind.
“The interaction of solar wind with Venus and Mars is pretty simple,” Russell said. “The wind comes in, carries a magnetic field, which wraps around the ionosphere of the planet. The ionosphere is basically dragged away.”
Complete article here at Discovery News
Am I too late to sign up for oil money ?
Interesting. If earth’s atmosphere is diminishing, one wonders how long is has been doing so. And when there was last a net gain in atmosphere.
Yup. Earth is constantly losing atmosphere. It is volcanism that replaces it. If you slow volcanism, you thin the atmosphere over time. When the time comes where Earth has cooled enough to where volcanism slows enough that gasses released from volcanism are less than the gasses lost to space, the Earth is doomed. We will then begin to lose the oceans to space, too.
Now hold on there, pardner! One study or one new observation does not overturn a ‘consensus’. This has to be verified by independent scientists. So maybe this does make us rewrite the text books an’ maybe it don’t.
And why do you use the term ‘consensus’? That’s never an appropriate term for a science discussion.
Woh.
Good thing there does not threaten Algore’s money, or the scientists working on it would be in big trouble.
This raises whole volumes of questions.
And who was that spinner at RC asserting that getting global temps was ‘easy’?
Maybe this will be the basis of the new apocalypse theory du jour in a couple of years time.
You know that you are helping to inform the alarmists of their next Anthropogenic Global Alarm.
Human activity is denuding the earth of atmosphere faster than normal, so we have to tax you all to ensure our children’s children’s children actually have an atmosphere to breath!
“Maybe this will be the basis of the new apocalypse theory du jour in a couple of years time.”
My fear exactly, Phil.
Did anyone notice the complete absence of the once mandatory sop to AGW? “Despite the rather mind-boggling rate at which Earth is losing atmosphere — 5×1025 molecules per second — scientists say there is no cause for alarm. If the loss rate stays the same, the planet’s atmosphere will last for several more billion years.”
Several more billion? with no mention that we will all be long gone from catastrophic global warming? Was this just an oversight, or are a few jumping off the bandwagon?
whee! Henny Penny was right. The sky is falling, but not downwards as she thought.
I knew it. Ever since Edison started fooling around with nature. I think it all has to do with electric power grids, cell phones and wireless communications polluting the earth’s natural magnetic field. This new finding suspiciously coincides with the large increase in the use of electricity, tvs, radios, cell phones and WiFi. We should institute an IPMC and get to the bottom of it. In the mean time, with an abundance of caution, we should stop building all electrical plants (coal and nuclear) and anything that involves magnets or the propagation of electromagnetic waves. We should also instute EMF Day where everybody would give up using all electronic and electric powered devices for a day to show how commitment to preserving spaceship earth. NASA and NOAA should receive whatever funds they need to solve this problem before it is too late.
I was reading of the rim of fire. The pacific has movement under it and is rimmed with volcanoes. To what extent can currents move heat up north to the Artic sea?
How do we eliminate geothermal energy as a source of heat in artic water?
I found myself wondering if there is a relationship here to fluctuations in the size of the Ozone hole with solar activity.
We need to quickly hire an atmosphere czar and implement an ionosphere tax, its the only way to deal with this grave threat to humanity.
It’s the tidal interactions with Moon & Sun which keeps volcanism going on Earth (internal heating, flexing) that keeps the re-supply going to the atmosphere.
Just don’t lose the Moon.
Too late. The cutoff point for new knowledge has already passed. We can’t keep revising texts and journals forever. Just pick a hypothesis and go with it.
Sheesh!!
Hasn’t the earth’s magnetic field been dropping for like the last 30 years or so — And isn’t it now down and dropping. The talk is about a pole flip coming.
The issue has always been around what happens when the pole flips, does it go through zero, linger at zero and how long is the period.
If it goes through zero and remains for any period of time, that could be bad for the earth and it’s atmosphere. Maybe Al Gore can figure out what to do.
Wait, wait, wait, wait. I got it.
See, the earth is losing its atmosphere, but plate tectonic activity has been (relatively) quiet lately. So, reduced amounts of atmosphere
= reduces numbers of atmospheric molecules
= more room between molecules
= fewer collisions between atmospheric molecules
= greater speed of each “average” atmospheric molecule
= higher kinetic energy of the average molecule
= higher temperature of each average molecule
= greater measured temperature of the atmosphere.
Global warming explained! 8<)
Now, if we could only figure out some way to – maybe – dig up some "new atmosphere" molecules or "replacement" atmospheric molecules FROM the ground and release them so they would go up into the air and replace all the atmospheric molecules being dragged away by the solar wind …..
Oh no — we’re all gonna die — in several billion years … wake me when it happens. Darn that reality – it keeps on acting up and defying our cherished belief systems.
That’s old news… take a look at this interview that was done on September 10, 2008 ( http://dsc.discovery.com/space/im/earth-atmosphere-hans-nilsson-02.html ). The guy even gives some figures but there is a big margin of uncertainty.
I still think this is a theory that needs more data in order to quantify the timing of these ablation episodes. As I mentioned in prior comments, I think it could be the change in the solar wind, as opposed to the total pressure. So, an ablation moment could occur when the momentary solar wind changes, thus altering the local magnetic field high above the earth. A small change in the solar uh, flux (a flux of flux? Sorry.) when the sun is not active might have as much or more of an ability to ablate the atmosphere as a change when the solar activity is strong. When the solar activity is strong, the interaction with the earth’s magnetic field has to compress things, so any eddy generated would be accordingly smaller in size. It’s when the solar activity is light, like now… that’s when the earth’s magnetic field can expand, and any eddy blown off by a quick solar wind “wave” (from a solar wind stream generated by a coronal hole, say) could be significantly large.
The Earth’s atmosphere differentiates by atomic/molecular weight at high altitudes, so most of the loss is from lighter elements and molecules.
This explains where all of the helium went. There must have been a lot more helium entering in the Earth’s atmosphere from radioactive alpha decay compared to argon from potassium 40 decay. The question was why the helium was lost when the temperature-gravity equation predicted much slower loss.
W’all whadya know ! We finally have a good reason to stop this carbon sequestration BS once and for all.
Don’t these atmo-terrorist realize that they are encapsulating perfectly good oxygen atmosphere along with their carbon fetish.
We should have the Supreme Court; that ultimate arbiter of good science, declare oxygen to be an endangered species; adn direct the EPA to ban the sequestration of atmospheric Oxygen.
The next thing they need to ban is the fixation of Nitrogen; which destroys even more atmosphere.
Yes I think I have discovered what research I should undertake when I retire; and do it all on Government (taxpayer) research dollars from NOAA or EPA.
Ban atmospheric sequestration Now; we’re all gonna die.
George
[snip]
George E. Smith (09:57:52) :
It is true that when the bury carbon dioxide that also bury the oxygen atoms that were used during the combustion process (i.e. combustion is generally defined as the reaction of organic material with oxygen to give carbon dioxide). Some time ago I did a quick calculation of how much oxygen and how long it would take to deplete the oxygen content from our atmosphere… the number of years it would take was very, very big… like 100s of millions of years.
Well maybe all the CO2 we’re unlocking by using fossil fuels will help replenish the atmosphere? Maybe we are saving the earth by burning coal and oil?
Well, well, well. Who’d a thunk it. What are the chances of discovering something we didn’t know in science, next to impossible I should a thunk!
Was it not Lord Kelvin who at the end on the 19th C said something about there being nothing new to discover in science now but only more & more refined measurement?????? We live & learn:-)
WAGTD! Hollywood beckons for a new film for 2010 summer blockbuster. We’ve had The Day After Tomorrow’ new ice-age, comets & asteroids, the Earths core slowing down, now we’ve got “Atmosphere Armaggedon” coming soon to a movie theater near you! I can’t resist it, could it be a case of armageddon out of here!
We, humans, the greatest contaminators, with the help of our cattle, sheep and pets, SUVs, our exhaling, beers and sodas, (not forgetting fermentation of our daily bread with baking soda) can fix the problem!
we need to encourage the keeping of huge new flocks of methane producing sheep and cows in order to keep the atmospheric pressure up.
It just goes to show that assumed knowledge is just that, assumed. Consensus is what you have when you stop looking at an issue because you are called an idiot when you do. So tell me how any of the scientists before that said that the Magnetic shield was keeping us from loosing atmosphere are any different then people who said the earth was flat? They allowed prejudice and their own knowledge to override scientific experimentation. I can prove over and over again that the earth is not flat. People cannot, no matter how hard they try, prove that it is flat. I hate Al Gore for making a comparison that is so ad hominum and straw man and to have had the press eat it up.
People can only SUGGEST that CO2 is the cause for global warming. It is a popular theory, the science is not settled and those who question are not Flat Earthers. Most do not even deny that CO2 can provide an increase in atmospheric warming.
Sorry I am just so tired of consensus without any real demonstrable science. It cannot be proven, it can be linked by circumstance, but when is that anything other then that circumstance. Technically by the same token I can link increase CO2 in our atmosphere to a greater longevity. I am sure I could even find some obscure physiological response to show my idea has merit. But it is bad science.
Sorry for the Rant, love the site.
It must be quite a travel budget to get people together who work on Earth, Venus and Mars.
So we’ve been losing an average 83 mol / sec for what some billion years? I’m too lazy to figure what the volume of 1 mol is a sea level but the number of them in the atmosphere must be huge!
Still we need an Emergency Mandate to start generating replacement gasses IMMEDIATELY. It’s for the children and the continuity of our way of life. Anyone sequestering gasses is contibuting to the Loss Of Our Atmosphere. Some people are so greedy and selfish.
I think there is something to apocalyptic religious prophecy. Maybe the time frames are not 100% accurate, but the big picture may be. Many assume Earth will remain livable for millions of years into the future. How do we really know that? We don’t.
So, here we sit, stuck in low Earth orbit, with only a few brief visits to the Moon 35 – 40 years ago. What is wrong with this picture?
The fact that we have atmosphere after 3 billion years implies that something is replenishing it. Or the rate of loss is miniscule. Or we’re awfully unlucky to be living when we run out of it.
There was a lot of volatiles in the rocks which created Earth, and there still is. The behavior of rocks in the mantle requires water, so there must be a lot of water still within the molten rock. Planetary quantities, not mere oceanic quantities. Others have done the math of the amount of volatiles which are in the ongoing meteorite contribution.
Quick tell the politicians we need more hot air!
RACookPE1978 (09:42:27) :
“Now, if we could only figure out some way to – maybe – dig up some “new atmosphere” molecules or “replacement” atmospheric molecules FROM the ground and release them so they would go up into the air and replace all the atmospheric molecules being dragged away by the solar wind …..”
Fear not! According to the Waxman Theory issued in April, Global Warming will “evaporate” the icecaps, thereby releasing the tundra underneath them. It will be free to rise up and replace all this lost atmosphere!!
Well that brings to mind a number of questions I’ve had for some time and for which I have not been able to find the answer. The CO2 component of the atmosphere is measured and reported in PPM that is the same as saying what % of a well-mixed, dry atmosphere is CO2. So my simple mind asked, well that’s all well and good AND needed for many areas of endeavor, but for CO2 to BE the culprit it’s made out to be in causing GW, it’s molecular volume has to increase…. Question 1 – But is it?
There is only one way to know – measure the atmosphere construct globally at all altitudes by volume of molecules/moles. How many moles of nitrogen, how moles of oxygen, how moles of carbon dioxide, etc. Questions 2A & B – Are we/where are we doing that? Can we do that?
Due to it being (by molecular weight) a heavier gas and contrary to the “well mixed” assumption required of the current global weather models, CO2 %/PPM, while probably somewhat similarly mixed at any given altitude, must vary significantly (decreasing by altitude) from the surface to the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Ask any hiker about sitting down to rest on a calm wind day in a concave bowl of land…. If they’re still around.
And a PPM/% figure itself tells us nothing, except some other atmospheric gas(es) in sum, must be decreasing proportionally. If other gases are decreasing by say, being carried away by the solar wind at the upper reaches of the atmosphere, where there is little if any CO2, or more likely consumed/sequestered by some other process at lower levels, mathematically that could account for 100% of PPM/% increase of CO2. Question 3 – Is that the case?
BTW, that would seem to me to be a far more plausable answer to the very smooth (year to year) increase in the PPM/% of CO2, i.e., the smooth sequestering of OTHER atmospheric gases.
So question 4 is – What is decreasing? I’ve read that it is (mostly) the oxygen component that is decreasing but cannot find and therefore cannot point to any study (per-reviewed, of course ☺) that so states. Only a lose connection via massive human conversion of O2 to CO2 by burning – – yada, yada, yada. Question 4A – Is CO2 PPM increasing at the expense of O2? Question 5 – Where are the studies that clearly quantify the decreasing and increasing volumes of each and delineate the processes by which that is occurring?
IMHO the answer to the above questions (and I fully realize that some may have answers I have not been able to find) are far more important than trying to nail down the perfect average global surface air temperature and whether the current temp (if we can ever figure that out) is over or under and by how much and is it trending and why and what will that do and …..
Looking at Mars it is kind of obvious that the chief culprits for loss of atmosphere were the Argyre and Hellas impacts, as well as thousands of other impactors large enough to produce atmospheric loss. The current C02 atmosphere may be mostly a secondary atmosphere produced by vulcanism.
Really?!
The sun has a potential giant effect on our atmosphere?
Bu . .bu.bu…bu . . but – wait a minute . . .
I thou . . . I thou . . I thought – it – was a minor player . .
I mean . . it’s – us – isn’t it?
We’re bad, aren’t we?
Our carbon foot prints – right?
The sun?
Nooooooooooooo . . !
(Sarcasm off)
But seriously 😉
Is there time to get these tomatoes in the ground before the CO2 is gone?
DAV (10:41:04) :
1 mol at STP is 22.4 Litre.
John Galt (09:09:30) :
And why do you use the term ‘consensus’? That’s never an appropriate term for a science discussion.
Because irony is much more delicious when not explicitly stated.
Mark
Stop worrying, we’re gonna collide with Mars, or maybe Venus. The brilliant Prof who has figured this out, hedges his bets, or maybe Mercury is going to collide with Venus.
Todays nutty story from Auntie Beeb. I kid you not. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8093005.stm
It’s full of ‘coulds’ ‘mights’ ‘tinys’, and to finish, he stuns us with his amazing grasp of Mathematics. Did you realize that Mars was bigger than a bullet, or when Mercury and Venus combine together, they will form a bigger planet than before.
It shows that there are still people out there with too much time on their hands.
Will somebody out there please put the BBC out of its misery.
For purposes of climate study, the point isn’t that the Earth is losing its atmosphere, that apparently has been happening all along and we are still here.
The point is that irradiance, watt per square metre, isn’t the only energy that the Earth’s atmosphere receives from the Sun. The Earth receives electromagnetic energy from the Sun in different form.
And why is this important?
Because present climate models don’t take this additional electromagnetic energy into account.
The Earth’s atmosphere is effected by ALL electromagnetic energy received from the Sun. Supposedly, the Earth’s irradiance only varies .01% between solar maximum and solar minimum. Perhaps so.
But taking into account all forms of electromagnetic energy the Earth receives from the Sun likely kicks up that percentage variance well above .01%.
It would seem a fruitful scientific endeavor to observe & measure the variance in ALL electromagnetic energy received from the Sun that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere. And this report suggests if the solar wind (and Birkeland currents) knock off some of Earth’s atmosphere into space, then at least a portion of that energy (if not all of it) is also adding to the remaining atmosphere’s energy budget.
Commen sense: View the Sun at solar maximum, it’s an angry beast, it even swells in size (diameter); view the Sun at solar minimum, it’s somnolent, smooth, and emits less energy.
In essence, that is the dominant argument of this website.
And, it’s common sense.
Now, it seems that science, in this particular instance, is catching up.
Yes, sometimes “common sense” has something going for it!
Could solar wind stripping thermal mass from the atmosphere be considered to be a form of “evaporation”? i.e. would changes in the strength of the solar wind have the effect of heating or cooling the atmosphere? Think of comets and the way solar heating creates the atmosphere on larger chunks of comet. These heated particles that comprise the comet’s atmosphere contain thermal mass that gets stripped away to create the tail of the comet. Does this have the effect of cooling the system as a whole? How big of an effect would that be?
Milwaukee Bob: I think I’ve seen a few papers of atmospheric composition at several altitudes, so there is some info available. It also has been thought that hydrogen was probably being lost off the top of the atmosphere, but this newly discovered action suggests that other alterations of composition may be taking place. As long as the rate of alteration is only measurable in terms of millions of years, it should be more relevant to paleoclimate than climate. But is enough known?
there have been about 400 magnetic reversals in the earth’s history, some while humans have been trotting around the planet. the discovery of this reversal record in oceanic basalt was one of the first clues that continental drift was real. anyone who has taken geology 101 should know this.
not sure why the magnetic field would be assumed to be “normal” during these periods. it’s postulated that during these times, the effects of the solar wind on the atmosphere is similar to that of venus and mars.
what is the big new revelation?
all planets lose gas as Tom_R alluded to, when the molecule can reach escape velocity. i remember calculating this for molecules in the martian atmosphere (in astronomy 101)
@tarpon this link says that at the current rate, the magnetic field should be zero in 1,500 years. sorry to those that were hoping for it in 2012…
http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/reversals_e.php
also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
Another scientific consensus bites the dust? What consensus would that be? Certainly not that the solar winds very slowly strip away Earth’s atmosphere. A quick Google search shows that that has been known for years. The consensus that bites the dust (assuming that the new research is correct) is the RATE of atmospheric loss due to solar winds. Previously, it was thought that “it would take five times the total lifetime of the sun to deplete the Earth’s atmosphere” (Lundin, 2001 at http://www.irf.se/press/press_010309eng.html.) The new, “startling” research featured above concludes that it will actually take a mere… “several more billion years.” That’s the story here. Interesting, but hardly worthy of the headline it was accorded.
rbateman (09:37:17) :
Just don’t lose the Moon
the moon is moving away from the earth around 38 mm per annum, so we are losing the moon – scary huh!
I am curious, what about those tiny water comets earth is supposed to be bombarded with? Don’t they add mass in the billion years?
http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/
I wonder if these guys balanced their loss calculation with this?
B. The Images Presented. On May 28, 1997, (only three weeks after the broadcast of INFINITY #11), at the Spring meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in Baltimore, Maryland, Dr. Frank presented impressive images of small comets striking the Earth’s atmosphere. These images and related data were convincing to formerly skeptical scientists (Ref.1) ;Dr. Frank estimates that the average small comet has a mass of ten to twenty tons, and that about twenty small comets hit the atmosphere each minute. So, some 30,000 small comets hit the Earth each day.
http://www.drtruth.org/Infinity17.html
Might be one reason we still have air.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6468341.html
Global Warming is now causing the wind to slow down. Why are we building wind turbines? Maybe this reduction in atmosphere has something to do with this.
@ AnonyMoose (11:34:37) :
Thanks and yes i did find what i think was the summary from one but not the study itself.
And while the rate of alteration at the upper atmosphere is only measurable in terms of millions of years, we are measuring/reporting PERCENTAGE CHANGES in the troposphere over very short periods of time. What about the COMPOSITION CHANGES during those periods of time? Has CO2 “density” increased? and by how much over – – x amount of time? or are we collectively (again) making the most common of errors in science and assuming it has?
and as i pose the question it sounds dumb to ask. But again it is NOT for the lack of trying to find the answer. AND if we really don’t know other than by a few attempts to find out, isn’t the whole of the AGW argument …….. even more ludicrous?
OT, possibly.
I just paid $90 for my daughter’s asthma inhaler, an item that used to cost $12 two years ago. The reason for the massive price inflation is the ban on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellant promulgated by the Montreal Protocol, a UN initiative to “solve” the ozone hole.
But the connection between CFC’s and the ozone hole is sheer science quackery, much like AGW.
The impact of the quackery is not only to my wallet, but to my daughter’s health, since the new propellants are not as effective as CFC, especially in rescue inhalers necessary to save lives during extreme asthma attacks.
[snip]
Take home lesson: science quackery is dangerous and can hurt you and your family, not to mention your neighbors and the entire world.
Just like the 1970 consensus
Earth Day 1970 Quotes.
Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….
• Life Magazine, January 1970
At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, its only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there wont be any more crude oil. Youll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy, and hell say, `I am very sorry, there isnt any.
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
Run, run, the sky is fleeing!
…but
More hydrocarbons used—>more CO2,
More CO2—>more plant life,
More plant life—>more O2,
More O2—>atmosphere depletion [at least partially] solved
So lets all sit around campfires every evening and make smores.
Cold Englishman,
The BBC article proves Democritus and Velikovksy were correct and that Newtonian astrologers and uniformitarian scientologists are crackpots like Al Gore.
Latest hype from the Fear Factory …
“It would seem a fruitful scientific endeavor to observe & measure the variance in ALL electromagnetic energy received from the Sun that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere.”
A person could ask: “Why hasn’t this been done already?”
Well, in part because historically astronomy has been reluctant to acknowledge electromagnetic energy in the form of plasma, charge particles, had been received by the Earth from the Sun.
Astronomy by consensus had long declared space to be “charge neutral”.
Of course, it has now been scientifcally confirmed that the aurora is caused by the electromagnetic energy (electric currents) received from the Sun by the Earth.
But since astronomy was reluctant to acknowledge this even though it was first proposed over a century ago by Kristian Birkeland (hence the name Birkeland currents), the measurement of the total electromagnetic energy received by the Earth from the Sun was not a high priority for astronomy.
(Every time it comes up, it should be noted that astronomy denied the Sun — Earth electromagnetic connection for roughly 70 years.)
It also should be stated that it’s technically difficult to measure all the electromagnetic energy received by the Earth from the Sun.
Even today, after numerous examples of electromagnetic energy, plasma, have been detected by in situ observation via satellite probes in the solar system, astronomy is still reluctant to acknowledge that electromagnetism, plasma, is an important aspect of astronomical dynamics.
And, yes, this has played into the failure of climate models to account for the TOTAL electromagnetic energy budget that the Earth receives from the Sun.
The small comets are estimated to be adding about as much water to the Earth every year as subduction removes from the oceans. They may actually be responsible for Earth having oceans.
While the small comet hypotheses is still controversial, it does predict that Mars would not be dry (Mars would get about one tenth as many small comets as the Earth), so the Mars research so far is consistent with the hypotheses.
How are they going to work CO2 and Cow farts into this one?
Solar wind…..Sun farts!
I can’t understand why 21st century astronomers don’t do more investigation about the electrical interactions between sun and planets and between galaxies. After all plasma is the most abundant form of matter in the galaxy and electric field have much more potential for strong interaction compared to gravity.
At the moment all we can do is theorise – work needs to be done to get more facts on this topic.
So the atmosphere as several more billion years left in it… Is that more or less than the time the sun will exit main sequence?
Luke (13:37:08) :
So the atmosphere as several more billion years left in it… Is that more or less than the time the sun will exit main sequence?
Oxygen (alone) will be lost in the deep space in ~ 50000 years and the water in ~ 4 billion years. So from mammals’ viewpoint, it’s less than the time the Sun will take for going out from the main sequence.
The best part of the BBC article was the adverts at page bottom:
Survival kits for Kiwis
Build your own emergency kit online Or buy our ready made quality kits
St John New Zealand
NZ preferred facility for First Aid Kits and Supplies. Order online.
The more CO2 we can put into the atmosphere, the faster we can get rid of it into space courtesy of the solar wind. 🙂
We had to worry about the coming ice age. Then we had to worry about the earth heating. Next we have to worry about the atmosphere bleeding off into space.
I really worry that someday there will be nothing for us to worry about.
Peter (09:21:16) :
mind-boggling rate at which Earth is losing atmosphere — 5×1025 molecules per second
is a mind-boggling rate of about 1 kilogram [~2 pounds] per second… at which rate the atmosphere will be gone in 200 billion years…
I suddenly have an overwhelming desire to watch Spaceballs. Can of PeriAir anyone?
Leif Svalgaard (14:32:13) :
Peter (09:21:16) :
mind-boggling rate at which Earth is losing atmosphere — 5×1025 molecules per second
is a mind-boggling rate of about 1 kilogram [~2 pounds] per second… at which rate the atmosphere will be gone in 200 billion years…
Heh! I think there won’t be Sun in 200 billion years. 🙂
@ Leif Svalgaard:
In a prior posts’s comment thread, you mentioned the variance of irradiance was only .01% from solar maximum to solar minimum, did I get that correct?
And if so, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, that does not include the entire electromagnetic budget that the Earth receives from the Sun.
Shouldn’t the entire electromagnetic emittance of the Sun that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere be observed & measured and included in any climate models?
And isn’t it true that it is technically difficult to measure and determine the entire extent of electromagnetic energy emitted by the Sun and impinging on Earth’s atmosphere?
Anaconda (15:01:40) :
In a prior posts’s comment thread, you mentioned the variance of irradiance was only .01% from solar maximum to solar minimum, did I get that correct?
No, it is 0.1%, then times as high
And if so, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, that does not include the entire electromagnetic budget that the Earth receives from the Sun.
It does
Shouldn’t the entire electromagnetic emittance of the Sun that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere be observed & measured and included in any climate models?
Moot, because of above
And isn’t it true that it is technically difficult to measure and determine the entire extent of electromagnetic energy emitted by the Sun and impinging on Earth’s atmosphere?
It was true, but anot any more. We can measure the entire electromagnetic radiation with very high precision. Right now [actually a week ago] the amount was 1360.8404 W/m2, with an accuracy of 0.4763 W/m2, but a precision of 0.0068 W/m2 or one part in 200,000 of the whole. It is that latter precision that is important for the day-to-day, year-to-year variation, so we can measure this very precisely.
“ak (11:36:55) :
there have been about 400 magnetic reversals in the earth’s history, some while humans have been trotting around the planet. the discovery of this reversal record in oceanic basalt was one of the first clues that continental drift was real. anyone who has taken geology 101 should know this.
not sure why the magnetic field would be assumed to be “normal” during these periods. it’s postulated that during these times, the effects of the solar wind on the atmosphere is similar to that of venus and mars. ”
—-
Thanks I have been wondering about magnetic reversals and their effect. Especially in relation to Svensmark’s theory, it would prove it one way or another. Perhaps it’s just as well for me (us) we won’t be here to find out.
I also wondered it anyone had correlated magnetic field reversals to climate?
Thanks to all regular contributors as I find it all totally fascinating
.
Leif Svalgaard @ 14:32:18
“(…)is a mind-boggling rate of about 1 kilogram [~2 pounds] per second… at which rate the atmosphere will be gone in 200 billion years…”
Rather interesting that due to the mind bogglingly high budget numbers being bandied about by the current administration, most Americans are now able to actually conceive of such numbers. There are some advantages to profligate spending.
On a more personal note; I plan to be away that weekend, so I hope to miss the event.
From the Discovery article linked to the post:
“In addition to triggering aurorae, the process causes Earth’s atmosphere to heat up to the point where atmospheric gases can escape along the field lines, where they are then picked up by the solar wind.”
This definitely sounds like some extra heat energy from the sun. It would appear that a sizable proportion is plain old heat of friction (ever had a wind burn? – I have) and not necessarily electromagnetically formed. Eventhough some of the heated atmosphere is drawn off into space, if the friction of the solar wind can generate extra heat energy on the top of the entire atmosphere, part of the radiant energy from this phenomenon should be added to the total. Is this totally wrong? Leif, what do you say?
Secondly, if this turned out to be a more alarming volume loss, perhaps heavier carbon dioxide from burning fuels might be welcome: we put the CO2 out there, plants generate new oxygen down where it is needed and keeps a proportion of it well away from the “dangerous” upper atmosphere.
Completely OFF TOPIC…
A thought just popped into my head. Many people argue that alien life should be plentiful in the universe and potentially within our own galaxy. Their argument is that earth-like planets should be commonplace considering the number of stars and the frequency of planet discovery around known stars.
However, Earth exists and is stable enough for life because the atmosphere is stable. If the atmosphere is only stable because of vulcanism, then the earth is only stable because of it’s volcanoes. But the volcanoes themselves would have cooled out long ago without the tidal pull of our moon which is happily in an extremely stable (though slowly inching away from us) orbit… No moon, no long-term vulcanism. No long-term magma movement, no atmosphere… no atmosphere, not time for life to develop.
It may be that we are very very alone, or it may be that rocky planets near to their stars with moons in stable orbits are common.
There is a book about astronomy’s and cosmology’s neglecting of the effects of electromagnetism on the plasma universe. It’s title is: “The Big Bang Never Happened”. The author is Eric J. Lerner. It was published in 1991 by Times Books, a division of Random House.
The book’s value is in it’s demonstrating the impossibility of understanding the cosmos without including electromagnetic force in the equations. The explanations the author offers for the history of the cosmos may be no more correct than those given by the electromagnetic influence deniers.
@ SandyInDerby (15:22:26) : I also wondered it anyone had correlated magnetic field reversals to climate?
—
I have a handy dandy sheet poster that has on it magnetic reversals in the traditional “bar stripe” form in one thin column, other paleo references in other columns, and on the far right side, interpreted sea level rises/falls. If you interpret the sea level rise/fall to climate, there’s some long stretches of time when the correlation would be weak at best. As we approach the Oligocene, there’s a bit of correlation, but that’s just my eye view. It would make for some nice research. I’m sure that’s been speculated and chatted up somewhere.
Gary Pearse (16:11:02) :
part of the radiant energy from this phenomenon should be added to the total. Is this totally wrong? Leif, what do you say?
Not totally wrong, just VERY wrong. The heat is not generated by friction, and the amount is extremely small, only of the order of an energy rating of 10,000,000,000 Watt or 10 GW = 10E10 W, which may sound like a lot, but really isn’t, considering that it has to be spread over the polar regions with, say, less than 1/10 of the total surface or 5E14 square meter, so each gets only 10E10/5E14*10 = 2E-3 or 0.002 W/m2 compared to TSI which is ~100 W/m2 [after correcting for albedo and angle].
mr.artday (16:25:51) :
The book’s value is in it’s demonstrating the impossibility of understanding the cosmos without including electromagnetic force in the equations.
Except that the E/M force is fully included in modern cosmology and is used all the time to describe plasmas and magnetic fields and their interactions. Take my advice: that book is pseudo-science and has no value other than for entertainment.
Sorry,
Leif, your statement suggests that you are in the “astronomy” camp which downplays electromagnetism every chance it gets.
Leif Svalgaard (17:09:35) :
mr.artday (16:25:51) :
The book’s value is in it’s demonstrating the impossibility of understanding the cosmos without including electromagnetic force in the equations.
Except that the E/M force is fully included in modern cosmology and is used all the time to describe plasmas and magnetic fields and their interactions. Take my advice: that book is pseudo-science and has no value other than for entertainment.
Uh? Did BB happen? What a shame! I didn’t see it!!! As Leif pointed it, EM is used in cosmology for explaining the nature and behavior of the other forces of nature, that is, strong force, weak force and gravity force. We split the four forces for easiness on understanding and studying each one of them, but in reality there is only one unified force working along the whole known Universe, manifested at four different levels and through four more or less different effects.
On the other hand, with the existence of false void, who needs a miracolous big bang to explain the origin of the Universe? But it’s a matter out of topic and it would drive us to many, many conjectures, out of topic, of course.
Addendum: “We split the four forces for easiness on understanding and studying each one of them, as we perceive them…”
10 GW = 10E9 W, not 10E10 W, but good point anyway. 😉
Mark
Anaconda (17:31:33) :
Sorry, Leif, your statement suggests that you are in the “astronomy” camp which downplays electromagnetism every chance it gets.
No need to feel so sorry. I’m in the “science” camp with specialty in electromagnetic phenomena which I try to promote as much as I can: solar magnetic fields, heliospheric current sheet, geomagnetic variations, etc. But the stuff has to make sense and the Electric Universe does not. It is however great fun.
Mark T (17:56:01) :
10 GW = 10E9 W, not 10E10 W, but good point anyway.
Perhaps I was a bit too generous with the energy. Good catch, of course it is 10E9 W [I clearly forgot to knock a zero off the first ’10’], so let’s put an extra zero in: 0.0002 W/m2
I don’t buy the idea of ice comets. If there are 30,000 per day bombarding the Earth, surely the corresponding bombardment of the moon, which has no atmosphere to absorb the impacts, would be noticible.
Anaconda, the existence of charged particles does not mean that space isn’t charge neutral. To be charge neutral only means that there are equivalent numbers of positive and negative charged particles.
Tom_R (18:36:56) :
Anaconda, the existence of charged particles does not mean that space isn’t charge neutral. To be charge neutral only means that there are equivalent numbers of positive and negative charged particles.
Agree, space has not charge, matter has charge and its charge can be neutral.
The contributors to this blog have no sense of proportion. They seem to jump on any theory that is convenient to their world-view. They also ultimately have no sense of time scale. [snip – suggestions of religion]
Anaconda (11:28:50) :
I think Leif put the solar wind at something like 0.001w/m^2, pretty insignificant I think.
Thing is, I think you missed the thrust of this article!
I’m in the PANIC, WAGTDE camp
The E being eventually 😛
DaveE.
Jeremy (16:23:21) :
Jeremy – you are assuming that an atmosphere is critical for life to evolve. Oxygen, for example, was a latecomer on a scale of things. It helped tremendously when it did arrive, but didn’t set the whole thing going. Here’s a recent paper that touches upon the subject (I’m assuming that you still believe some papers that come out in Nature !!!!).
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2675/did-nickel-kick-start-evolution
Given the number of planets out there, it is inconceivable to me that life has not evolved elsewhere.
O/T but thats what you get from following links…
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/10/winds-dying-down.html
but read on …
“Even so, that information doesn’t provide the definitive proof that science requires to connect reduced wind speeds to global warming, the authors said. In climate change science, there is a rigorous and specific method — which looks at all possible causes and charts their specific effects — to attribute an effect to global warming. That should be done eventually with wind, scientists say.”
Wouldn’t this be an Inconvenient Truth!!!
” Tom_R (18:32:13) :
I don’t buy the idea of ice comets. If there are 30,000 per day bombarding the Earth, surely the corresponding bombardment of the moon, which has no atmosphere to absorb the impacts, would be noticeable”
The mass of our moon and Mars is too low to retain comet water but impacts of the rocky kind are frequent.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/lunar/
“Three of us who work on Earth, Venus and Mars got together and compared notes,”
Is there something we are not being told?
Seriously though how come the earth is so cold today (compared to the long age of the dinosaurs for example) given that the sun’s radiance has been increasing for the last 4 billion years? It must have more to do with what’s happening on the earth and to the earth than anything the sun is doing.
Cold Englishman:
You should inform the Beeb that the theory is correct, but that they have the wrong planets.
I can almost hear the new story title: ” Scientists say that Saturn will collide with Uranus and that is going to hurt.”
.
.
.
.
For which I apologize.
Two facts
pro = positive
con = negative
CONgress = PROgress
Facts in an equation to be sure.
True or false is a matter of perspective.
Science, among other things, is a lot like that.
But i thought that the Sun’s magnetic field protected us as much from interstellar wind of a simliar nature?
That the sun cocooned us within a field, and helped keep the magnetic fields around earth stable ….
The quiet sun is not as powerful, and would allow more “random” assaults of whatever the universe may throw at us?
Excellent duscussion as ever
Todays nutty story from Auntie Beeb
Pallab Ghosh has obviously woken up with a hangover..
Have you heard? It’s in the stars,
Next July we collide with Mars!
Well, did you evah?
What a swell party this is!
(Cole Porter – 1939)
so where does the magnetic portal fit into this whole mess? Is it a case of the sun giveth and the sun taketh away? And Lief, does this stuff add into the total energy from the sun equasion?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
Leif,
After reading Anaconda’s posts a question occurred to me about Flux Transfer Events. Are these more or less frequent when the solar magnetic field is aligned with the geomagnetic field? Does the frequency or strength of FTE’s vary with the Hale cycle?
A further question would be if you could point me to a plot comparing all electromagnetic radiation from the sun from gamma through to radio, for periods of low and high solar activity? I would also like to know which frequencies are included in the TSI measurement.
The loss of 1kg/sec =1/2 million tons per year is small and some can be replaced by ionisation of water, the lighter elements like hydrogen will disappear quickly, oxygen will hang around a bit longer , as will nitrogen but where did all the nitrogen come from in the first place.
I didn’t realize that this was not already obvious.
I believe there are three main claimed proofs for AGW: the climate models, that the 20th century warming was ‘unprecedented’ – and the scientific consensus. Of course, many scientists disagree with AGW, but even if that were not so, the existence of a consensus is no proof at all. The history of science is basically about the fall of one consensus belief after another. How many scientists today believe that the sun goes around the earth? Phlogiston, the ether, continental drift, the nature of lunar craters, steady state creation, the origin of meteors – one could make a long, long list of scientific consensus beliefs that turned out to be completely wrong. Although they will deny it because it’s so embarrassing, the consensus just a few short decades ago was that we faced a new ice age.
.
In the early 20th century a group of scientists determined that there were 24 chromosomes in the human genome. For decades the text books stated this. A group of scientists gave up their research. The reason? They found that there were actually 23 chromosomes. Clearly their technique was wrong, so they abandoned their research.
.
Of course, the consensus that held sway for several decades was completely false. There are 23 chromosomes, not 24. But, as Matt Ridley pointed out in his fascinating book, Genome, all you had to do was look at some of the photographs in the text books. They clearly showed there were 23 chromosomes. Once a belief has taken hold, then people can become completely incapable of recognising facts that contradict their beliefs. Does this sound familiar?
Chris
don’t tarp me bro (09:27:32) : I was reading of the rim of fire. The pacific has movement under it and is rimmed with volcanoes. To what extent can currents move heat up north to the Artic sea? How do we eliminate geothermal energy as a source of heat in artic water?
We can’t because we’ve discovered a chain of volcanos under the Arctic water.
http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=arctic+ice+cap+volcano&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
geo (09:31:18) : I found myself wondering if there is a relationship here to fluctuations in the size of the Ozone hole with solar activity.
I think there is. It has been showing up as “low” ever since the sun went quiet (modulo what looks like Birkland Currents making Ozone in the North Pole area). Several times I’ve put forth the idea that lower Ozone opens a hole for IR to escape in the 9-10 micron range; but no body seems to care.
See:
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/Curr_allmap_g.htm
for both absolute and anomaly maps of ozone.
[quote name=Lindsay H.]
… but where did all the nitrogen come from in the first place.
[/quote]
That’s the question I want answered. Presumably H2O and CO2 came from ices that accreted during planet formation, the oxygen came from plants converting CO2, and the Argon came from decay of potassium 40. Where did the nitrogen come from? Breakdown of ammonia? Carbon 14 decay? Note that Venus’ atmosphere also has nitrogen.
One other thought, how much do the lunar tides on the Earth’s atmosphere increase atmospheric loss?
the words “scientific” and “consensus” do not belong in the same sentence.
pkatt (02:29:57) :
so where does the magnetic portal fit into this whole mess?
It doesn’t really, as the energy involved is minute, and the ‘portal’ opens every few hours all the time, and there is not just one, but many all over the front of the magnetosphere, and it is a misleading concept anyway.
Konrad (02:52:06) :
Are these more or less frequent when the solar magnetic field is aligned with the geomagnetic field? Does the frequency or strength of FTE’s vary with the Hale cycle?
Same answer as above. FTE’s happen all the time, every few minutes. The amount of flux transferred does depend on the direction of the solar wind magnetic field at the Earth: when aligned with the Earth’s field the IMF can connect to it and that enhances [or even causes] the FTE. The direction of the IMF changes almost randomly on a time scale of minutes and hours. Statistically, there is a persistent [small] component of the IMF that changes sign every solar cycle [at maximum], so FTEs and geomagnetic activity therefore have a 22-year cycle [see http://www.leif.org/research/Semiannual%20Variation%201954%20and%201996.pdf for more]
I would also like to know which frequencies are included in the TSI measurement.
The ‘T’ stands for Total, so ALL frequencies are included. The instrument simply lets solar radiation as it comes from the Sun fall on a black surface which is then heated by the energy received. An electric current is sent through another piece of the instrument until that other piece is at precisely the same temperature as the black surface. The amount of current needed to reach the same temperature is a measure of the TSI, and the current is then carefully measured.
Lindsay H. (03:04:29) :
where did all the nitrogen come from in the first place.
Produced in supernovae and present in the cloud from which the solar system formed.
Lately it seems that scientific “consensus” has more in common with the cartography of Europe during the 1990s than anything else.
Why the consensus on our oceans originating from comets? I’m not so sure I want to agree. Why not go with the Yellowstone theory of Geothermal expulsion of steam/water over millions of years?
Jessen (06:18:27) :
the words “scientific” and “consensus” do not belong in the same sentence.
What? You mean “there is no such thing as a scientific consensus” should never be uttered? Dang…
Mark
layne Blanchard (10:03:07) :
Why the consensus on our oceans originating from comets? I’m not so sure I want to agree.
They probably did, but not the mini-comets that Lou Frank thought he saw as black pixels in early satellite imagery.
Once reason for this is that the Earth was effectively vaporized or at least shattered into completely molten debris when the Mars-sized object that created the Moon slammed into it. When the Earth reformed from the debris, the water and all other volatiles had been lost, so they must have been added later.
How will this affect my scheduled trip to the moon in a few months?
[ snip 9/11 truther material is not allowed on this site]
[I must agree. ~ Evan]
Objection! (11:14:54) :
How will this affect my scheduled trip to the moon in a few months?
Bring your own water because the Moon by this mechanism ain’t got none.
thats kinda nerdy….
Yes, but what I want to know is: which of the 3 researchers works on Mars, which one on Venus and which one on Earth. And how the long the commute takes.
Brian D (23:48:42) :
True or false is a matter of perspective.
The following statement is true. The previous statement is false.
Take your time…. 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (10:31:45) :
Once reason for this is that the Earth was effectively vaporized or at least shattered into completely molten debris when the Mars-sized object that created the Moon slammed into it. When the Earth reformed from the debris, the water and all other volatiles had been lost, so they must have been added later.
Leif… I’m sorry, but that’s a fairy tale.
Nasif Nahle (15:37:36) :
“Once reason for this is that the Earth was effectively vaporized or at least shattered into completely molten debris when the Mars-sized object that created the Moon slammed into it. When the Earth reformed from the debris, the water and all other volatiles had been lost, so they must have been added later.”
Leif… I’m sorry, but that’s a fairy tale.
You being sorry does not change the fact that this a successful theory that explains most of what we know about the Moon’s formation, angular momentum, composition, moment of inertia, the works. So, because of that, it is the generally accepted fairy tale. It would be OT to go into details, but the data supporting this conclusion is overwhelming [just as for the big Bang, 🙂 ].
Leif Svalgaard (16:35:17) :
You being sorry does not change the fact that this a successful theory that explains most of what we know about the Moon’s formation, angular momentum, composition, moment of inertia, the works. So, because of that, it is the generally accepted fairy tale. It would be OT to go into details, but the data supporting this conclusion is overwhelming [just as for the big Bang, 🙂 ].
I know that the tale follows the mainstream, but not for this it is not a fairy tale. The rocks on the Moon are a billion years older than the rocks on the Earth. The proponents of the tale cannot explain when the ripping occurred and why deltaV didn’t take the Moon out of the system.
Leif Svalgaard (16:35:17) :
…but the data supporting this conclusion is overwhelming [just as for the big Bang]…
Leif, please, don’t tell me that a small iron nucleus is “overwhelming” data… 🙂
[The article says: “The interaction of solar wind with Venus and Mars is pretty simple,” Russell said. “The wind comes in, carries a magnetic field, which wraps around the ionosphere of the planet. The ionosphere is basically dragged away.”]
Why are responsible scientists still spewing this “frozen-in” magnetic field line nonsense? Apparently they’ve never actually visited a plasma physics lab. Plasma is not a permanent magnet, it is not ferromagnetic and it is not a superconductor through which a current will be sustained indefinitely over time.
The scientists studying solar physics and the solar wind need to get a clue, methinks. The solar wind is low-density PLASMA. That they treat is as an ideal conductor (a superconductor that conducts a current with precisely zero resistance) does not make it so. That can be quite simply demonstrated (for the low-density plasma of space and the corona and in low-density plasma experiments in the lab).
One need only look at the page on low-density glow discharges, specifically this graph of plasma discharge regimes (dark, glow and arc discharge modes):
glow-discharge.com/Images/GD_Regime.jpg
It plots voltage V (in volts) against current I (in amperes). Resistance R (in ohms) is defined as the ratio of voltage to current:
R = (V / I)
View the graph. Show me where on the graph it touches the I axis (x-axis, lower axis, whatever)! Simply put except at the origin where NO CURRENT flows through the plasma, the graph never hits the I-axis. V never reaches zero, thus (V / I) never reaches 0, thus R never reaches zero. Where a current flows through low-density plasma, it ALWAYS has non-zero valued resistance. While it is an *extremely good* conductor, it is NOT an *ideal conductor* (superconductor).
Unfortunately that immediately tanks any notion of instant charge neutralization, the notion that no electric fields can exist within the plasma and the notion that magnetic fields can be “frozen in” to the plasma. The magnetic fields only persist so long as an electric current persists within the plasma. The magnetic field strength is dependent upon the strength of the electric current. This is the principle behind an electromagnet and conforms to the mathematics set forth by Maxwell, Ampère, Faraday, Gauss, Lorentz, et al.
Just figured folks might want to correct the bum theories that still persist out there…
Heliospheric scientists need to get over this hump and start talking in terms of currents, circuits and electrodynamics. Stop using outdated and experimentally falsified models.
I’d suggest the the following reading if interested in debunking “frozen in” magnetic field lines and “magnetic reconnection.”
Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics, by Hannes Alfvén, 1986.
Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos, by Don Scott, 2007.
While they don’t necessarily go into the rather simple maths above, on resistance, they generally both agree that “frozen in” fields and “reconnection” are bunkum.
Nasif Nahle (16:55:37) :
don’t tell me that a small iron nucleus is “overwhelming” data…
You are apparently unaware of the data and the theory.
Here are the basics:
http://www.xtec.cat/recursos/astronom/moon/camerone.htm
Here is some more:
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_print.cfm?ID=111
but the real meat is ‘heavy going’ and has to do with the identical isotopic compositions of the Earth and Moon, especially for Hafnium and Tungsten, the evidence for a molten magma ocean, etc, and the time scale for the formation. Now, with any successful theory you can always find detractors, even Plate Tectonics, Evolution, Big Bang, and Frozen-in Magnetic Fields [c.f. the previous post] have these. Here is not the place [or topic] for a prolonged discussion of this.
Nasif Nahle (16:50:12) :
The rocks on the Moon are a billion years older than the rocks on the Earth. The proponents of the tale cannot explain when the ripping occurred and why deltaV didn’t take the Moon out of the system.
No, the solar system itself is 4.57 Gyr old. The Earth is 4.53 Gyr old, and the Moon is 4.53 Gyr old. The uncertainties of of the order of +/-0.02 Gyr.
The links in my previous post address the timing and the angular momentum problem.
Please, let this rest. It is a non-problem. There is wide agreement on this.
Michael Gmirkin (17:03:20) :
“frozen in” fields and “reconnection” are bunkum.
Reconnection has been directly observed [ http://www.astroengine.com/?p=475 ] and is a cornerstone of our understanding of plasmas in the Universe [although not in the laboratory because we cannot make plasmas that are dilute enough for reconnection to work]. And we are beginnig to drift off topic again. This is not the place to debunk the debunking of everything we know. There are specialized websites for such activities. Go there.
Leif Svalgaard (17:43:43) :
but the real meat is ‘heavy going’ and has to do with the identical isotopic compositions of the Earth and Moon, especially for Hafnium and Tungsten, the evidence for a molten magma ocean, etc, and the time scale for the formation.
But isotopic compositions don’t give a single clue on the occurrence of an impact; the same isotopic compositions obey to a Moon’s origin from a cloud of debris orbiting the Earth with the same composition than the debris which gave origin to the Earth.
About the paradox age of Moon’s rocks-age of Earth’s rocks, the most plausible explanation is that the melted crust of the Moon solidified long time before the melted crust of the Earth; the question is: when?
Now, with any successful theory you can always find detractors, even Plate Tectonics, Evolution, Big Bang, and Frozen-in Magnetic Fields [c.f. the previous post] have these. Here is not the place [or topic] for a prolonged discussion of this.
Agreed.
Nasif Nahle (18:43:49) :
About the paradox age of Moon’s rocks-age of Earth’s rocks, the most plausible explanation is that the melted crust of the Moon solidified long time before the melted crust of the Earth; the question is: when?
just to correct your concept of Earth’s oldest rocks. “The oldest minerals dated so far by the U/Pb technique are zircons from Jack Hills in the Narryer Gneiss Terrane, Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia, with an age of 4.404 billion years,[2] interpreted to be the age of crystallization. These zircons might be the oldest minerals on earth.”. And then leave it.
Leif Svalgaard (19:00:15) :
just to correct your concept of Earth’s oldest rocks. “The oldest minerals dated so far by the U/Pb technique are zircons from Jack Hills in the Narryer Gneiss Terrane, Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia, with an age of 4.404 billion years,[2] interpreted to be the age of crystallization. These zircons might be the oldest minerals on earth.”. And then leave it.
Just to correct your “correction” on my concept of Earth’s oldest rocks. There are also zircons on the Moon:
“A small mineral tidbit in a rock brought back from the moon in 1972 is giving scientists a big clue that our satellite’s surface was, for the most part, solidified by 4.4 billion years ago.” Source: Science News. 8/02/08, p. 12.
And then… leave if you wish, but after explaining how is it that the Moon’s zircons crystallized at the same time than the Earth’s zircons.
Oops! Change “crystallized” for “chrystalized”. 😉
Nasif Nahle (21:01:02) :
There are also zircons on the Moon:
“A small mineral tidbit in a rock brought back from the moon in 1972 is giving scientists a big clue that our satellite’s surface was, for the most part, solidified by 4.4 billion years ago.” Source: Science News. 8/02/08, p. 12.
And then… leave if you wish, but after explaining how is it that the Moon’s zircons crystallized at the same time than the Earth’s zircons.
Because they were formed at the same time and stuff near the surface solidify quickly. Remember you said the was a paradox of a billion year difference. This is no fairy tale, but a well documented and extensive theory that explains what we know about the early Moon and Earth. There are always whiners, like the people that say that geology is all wrong because sometimes older rocks are found on top of younger rock.
The theory is explained in detail by Cameron and Benz (1991), Icarus, vol 92, p 204-216. If you have further objections, first go and read that paper, make a list of the evidence they have, and debate specifically each item on that list.
Nasif Nahle (21:01:02) :
And then… leave if you wish, but after explaining how is it that the Moon’s zircons crystallized at the same time than the Earth’s zircons.
The chemical part of the fairy tale is well-described in this very recent and authoritative paper:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1883/4163.full.pdf
Time to accept the ‘overwhelming evidence’. It is, at least, good enough for me.
Leif Svalgaard (21:49:53) :
Nasif Nahle (21:01:02) :
And then… leave if you wish, but after explaining how is it that the Moon’s zircons crystallized at the same time than the Earth’s zircons.
The chemical part of the fairy tale is well-described in this very recent and authoritative paper:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1883/4163.full.pdf
Time to accept the ‘overwhelming evidence’. It is, at least, good enough for me.
I’ll read these paper in a few moments and give an answer. In the meanwhile, revise your e-mail inbox because I’ve sent you a graph related to HSG… Remember? 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (21:49:53) :
Time to accept the ‘overwhelming evidence’. It is, at least, good enough for me.
Apparently, the authors of that paper are correct on their assessment. However, there are two unsatisfactorily-explained issues:
1. Why did they finally dismiss W isotopes? The answer is: Because it is evidence of an earlier start of the Moon.
2. Did the Earth have two accretion events? The authors of the article don’t make mention of it, but it could be deduced from what they say about an already formed Earth before the gargantuan impact.
Nevertheless, I could accept the “overwhelming” evidence if someone shows me water on the Moon… Definitely, I would have to change some points on some academic articles.
So-called “magnetic reconnection” is a flight of fancy. Electromagnetism acts as a circuit.
Leif Svalgaard is simply passing on a faulty theory that has nothing to do with the Laws of Electromagnetism as established in plasma physics laboratories across the world. Maxwell’s Equations established that electric current generates magnetic fields.
(So-called “modern” astronomy makes up all kinds of theories that have little or nothing to do with the Laws of Nature as established by observation & measurement in laboratory settings by experiment & testing.)
When a magnetic field changes, it is because the electric current that generates it has changed. Magnetic field “lines” are simply a conceptual aid as are latitude “lines” on a map.
Svalgaard states: “Reconnection has been directly observed and is a cornerstone of our understanding of plasmas in the Universe.”
The, above, statement just shows that “modern” astronomy has severe problems, as any competent plasma physicist will tell you that magnetic reconnection has not been observed and has no basis in electrical theory or practice.
That Svalgaard would repeat this easily proved fallacy demonstrates he carries water for “modern” astronomy.
Svalgaard’s ideas are faulty.
Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand: Who am I to believe, Svalgaard or my lying eyes: The Sun at solar maximum and at solar minimun are two different animals. Anybody can see that…except “modern” astronomers.
The total energy emitted by the Sun is much higher at solar maximum than at solar minimum.
Svalgaard states: “It [“magnetic portal] doesn’t really, as the energy involved is minute, and the ‘portal’ opens every few hours all the time, and there is not just one, but many all over the front of the magnetosphere, and it is a misleading concept anyway.”
(Not even NASA refers to Birkeland currents as “magnetic portals”, NASA refers to them as Flux Transfer Events, but Svalgaard is content to use this misleading term.)
Svalgaard’s, above, statment is completely false.
The electrical energy is substantial, NASA has stated that these Birkeland currents have 650,000 amperes of electricity and the electric currents flow on a consistent and regular basis.
The only reason it is “misleading” in Svalgaard’s mind’s eye is because “modern” astronomy was so late to acknowledge that electromagnetism plays a major role in the dynamics of the solar system.
Remember, “modern” astronomy denied, yes, outright denied the electromagnetic connection between the Sun and the Earth which causes the aurora for 70 years after it had first been proposed by Kristian Birkeland.
Only after in situ observation & measurement conducted by the Trident satellite, in 1973, confirmed this electromagnetic connection did “modern” astronomy acknowledge its mistake.
But as Svalgaard demonstrates, “modern” astronomers still downplay electromagntism’s role solar system dynamics.
And why they are consistently “surprised” by new observations & mearuements that confound the models.
Because the models are wrong and so is Svalgaard.
Svalgaard states: “The instrument simply lets solar radiation as it comes from the Sun fall on a black surface which is then heated by the energy received. An electric current is sent through another piece of the instrument until that other piece is at precisely the same temperature as the black surface. The amount of current needed to reach the same temperature is a measure of the TSI, and the current is then carefully measured.”
The light of the Sun falling on a “black surface” does not measure the TOTAL electromagnetic energy emitted by the Sun and received by the Earth.
But that is why Svalgaard dismisses the electromagnetic energy that is carried from the Sun to the Earth by the Birkeland currents as “minute” because he knows this energy isn’t counted in the models he uses.
To admit to this fact would invalidate his models, so, of course, he resists that.
So what else is new.
“The electric charges flowing out of the Sun, on the other hand, travel down magnetic flux tubes that have also recently been discovered. These “magnetic tornadoes” are several kilometers wide and allow electric currents to flow directly from the Sun into the polar regions, generating visible light, radio waves, and x-rays.
The power generated by an auroral substorm is far greater than what human beings can create with every coal-burning, oil-fired, or water-driven means combined. These currents are comprised of widely separated, low density charged particles and are called Birkeland currents. Despite the low current density, the volume of charge is so great that there is an extremely high overall current flow, over a million amps.”
And Svalgaard calls that “minute”.
Who’s kidding who?
1 million amps, in the scale at which the Solar system works, is trivial.
That an auroral event is releasing more energy than all humanity can produce is a comment on how small humans are, not how great the solar electric system is.
Leif, thank you for your many and interesting posts.
Nasif Nahle (23:23:35) :
2. Did the Earth have two accretion events?
Of course, there had to be an Earth to begin with (1st event) for a collision to happen, after which the 2nd event took place from the debris. What a straw man!
Anyway, let’s get off this OT topic. A definitive paper on this is here:
A young Moon-forming giant impact at 70–110 million years accompanied by late-stage mixing, core formation and degassing of the Earth (Alex Halliday) http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1883/4163.full.pdf
There is no doubt that this happened. People are discussing the details of the event. The relative sizes, the exact timing, etc. All of these things that, of course, assumes there was an event to begin with.
Anaconda (00:56:14) :
The total energy emitted by the Sun is much higher at solar maximum than at solar minimum.
Perhaps you could give us number for how much energy is emitted at max and at min? Without such numbers, you cannot make such a statement. To clarify: The Earth receives electromagnetic waves [light] from the Sun. This is measured as TSI. It also receives kinetic energy from the solar wind. Some of that kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place]. The ratio between the total electromagnetic wave energy [TSI] and the kinetic [non-electromagnetic] energy in the solar wind is about 100,000 to one. The total energy of the particles precipitated into the atmosphere is several to many GigaWatt http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html which is a minute part of the total electromagnetic energy we get from TSI which is measured in millions of GigaWatt.
Leif Svalgaard (06:12:15) :
Nasif Nahle (23:23:35) :
2. Did the Earth have two accretion events?
Of course, there had to be an Earth to begin with (1st event) for a collision to happen, after which the 2nd event took place from the debris. What a straw man!
No, not so easy to refute because the interplanetary conditions 110 Ma after the first accretion were not the same during the second accretion. I put under consideration the main asteroids belt, formed almost at the same time than the Earth-Moon System (4.5 Ga). The melting phase of the main belt ended about 10 Ma after the solar system start.
hunter (05:43:47) :
That an auroral event is releasing more energy than all humanity can produce is a comment on how small humans are, not how great the solar electric system is.
Leif, thank you for your many and interesting posts.
A good-sized auroral event [substorm] releases about 5E14 Joule corresponding to a single earthquake of magnitude 6.7 on the Richter Scale. And is one-millionth of the human global energy production for a year [5E20 J]. An auroral event may last for 1/10,000 of a year [about an hour], so humans produce 100 times as much energy as the aurora.
[snip – pointless all caps rant]
Nasif Nahle (06:59:03) :
No, not so easy to refute because the interplanetary conditions 110 Ma after the first accretion were not the same during the second accretion. I put under consideration the main asteroids belt, formed almost at the same time than the Earth-Moon System (4.5 Ga). The melting phase of the main belt ended about 10 Ma after the solar system start.
No refutation needed. This is just the usual quibbling/whining about details that are uncertain to begin with, and do not address the Earth-Moon issue. The basics is clear: giant impact formed the Moon, no reasonable scientist in the field really disputes that, hence water must have accumulated since, and THAT was the main issue.
My modest proposal:
President Obama should announce that he’s “not going to tolerate any further atmospheric loss” and then demand Congress address this “crisis” by immediately passing appropriate legislation.
Shucks, that ought to fix the problem pronto. 😉
[snip – pointless all caps ad hom]
@ Hunter:
Hunter states: “1 million amps, in the scale at which the Solar system works, is trivial.”
For overall solar emissions, “trivial” would be appropriate, but not for the Earth’s energy budget when you consider this “1million amps” is repeated multiple times each day, 365 days a year.
Svalgaard states: “Perhaps [Anaconda] you could give us number for how much energy is emitted at max and at min?”
Please, this kind of a question is a redherring. I’m not the scientist, here, rather, a scientific observer, which includes most of us who read this website.
Svalgaard states: “Without such numbers, you cannot make such a statement.”
As I stated, above: “Who am I to believe, Svalgaard or my lying eyes: The Sun at solar maximum and at solar minimun are two different animals. Anybody can see that…except “modern” astronomers.”
In Scientific terms, it’s called “morphology”, or study of shapes, we can see the Sun is much more active at solar maximum than solar minimum.
The fact that Science hasn’t quantified the Sun’s emittance in total is no excuse to ignore that the Sun varies in electromagnetic energy emittance.
Now, Svalgaard is a pugnacious fellow, nothing wrong with that, in fact, I give him credit for responding to questions in the comment threads on a regular basis, but his “you go and measure it” comment reveals the lack of knowledge on the part of scientists because if there was an answer (particularly that backed up his position) Svalgaard would, no doubt, be happy to present it (again to his credit), but seeing that his response was an attempt to divert the question instead of forthrightly acknowledging the lack of quantification, readers should take scepticism away from that. There is nothing wrong with scientists saying, “we don’t know”, there is something wrong with attempting to paper over the lack of knowledge as unimportant.
(Also, when presumed “experts” are challenged and they resort to “you go measure it” type answers, this is a subtle appeal to their authority, but when they don’t have answers…well then…they aren’t authorities are they?)
Svalgaard states: “The Earth receives electromagnetic waves [light] from the Sun. This is measured as TSI.”
Yes, that is true, it’s called irradiance, but that isn’t the TOTAL electromagnetic energy budget the Earth receives from the Sun. Irradiance is is photons striking the Earth. Plasma, charged particles, also carry energy and not an insignificant amount that is “minute” or “trivial” which is a subtle way to say, “not important enough to measure it”.
Well, have do we know until it has been accurately quantified?
Svalgaard states: “It also receives kinetic energy from the solar wind. Some of that kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place].”
False.
The solar wind isn’t simply “kinetic energy” it is electromagnetic energy transferred by plasma, charged particles, in a tenuous fashion, albeit for the Birkeland currents which have much higher electric current density.
“kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place].”
As I stated, above, “reconnection” doesn’t happen, but since “reconnection” is the party line of “modern” astronomy, Svalgaard repeats the fallacy.
Electric current directly transfers energy from the Sun to the Earth, there is no “transformation” because the energy starts off as electrical energy to begin with and reaches the Earth as electrical energy.
Svalgaard states: “Except that the E/M force is fully included in modern cosmology and is used all the time to describe plasmas and magnetic fields and their interactions.”
False.
Svalgaard presents as the typical “modern” astronomer: He claims that electromagnetic forces are fully included in “modern” astronomy, but when you peel back the layers of the onion (penetrate the obfiscation) you see they don’t consider much at all or down play its importance.
Heck, Svalgaard and crew don’t even acknowledge the solar wind is electromagnetic energy, but rather is only “kinetic energy” that only later is “transformed” into electromagnetic energy.
Why does Svalgaard cling to magnetic reconnection even after it has been discredited?
Because it’s the attempted way to pass off changing magnetic fields without discussing the electric current which generates magnetic fields.
Svalgaard and most of “modern” astronomy insist on ignoring the only way to generate magnetic fields, electric current.
It is more of the same — but those who want to understand the dynamics of Earth’s climate can not afford the luxury of having their heads in the sand.
@ Hunter:
Hunter states: “1 million amps, in the scale at which the Solar system works, is trivial.”
For overall solar emissions, “trivial” would be appropriate, but not for the Earth’s energy budget when you consider this “1million amps” is repeated multiple times each day, 365 days a year.
Svalgaard states: “Perhaps [Anaconda] you could give us number for how much energy is emitted at max and at min?”
Please, this kind of a question is a redherring. I’m not the scientist, here, rather, a scientific observer, which includes most of us who read this website.
Svalgaard states: “Without such numbers, you cannot make such a statement.”
As I stated, above: “Who am I to believe, Svalgaard or my lying eyes: The Sun at solar maximum and at solar minimun are two different animals. Anybody can see that…except “modern” astronomers.”
In Scientific terms, it’s called “morphology”, or study of shapes, we can see the Sun is much more active at solar maximum than solar minimum.
The fact that Science hasn’t quantified the Sun’s emittance in total is no excuse to ignore that the Sun varies in electromagnetic energy emittance.
Now, Svalgaard is a pugnacious fellow, nothing wrong with that, in fact, I give him credit for responding to questions in the comment threads on a regular basis, but his “you go and measure it” comment reveals the lack of knowledge on the part of scientists because if there was an answer (particularly that backed up his position) Svalgaard would, no doubt, be happy to present it (again to his credit), but seeing that his response was an attempt to divert the question instead of forthrightly acknowledging the lack of quantification, readers should take scepticism away from that. There is nothing wrong with scientists saying, “we don’t know”, there is something wrong with attempting to paper over the lack of knowledge as unimportant.
(Also, when presumed “experts” are challenged and they resort to “you go measure it” type answers, this is a subtle appeal to their authority, but when they don’t have answers…well then…they aren’t authorities are they?)
Svalgaard states: “The Earth receives electromagnetic waves [light] from the Sun. This is measured as TSI.”
Yes, that is true, it’s called irradiance, but that isn’t the TOTAL electromagnetic energy budget the Earth receives from the Sun. Irradiance is is photons striking the Earth. Plasma, charged particles, also carry energy and not an insignificant amount that is “minute” or “trivial” which is a subtle way to say, “not important enough to measure it”.
Well, have do we know until it has been accurately quantified?
Svalgaard states: “It also receives kinetic energy from the solar wind. Some of that kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place].”
False.
The solar wind isn’t simply “kinetic energy” it is electromagnetic energy transferred by plasma, charged particles, in a tenuous fashion, albeit for the Birkeland currents which have much higher electric current density.
“kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place].”
As I stated, above, “reconnection” doesn’t happen, but since “reconnection” is the party line of “modern” astronomy, Svalgaard repeats the fallacy.
Electric current directly transfers energy from the Sun to the Earth, there is no “transformation” because the energy starts off as electrical energy to begin with and reaches the Earth as electrical energy.
Svalgaard states: “Except that the E/M force is fully included in modern cosmology and is used all the time to describe plasmas and magnetic fields and their interactions.”
False.
Svalgaard presents as the typical “modern” astronomer: He claims that electromagnetic forces are fully included in “modern” astronomy, but when you peel back the layers of the onion (penetrate the obfiscation) you see they don’t consider much at all or down play its importance.
Heck, Svalgaard and crew don’t even acknowledge the solar wind is electromagnetic energy, but rather is only “kinetic energy” that only later is “transformed” into electromagnetic energy.
Why does Svalgaard cling to magnetic reconnection even after it has been discredited?
Because it’s the attempted way to pass off changing magnetic fields without discussing the electric current which generates magnetic fields.
Svalgaard and most of “modern” astronomy insist on ignoring the only way to generate magnetic fields, electric current.
It is more of the same — but those who want to understand the dynamics of Earth’s climate can not afford the luxury of having their heads in the sand.
@ Hunter:
Hunter states: “1 million amps, in the scale at which the Solar system works, is trivial.”
For overall solar emissions, “trivial” would be appropriate, but not for the Earth’s energy budget when you consider this “1million amps” is repeated multiple times each day, 365 days a year.
Svalgaard states: “Perhaps [Anaconda] you could give us number for how much energy is emitted at max and at min?”
Please, this kind of a question is a redherring. I’m not the scientist, here, rather, a scientific observer, which includes most of us who read this website.
Svalgaard states: “Without such numbers, you cannot make such a statement.”
As I stated, above: “Who am I to believe, Svalgaard or my lying eyes: The Sun at solar maximum and at solar minimun are two different animals. Anybody can see that…except “modern” astronomers.”
In Scientific terms, it’s called “morphology”, or study of shapes, we can see the Sun is much more active at solar maximum than solar minimum.
The fact that Science hasn’t quantified the Sun’s emittance in total is no excuse to ignore that the Sun varies in electromagnetic energy emittance.
Now, Svalgaard is a pugnacious fellow, nothing wrong with that, in fact, I give him credit for responding to questions in the comment threads on a regular basis, but his “you go and measure it” comment reveals the lack of knowledge on the part of scientists because if there was an answer (particularly that backed up his position) Svalgaard would, no doubt, be happy to present it (again to his credit), but seeing that his response was an attempt to divert the question instead of forthrightly acknowledging the lack of quantification, readers should take scepticism away from that. There is nothing wrong with scientists saying, “we don’t know”, there is something wrong with attempting to paper over the lack of knowledge as unimportant.
(Also, when presumed “experts” are challenged and they resort to “you go measure it” type answers, this is a subtle appeal to their authority, but when they don’t have answers…well then…they aren’t authorities are they?)
Svalgaard states: “The Earth receives electromagnetic waves [light] from the Sun. This is measured as TSI.”
Yes, that is true, it’s called irradiance, but that isn’t the TOTAL electromagnetic energy budget the Earth receives from the Sun. Irradiance is is photons striking the Earth. Plasma, charged particles, also carry energy and not an insignificant amount that is “minute” or “trivial” which is a subtle way to say, “not important enough to measure it”.
Well, have do we know until it has been accurately quantified?
Svalgaard states: “It also receives kinetic energy from the solar wind. Some of that kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place].”
False.
The solar wind isn’t simply “kinetic energy” it is electromagnetic energy transferred by plasma, charged particles, in a tenuous fashion, albeit for the Birkeland currents which have much higher electric current density.
“kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place].”
As I stated, above, “reconnection” doesn’t happen, but since “reconnection” is the party line of “modern” astronomy, Svalgaard repeats the fallacy.
Electric current directly transfers energy from the Sun to the Earth, there is no “transformation” because the energy starts off as electrical energy to begin with and reaches the Earth as electrical energy.
Svalgaard states: “Except that the E/M force is fully included in modern cosmology and is used all the time to describe plasmas and magnetic fields and their interactions.”
False.
Svalgaard presents as the typical “modern” astronomer: He claims that electromagnetic forces are fully included in “modern” astronomy, but when you peel back the layers of the onion (penetrate the obfiscation) you see they don’t consider much at all or down play its importance.
Heck, Svalgaard and crew don’t even acknowledge the solar wind is electromagnetic energy, but rather is only “kinetic energy” that only later is “transformed” into electromagnetic energy.
Why does Svalgaard cling to magnetic reconnection even after it has been discredited?
Because it’s the attempted way to pass off changing magnetic fields without discussing the electric current which generates magnetic fields.
Svalgaard and most of “modern” astronomy insist on ignoring the only way to generate magnetic fields, electric current.
It is more of the same — but those who want to understand the Earth’s climate can’t afford to have their heads in the sand.
“Auroral Activity Extrapolated from NOAA POES
Instruments on board the NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) continually monitor the power flux carried by the protons and electrons that produce aurora in the atmosphere.” Per NOAA link by Svalgaard.
Notice this isn’t kinetic energy, but is the electric potential between electrons and protons (plasma).
Um, but the aurora produces as much energy in one hour as humans produce in about 100 hours, i.e., while active, the aurora is producing almost 100 times as much as humans do in the same time. 😉
Mark
Fortunately with all the politicians out there, we can loose atmosphere and still generate more hot air to replace it (and more).
Please delete the two repeats of my [Anaconda’s] comments.
Mark T (10:31:02) :
Um, but the aurora produces as much energy in one hour as humans produce in about 100 hours, i.e., while active, the aurora is producing almost 100 times as much as humans do in the same time. 😉
Other way around.
Anaconda (10:51:01) :
Please delete the two repeats of my [Anaconda’s] comments.
Even the original is off the mark. The solar wind is a flow of particles [i.e. kinetic energy]. The so-called plasma ‘beta’ is greater than one meaning that the kinetic energy dominates over the magnetic energy, so that the weak magnetic field is just dragged along for the ride. The there is a million times more electromagnetic energy in TSI than is transported by the solar wind. And at maximum the sun is indeed more energetic, all of one in 10,000. But, it seems that it will require a major effort [on your part and on mine] to improve your appreciation for modern science and I’m not sure the general readership wants to suffer through that.
Anaconda (10:18:08) :
Perhaps, the education is best done in little pieces. Take this one:
“Auroral Activity Extrapolated from NOAA POES
Instruments on board the NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) continually monitor the power flux carried by the protons and electrons that produce aurora in the atmosphere.” Per NOAA link by Svalgaard.
Notice this isn’t kinetic energy, but is the electric potential between electrons and protons (plasma).
NOAA states:
“The Total Energy Detector (TED) is an instrument in the Space Environment Monitor ([…] The upgraded TED, which is designed to monitor the power flux carried into the Earths’s atmosphere by precipitating auroral charged particles, now covers particle energies from 50 to 20,000 electron volts (eV) as compared to the earlier TED that extended in energy to only 300 eV.”
By definition, an electron volt (eV) is equal to the amount of kinetic energy gained by a single unbound electron when it accelerates through an electrostatic potential difference of one volt. So, POES measures the kinetic energy [as it should] of the particles. Your idea of ‘potential’ is likely a confusion about what eV means.
See what I mean? And can we now scratch that item from the list?
Anaconda (10:18:08) :
Let’s do one more little piece.
The flow of electromagnetic energy is given by the magnitude of the so-called Poynting Vector. For the solar wind, this value is 6 microWatt/m^2: 0.000,006 W/m^2 at Earth. Compare this with TSI: 1360.885,000 W/m^2, to get a sense of the disparity between the two. The Sum of TSI [the radiant energy] and the Poynting Vector magnitude [they both flow away from the Sun, so the addition is OK] is 1360.885,006 W/m^2 [as of June 5, 2009]. This is the TOTAL [free] electromagnetic energy leaving the Sun as received at Earth.
@Leif…
I cannot accept the hypothesis of the great impact as the origin of the Moon for the following reasons:
1. The analysis of isotopes doesn’t demonstrate that there was an impact, but it is evidence only on the same origin of the Earth and the Moon during the same epoch.
2. The oldest minerals found on both the Earth and the Moon are evidence of an event of crystallization that occurred at the same time, which means only that the planet and its satellite experienced the same processes of accretion from nebular solids.
3. The origin of Mercury was ~ 200 Ma after the start of the solar system. Thus, Mercury is younger than Earth and Moon, which were formed 110 Ma after the origin of the solar system. The age of the planet has nothing to do with catastrophic collisions.
4. Mars is also younger than Earth and Moon. The presence of W and zirconium oxides on the surface of Mars is evidence in favor of a same process of formation which gave origin to the Earth and the Moon.
5. Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 which collided with Jupiter in July 1994 didn’t caused scattering or dispersion of Jovian materials towards the outer space, even when the mass of S-L comet was similar to the mass proposed by astronomers which supposedly collided with Earth and munched its crust to form the Moon. You can argue that it was a very different case because gravitational pulling of Jupiter is hundreds of times higher than gravitational pulling of Earth; nevertheless, the impact was enough as to take materials from the surface of Jupiter to form an extra satellite. It didn’t occur.
6. The development of the hypothesis ran exactly as many pseudoscientific ideas had risen, first the idea emerged; later, the proponents of that idea occurred on the task of looking for evidence in support of the idea.
7. There are many observable solar systems in formation in the galaxy. All of them present a disk of nebular solids from which the planets will start their existence. The nebular ring giving origin to the Moon has nothing wrong given that the mechanism is being confirmed by actual and current observations.
8. What the original size of the Earth could be if the Moon was part of it?
9. Where the doughnut’s hole is? I mean, where the gargantuan meteorite is right now? 🙂
Nasif Nahle (14:06:29) :
I cannot accept the hypothesis of the great impact as the origin of the Moon for the following reasons
There are many things you don’t accept: Giant Impact, Big Bang, AGW, etc. As far as I can tell, none of your arguments are compelling and many are irrelevant, but you have said your piece, even though you agreed that this thread was not the place. So, we’ll let it stand there.
Leif Svalgaard (14:40:45) :
Nasif Nahle (14:06:29) :
“I cannot accept the hypothesis of the great impact”
So, we’ll let it stand there.
Unless, of course, there is great interest in this and people think it is important where the water on Earth came from. So, we’ll let a show of hands determine this.
Nasif,
RE: your point 5- are you suggesting that Shoemaker was ~ Mars massed?
Jupiter gravity is ‘hundreds of times’ Earth???
The planetoid not missing. It is us and luna.
Frankly I think this is getting really, really OT.
@ Leif Svalgaard:
Svalgaard states: “The solar wind is a flow of particles [i.e. kinetic energy].”
Yes, there is kinetic energy, but it most definitely is not the sum total of the solar wind’s energy, particularly when the Birkeland currents are included.
Svalgaard states: “The so-called plasma ‘beta’ is greater than one meaning that the kinetic energy dominates over the magnetic energy, so that the weak magnetic field is just dragged along for the ride. ”
Magnetic fields are NEVER “just dragged along for the ride”, there is ALWAYS electric current that generates it.
Svalgaard states: “And at maximum the sun is indeed more energetic, all of one in 10,000.”
That’s what the debate is about, isn’t it?
(This is where the rubber meets the road, there is good reason to hash this out.)
And there is good scientific reason to reject your proposition of “one in 10,000.”
I did appreciate the NOAA link on the aurora — it was informative, thank you.
Svalgaard states: “A good-sized auroral event [substorm] releases about 5E14 Joule corresponding to a single earthquake of magnitude 6.7 on the Richter Scale. And is one-millionth of the human global energy production for a year [5E20 J]. An auroral event may last for 1/10,000 of a year [about an hour], so humans produce 100 times as much energy as the aurora.”
I checked out the NOAA link and found the electrical energy with a rate of about say 8.0 gigawatts (10 gigawatts is 10,000,000,000 watts) per SECOND .
The electrical energy and that’s what it is, electrical energy that is going into the aurora is measured, not as an “event”, but at a rate of ongoing energy flow per second.
Add up all those seconds per day and you are talking substantial energy and roughly double that because both the South pole and North pole have auroras.
And after a year?
You are comparing apples and oranges when you talk about human energy production per year against single events with short time spans without multiplying how many times it happens in a year.
When you compare, Svalgaard, compare year to year.
And on that basis the aurora takes in much more energy in a year than humans do in a year.
One aurora “event” is 5E14 Joule and human global energy production for an entire year is 5E20 Joule.
Let’s see during solar maximum there are say 20 substorms in a year, that would conservatively put it at 5E280 joule. How many times more is that than human gobal energy production in a year?
When you work the numbers, you’ll find that Svalgaard has a selective interpretation of the numbers.
Svalgaard, are you having a problem with the concept of electromagnetic energy? Your problem isn’t with me, it’s with NASA and NOAA, as both recognize the electromagnetic energy present in the solar wind, but more important, Birkeland currents, described by NASA as “magnetic tornadoes”.
Again, how many seconds are in a day?
How many seconds in a year?
During solar maximum it is not uncommon to average 10 gigawatts, 10,000,000,000 watts, per second.
Tell me that doesn’t add up.
This doesn’t take into account the spikes that happen regularly during solar maximum where the numbers can jump into much higer gigawatt numbers.
But here’s the thing, your models don’t include this energy AT ALL, so any additional energy in the Earth’s budget is going to throw off the models.
Svalgaard, you haven’t explained the huge difference in the Sun’s morphology between solar maximum and solar minimum.
Your models are supposed to be fine tuned, but the more many of us dig into the evidence, the more apparent your numbers are just a crap shoot.
hunter (15:09:07) :
Frankly I think this is getting really, really OT.
There is one sense in which it is vaguely on topic, namely what happens to a human being’s faculties when an underlying agenda or obsession takes over. Same thing with AGW.
Leif Svalgaard (15:58:07) :
hunter (15:09:07) :
Frankly I think this is getting really, really OT.
There is one sense in which it is vaguely on topic, namely what happens to a human being’s faculties when an underlying agenda or obsession takes over. Same thing with AGW.
Yes, Leif is right. I need to examine more deeply the issue; there are many things I have to change and I need to answer every question I have formulated before doing them. 🙂
@Leif… Thanks for the material. I will read it slowly.
The status and origin of the Moon is off topic, no doubt.
But the energy electromagnetic energy flowing from the Sun to the Earth is exactly on topic (solar wind penetrates enough to knock atmosphere into space) and completely germane to the AGW/golobal climate debate.
What we have seen, here, is a systematic attempt to downplay any energy other than solar radiance that warms up a “black square”.
Science knows that is not the sum total of energy that the Earth receives from the Sun.
And until the sum total is computed into the models, those models will almost always be worng (even a broken clock is right twice a day).
Anaconda (16:35:10) :
The status and origin of the Moon is off topic, no doubt.
…What we have seen, here, is a systematic attempt to downplay any energy other than solar radiance that warms up a “black square”…
Not at all, Anaconda. The great impact hypothesis is also another mainstream scientific consensus which could be wrong. 🙂
Anaconda (15:52:28) :
I checked out the NOAA link and found the electrical energy with a rate of about say 8.0 gigawatts (10 gigawatts is 10,000,000,000 watts) per SECOND .
…
Let’s see during solar maximum there are say 20 substorms in a year, that would conservatively put it at 5E280 joule. How many times more is that than human gobal energy production in a year?
One can only decry the sorry state of elementary education in the US [I assume you must be from the US, it can’t be that bad elsewhere …]. Let us take your 10 GW as a base. Watts is Joule per second, so a substorm that lasts one hour requires 3600 seconds x 10 GW = 3600 x 10E9 Joule = 3.6E13 Joule, double that [North+South] is about 1E14 Joule. Add conservatively the heating by currents and the light emission and we get tops 5E14 J as I stated. One hour is roughly a 1/10,000 of a year, so one substorm EVERY hour [you like only 20 per year] gives 5E18 J. The human production is 5E20 J per year, so 100 times as much, assuming we have one substorm every hour, which we don’t. Typically there is one per day, so the auroral input is 24 times smaller, but then some storms are much stronger than average, so let that cancel out. Conservatively my numbers work out quite well. Where the educational system has let you down is visible in your calculation of 5E280, which was supposed to be 20 x 5E14 = 100E14. You should multiply what is to the left of the exponent mark ‘E’ (so 20*5) and not to the right (so not 20*14). Now, 5E18 J may sound like a lot, but it really isn’t compared to the regular heat and light we get [TSI]. Let’s do the numbers: the surface of the Earth facing the Sun is pi*radius squared or 3.14 * [6.4E6]^2 = 1.3E14 square meter. Each of these gets 1361 = 1.4E3 Joule every second of which there are 3.2E7 in a year for a total of 1.4E3*3.2E7*1.3E14=6E24 J which is more than a million times more than the 5E18 J produced by the solar wind.
In the face of the blatant nonsense you posted, your tone leaves much to be desired.
I stand corrected. Obviously, I didn’t understand the notation. I accept the rebuke.
But that does not diminish the larger point that I made with my initial comment on this thread: So-called “modern” astronomy and apparently many climatologists don’t consider electromagnetic energy.
That does not lead to accurate models — all energy must be taken into account.
I note Svalgaard declined to take up the morphology issue (the Sun being two different beasts).
Svalgaard consistently referred to “kinetic” energy, this is misleading because the actual energy is electromagnetic in nature and is measured in volts and amperes. Converting it to joules (or even watts — no offense intended) is just that, a conversion into thermal energy notation, but the energy is emitted by the Sun and received by the Earth as electromagnetic energy.
Svalgaard seems determined to downplay this very important fact.
Notice Svalgaard can’t bring himself to take up the name Birkeland currents.
Nor does Svalgaard acknowledge that “modern” astronomy denied for 70 years that electromagnetic energy, charged particles, emitted by the Sun and received by the Earth, causes the aurora.
It seems that even as the solar system is increasing observed & measured to have electromagnetic processes, the “old school” in “modern” astronomy clings to a electrically neutral space environment, oh sure, they pay lip service where necessary, but in practicle terms astronomers like Svalgaard continue to obscure and obfiscate the electromagnetic nature of the solar system.
And we haven’t even discussed the electrical energy that is tranfered from the ionosphere to the atmosphere and then ultimately the Earth.
The Earth is a negative, that is why you “ground” electrical appliances.
This issue, the true nature of the electromagnetic energy received by the Earth from the Sun won’t go away.
It might even be the popular issue that reveals “modern” astronomy for what it in great part is: Nonquantified.
Anaconda (21:03:06) :
I note Svalgaard declined to take up the morphology issue (the Sun being two different beasts).
I didn’t take it up because it is not important as there is a very gradual change over the solar cycle of the morphology and it is well-understood what causes that and there is no mystery.
the energy is emitted by the Sun and received by the Earth as electromagnetic energy.
The radiant energy [TSI] is indeed electromagnetic, but that is all. the solar wind is largely kinetic and its electromagnetic part [the Poynting vector] is 0.000,006 W/m2 or 226,800,000 times smaller than TSI.
Notice Svalgaard can’t bring himself to take up the name Birkeland currents.
Of course I can take Birkeland up. But we are going in small steps now. Birkeland currents do not come from the Sun, but from the Earth’s magnetic tail.
Nor does Svalgaard acknowledge that “modern” astronomy denied for 70 years that electromagnetic energy, charged particles, emitted by the Sun and received by the Earth, causes the aurora.
Particles are not electromagnetic energy. Birkeland thought [and there are still some people around trapped in that wrong notion] in terms of electron beams and currents of electrons from the Sun. Arthur Schuster in 1911 and Frederick Lindemann [Prof. at Oxford and Science Advisor to Winston Churchill] in 1919 showed that such a beam of solar electrons would disperse by mutual repulsion and effectively blow itself apart. Lindemann, however, had the insight that a stream of electrons and protons in equal numbers could retain its shape and travel to the Earth to initiate magnetic disturbances there. Finally, in 1930-1931, Sidney Chapman and Vincent Ferraro figured out what would happen when clouds of electrons and protons [a plasma] collide with the Earth’s magnetic field and the modern understanding of how this works and how aurorae are formed began its life.
And we haven’t even discussed the electrical energy that is transferred from the ionosphere to the atmosphere and then ultimately the Earth.
For good reason because that is not how it works. Rapid changes of the Earth’s magnetic field [caused by reconnection] induces electric currents in the magnetosphere and the ionosphere, these currents in turn causes rapid changes in the magnetic field at the surface, when finally those rapid changes induces currents in power lines and oil/gas pipelines. At the same time, particles are accelerated by the rapidly changing fields and give up their kinetic energy when crashing into the atmosphere.
The Earth is a negative, that is why you “ground” electrical appliances.
There is a ‘fair weather’ electric field between the Earth and the ionosphere, but this field is caused by thunderstorms and have nothing or little to do with the solar wind.
This issue, the true nature of the electromagnetic energy received by the Earth from the Sun won’t go away.
This is not an ‘issue’, but you are correct that there will always be nuts that believe weird things, no matter how much modern science discovers. E.g. 43% [or some number like that] of Americans believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. This ‘issue’ will never go away either. This only becomes a problem when they indoctrinate their little children with such nonsense and vote in school boards that deny them little critters real knowledge.
@ Leif Svalgaard:
Svalgaard states: “I didn’t take it [the Sun’s morphology] up because it is not important as there is a very gradual change over the solar cycle of the morphology and it is well-understood what causes that and there is no mystery.”
False.
Obviously, scientists don’t understand the Sun’s 11 year sun spot cycle or why ithe Sun goes through the solar maximum and minimums.
“…very gradual change over the solar cycle…”
But the total morphological change is dramatic from a turbulent Sun with many sun spots and coronal mass ejections (even an expansion in diameter) at maximum and a quiet smooth Sun at minimum.
This is undeniable, yet, Svalgaard calls it “not important”.
Svalgaard’s answer ignores the obvious change — Svalgaard is in denial.
Svalgaard states: “The radiant energy [TSI] is indeed electromagnetic, but that is all.”
The radiant energy, TSI, is electromagnetic because photons are electromagnetic, but so is the dynamic between the electrons and ions in the plasma emitted by the Sun.
NASA specifically states in a multi-media piece:”Flux Ropes Power the Magnetosphere!” — “Flux rope pumps 650.000 Amp current into the Arctic!”
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights_multi.html
The, below, link is schematic of the Birkeland currents connecting the Sun and the Earth:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn17013/dn17013-1_300.jpg
Notice the caption that states 100,000 amps (an electrical measurement) are transferred and twisted magnetic field lines which are consistent with the filamentary structure of Birkeland currents (remember magnetic fields are only generated by electric currents).
Svalgaard states: “Of course I can take Birkeland up. But we are going in small steps now. Birkeland currents do not come from the Sun, but from the Earth’s magnetic tail.”
Completely false. Birkeland currents don’t come from the Earth’s magnetic tail, they come from the Sun.
“Although signs of currents flowing from space along magnetic field lines were occasionally detected by earlier satellites, it was the US Navy’s Triad, carrying the instrument of Alfred Zmuda and James Armstrong, that in 1973 traced their full pattern.” — Per NASA’s “Electric Currents from Space” History.
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whcurren.html
Apparently NASA confirms that indeed electric current does come from the Sun. Svalgaard is wrong.
“Magnetic Flux Transfer Events” as NASA calls them (actually Birkeland currents) connect the Sun to the Earth and tranfer electrical energy.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
The scientific evidence is overwhelming and Svalgaard is hopelessly antiquated.
Svalgaard apparently is so burried in his specialty that he simply doesn’t the recent developments and parrots an antiquated picture.
It is clear Svalgaard doesn’t understand electromagnetism because if he did then he would know when electrons and ions are seperated there is electric potential, they are not simply “particles” they are charged particles that react to a magnetic field, in fact, Maxwell’s Equations are clear: Magnetic fields are generated by electric currents.
Atoms or neutral particles don’t react to a magnetic field or generate a magnetic field.
Svalgaard states: “Finally, in 1930-1931, Sidney Chapman and Vincent Ferraro figured out what would happen when clouds of electrons and protons [a plasma] collide with the Earth’s magnetic field and the modern understanding of how this works and how aurorae are formed began its life.”
This is laughable, Chapman held that the Earth and the Sun were “islands” and that the aurora was self-generated by the Earth’s magnetic field. That was proved irrevokably false.
Svalgaard states: “Arthur Schuster in 1911 and Frederick Lindemann in 1919 showed that such a beam of solar electrons would disperse by mutual repulsion and effectively blow itself apart.”
This is a strawman because Birkeland understood the issue:
“The ideas of Fitzgerald and others were further developed by the Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland. His geomagnetic surveys showed that auroral activity was nearly permanent. As these displays and other geomagnetic activity were being produced by particles from the Sun, he concluded that the Earth was being continually bombarded by “rays of electric corpuscles emitted by the Sun”. In 1916, Birkeland was probably the first person to successfully predict that, “From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds”. In other words, the solar wind consists of both negative electrons and positive ions. Three years later in 1919, Frederick Lindemann also suggested that particles of both polarities, protons as well as electrons, come from the Sun.” Per Wikipedia entry for solar wind: History, footnoted at link.
“In 1916, Birkeland was probably the first person to successfully predict that, “From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
Svalgaard’s history is not accurate.
Svalgaard states: “Rapid changes of the Earth’s magnetic field [caused by reconnection] induces electric currents in the magnetosphere and the ionosphere…”
So-called “magnetic reconnection” is false idea. It is the electric currents that generate magnetic fields that change in reaction to meeting other electric currents.
The “rapid changes of the Earth’s magnetic field” are caused by changes in the amount of electrical energy the Earth receives from the Sun.
What is clear from this exchange is that Svalgaard isn’t even fully informed of the recent findings that have been confirmed by NASA — Svalgaard is parroting the dusty “modern” astronomy textbooks that he memorized as a student.
Many astronomers, apparently including Svalgaard have been indoctrinated by “modern” astronomy’s faulty understandings and while NASA chronicles the role of electromagnetism, i.e., charged particles, electrons and ions, in the Earth’s interactions with the Sun, there are those that parrot antiquated ideas.
Anaconda (04:56:34) :
link is schematic of the Birkeland currents connecting the Sun and the Earth:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn17013/dn17013-1_300.jpg
Svalgaard states: “Of course I can take Birkeland up. But we are going in small steps now. Birkeland currents do not come from the Sun, but from the Earth’s magnetic tail.”
Completely false. Birkeland currents don’t come from the Earth’s magnetic tail, they come from the Sun.
I’m amazed that I’m able to pile so many falsehoods on top on one another. To illustrate one of my falsehoods, look at the picture in your link and observe that the Birkeland currents come from the nightside, i..e the magnetic tail and not the Sun, which is shining over to the left somewhere [look at the sunlit Earth].
Anyway, you may be another hopeless case, so unless the readership votes by their approvals to suffer through your education on these matters, I’ll let you sail your own sea.
Anaconda (04:56:34) :
Svalgaard is parroting the dusty “modern” astronomy textbooks that he memorized as a student.
It is worse than that, I have been actively involved in developing the modern view of how all this works.
Leif Svalgaard has been commenting on this website for some time, many readers are familiar with his work and postions, undoubtedly at least for some he has great authority.
In essence, in this discussion Svalgaard has denied the electromagnetic nature of the Earth — Sun relationship (except for radiance). Some will take his word for it, others will not.
Apparently, Mr. Svalgaard is unfamilar with NASA’s educational material that has been posted on the internet since 2001 and teaches “Electric Currents from Space”, I would advice Mr. Svalgaard to take the time and read the material and all those that are inclined to agree with Mr. Svalgaard.
Don’t take my word for it, see what NASA has to say and then decide if Mr. Svalgaard is on a solid scientific foundation or if specializing in irradiance, has caused a kind of “tunnel vision”, this is often the case with the high degree of specialization which is all too common in today’s scientific disciplines.
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wcurrent.html
The discussion is quite clear, the electromagnetic nature of the Earth — Sun interaction is not limited to irradiance, but is due to electron — ion dynamics, also commonly known as electricity. or electric currents.
Mr. Svalgaard is much like one of the blind men describing the proverbial elephant, one calls it a tree, after feeling its leg, another describes it as a sail, feeling the elephant’s ear and so on. Each individual fails to correctly identify the elephant because they are only aware of part of the animal.
It seems more than apparent such is the trap that Mr. Svalgaard finds himself in.
And of course, self-justification, because in not accounting for all the electromagnetic energy received from the Sun by the Earth, Svalgaard’s work is worthless at best and misleading at worst because he promotes an incomplete picture of the total energy recieved from the Sun by the Earth.
(No wonder Svalgaard claims solar maximums and minimums are “not important”.)
Climate science is diffcult in the best of circumstances with all known energies accounted for. It is impossible when supposed experts ignore scientific data as “not important” because it contradicts what they were taught to believe in school and with intense specialization fail to learn as new developments are made in scientific understanding.
Leif Svalgaard states: “It is worse than that, I have been actively involved in developing the modern view of how all this works.”
That’s a pity because NASA’s in situ observation & measurement contradicts you completely.
Fortunately, while NASA is not perfect by any means, they do clearly understand the electromagnetic nature of the Sun — Earth relationship. Something Mr. Svalgaard does not understand and is too arrogant to realize.
@ Leif Svalgaard:
I stand corrected on the image.
Likely, there is a ‘double layer’ (see link below) in the magneto tail that becomes unstable and explodes releasing electrical energy (not “magnetic reconnection”) and this flows toward the Earth, that would explain the 100,000 amps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
The, below linked, NASA news release states: “Although the explosion happened inside Earth’s magnetic field, it was actually a release of energy from the sun. When the solar wind stretches Earth’s magnetic field, it stores energy there, in much the same way energy is stored in a rubber band when you stretch it between thumb and forefinger. Bend your forefinger and—crack!—the rubber band snaps back on your thumb.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/24jul_plasmabullets.htm
“… it was actually a release of energy from the sun.”
Note the discussion in the NASA release uses the term “plasma”.
The NASA release to on to say, “The blast launched two ‘plasma bullets,’ gigantic clouds of protons and electrons, one toward Earth and one away from Earth.”
The New Scientist schematic shows that these “clouds” don’t take the shape of a “cloud” in actuality, but rather a filamentary shape, “twisted magnetic field lines” (reflecting the underlying electric current dynamics), with a vortex, thus, the reason it is referred to as a “magnetic tornado”.
It is the storage and release of electrical energy.
Svalgaard undoubtedly knows of Maxwell’s equations which state that magnetic fields are only generated by electric currents or ordered electron movement.
You can’t have the “magnetic” without the “electro”.
But “modern” astronomy has taken upon itself the right to ignore this well established Law of Nature.
And it does that at its own peril.
“rbateman (09:37:17) :
It’s the tidal interactions with Moon & Sun which keeps volcanism going on Earth (internal heating, flexing) that keeps the re-supply going to the atmosphere.
Just don’t lose the Moon.”
Well, if waste disposal site two didn’t blow in 1999, it never will.
I know how to save the planet! We can burn all of that oily stuff under the ground and make more atmosphere gases!
I saved teh planet!!! (where’s my “Peace Prize?”)
Anaconda (10:29:35) :
I stand corrected on the image.
I wonder how many more times you will stand corrected, if I would take the trouble…
‘Kinnell, (think about it! Roll it round your mouth a few times)
It makes you wonder. The giant egos in here (you all know who they are) who have to score points off each other. Such disparity of views about plasma, solar winds and aurorae, electrons, positrons and god knows what else, makes you realise that (dare I say this?) science, or scientific interpretation is in flux. History tells us that scientific ideas change all the time. And then we come to global warming (man-made, of course). Oh dear. Climatology computer models? As me ol’ daddy used to say: if you feed crap into the machine you will get crap out. Politicians just jump on the bandwagon (poor souls, they don’t know any different) and commit us to paying yet more taxes. We cannot rely on scientists to lead the way because mostly they are theorising and sucking up to those who are going to fund their next project. If we had ‘blind’ funding for scientific research that would be ground-breaking. But don’t hold your breath. Do I sound cynical? Well there you go.
@ Leif Svalgaard:
Yes, I acknowledge evidence and facts, even if they contradict what I’ve stated, because that’s the Scientific Method.
But you on the other hand, fail to have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge Maxwell’s equations that require an electric current to generate a magnetic field.
I’ve stated Maxwell’s equations several times and you have ignored it.
So, I’ll ask a direction question: Do you subscribe to Maxwell’s equations which state that electric current is required to generate a magnetic field?
And if not, then what to you subscribe to?
In your view what conditions are magnetic fields sustained without electric currents in space environments?
Yes, I acknowledge accurate statements from my intelocutors.
Apparently, you feel no need to acknowledge basic physics and ignore facts and evidence that contradict your statements.
And apparently, you can’t be bothered to read the NASA educational material about “Electric Currents from Space”, which clearly spell out the role of electromagnetism in near-space and the Sun and Earth’s electromagnetic relationship.
I guess that’s okay because it just makes you look arrogant and hide-bound, if not something much worse: Dishonest.
Everytime there is made mention of magnetic fields, there is an underlying electric current.
Too bad, so far, you aren’t scientist enough to admit it.
Your irradiance work simply doesn’t address all the scientific data.
You seem oblivious to your intellectual duties as a scientist bound by the Scientific method, sadly too many astronomers seem to be of your ilk.
Anaconda (21:22:31) :
Do you subscribe to Maxwell’s equations which state that electric current is required to generate a magnetic field?
You are much too nasty a person to bother with [and this is a direct ad-hom], but for the record, in a plasma, the magnetic field generates the current that sustains the magnetic field. This double-action is often difficult for people to understand, so you are a bit excused. The important thing for you to understand is that the plasma is electrically neutral through all of this, and that the ‘Electric Universe’ is a fiction, entertaining, but a fiction, nevertheless.
Actually, according to the Laps that have lived with Nothern Light for many many tousands years, The Nothern light is the spirits of their dead and if the children did not do as told the spirits would come down and haunt them.
🙂
@ Leif Svalgaard:
If presenting facts and evidence and insisting on answers makes me a “nasty person”, I plead guilty.
But it seems you were the first person, here, to to resort to the ad hominem, where essentially you said “people who disagree with me are the equivalent to “creationist, bible thumpers that believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.”
if that isn’t an adhominem I don’t know what is.
Svalgaard, your hypocrisy doesn’t surprise me.
Let me get this straight, “…in a plasma, the magnetic field generates the current that sustains the magnetic field.”
So for the record, Svalgaard refuses to give a direct answer about Maxwell’s equations, but implicitly rejects them.
Background on Maxwell’s equations per Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
Svalgaard, beyond your say so, what is your authority?
There is no laboratory support for your statement.
Plasma physicists would disagree with your statement.
Svalgaard states: ” This double-action is often difficult for people to understand, so you are a bit excused.”
No, Svalgaard, I understand perfectly well, rather, you present a classical case of circular reasoning.
The magnetic field forms the magnetic field, what???
What forms the magnetic field to begin with?
Background on magnetism per Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism
Per Wikipedia’s entry:
“Magnetism, at its root, arises from two sources: Electric currents, or more generally moving electric charges, create magnetic fields (see Maxwell’s Equations). Many particles have nonzero “intrinsic” (or “spin”) magnetic moments [still a type of electron ‘movement’].”
I’ve engaged in numerous discussions with astronomers and not once did they come out and openly reject Maxwell’s equations (as Svalgaard implicitly does here) because the scientific evidence is too unequivocal to deny.
All plasma experiments confirm Maxwell’s equations that it takes an electric current to generate a magnetic field, although for the record, magnetic fields do effect electric currents.
But such is Svalgaard’s reliance on dogma that he’s willing to make statements that make him an intellectual outcast among other scientists and scientific observers.
Svalgaard states: “The important thing for you to understand is that the plasma is electrically neutral through all of this…”
No, that is false.
Plasma is ‘quasi neutral’ which means, while in a large volume there are equal numbers of electrons and ions, charged particles, however, plasma forms ‘double layers’ where the charges line up in structures (the ‘double layers’ cause a voltage drop). I provided a link that explained ‘double layers”, above in this post, but apparently, Svalgaard was too incurious and couldn’t be bothered to read the link, so, here it is, again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
Per the Wikipedia entry:
“A double layer is a structure in a plasma and consists of two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge. The sheets of charge cause a strong electric field and a correspondingly sharp change in voltage (electrical potential) across the double layer. Ions and electrons which enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field. In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics. Double layers are found in a wide variety of plasmas, from discharge tubes to space plasmas to the Birkeland currents supplying the Earth’s aurora, and are especially common in current-carrying plasmas. Compared to the sizes of the plasmas which contain them, double layers are very thin (typically ten Debye lengths), with widths ranging from a few millimeters for laboratory plasmas to thousands of kilometres for astrophysical plasmas.”
The magnetopause has been confirmed by satellite probe in situ observation & measurement as being a double layer.
Apparently, Svalgaard is completely unaware or chooses to ignore this scientific understanding because it contradicts his dogma (and his professional livelyhood).
Sorry, Svalgaard, the old shibboleth that “space is charge neutral” simply doesn’t carry any water, today, in informed scientific circles.
Svalgaard, your problem is not with me, but with NASA which has conducted numerous satellite probe in situ observations & measurements that confirm the electric dynamic of Earth’s near-space environment.
Again, since Svalgaard apparently is unaware or in denial about electricity in space and the electromagnetic properties of the Earth’s magnetosphere, I present NASA educational website on the magnetosphere which is taught to high schoolers:
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wstart.html
Per NASA’s educational website:
“The complex flow of plasmas in space, of gases consisting of free electrons and of electrically charged atoms missing one or more electrons (“ions”). Most of the known universe consists of plasma, and the magnetosphere is our best laboratory for studying its plasma processes.”
I suggest readers review the entire website, it is a valuble introduction to the study of the magnetosphere and it’s electrodynamic properties.
Svalgaard, your failure to acknowledge scientific evidence and facts related the the Earth’s magnetosphere suggest your opinion has little credibility in discussions involving the Earth’s magnetosphere or the Earth’s energy budget derived from its electromagnetic relationship with the Sun.
Svalgaard states: “…and that the ‘Electric Universe’ is a fiction, entertaining, but a fiction, nevertheless.”
Interesting, that Svalgaard seeks to inject ‘Electric Universe’ into this dialogue, since all my authority (links provided) for this discussion comes from NASA and Wikipedia entries of confirmed scientific validity.
Svalgaard, your problem is with NASA and not with me.
Your problem is that NASA findings completely contradict your dogma and reduces your scientific credibility to almost zero.
Get to know it.
Anaconda (08:34:31) :
Svalgaard, your problem is with NASA and not with me.
Get to know it.
I don’t have a problem with NASA, nor they with me. And I can seemingly rely on you to tell me about my problems, so no need for me to look much further. And since my views are shared with a great majority of ‘modern’ astronomers and you correctly point out, I take it that your point is that we collectively have no scientific credibility. We can live with your assessment of the state of modern astronomy.
@ Leif Svalgaard:
Note in the schematic at the head of this post there is there is the legend “plasmoid” and the caption for the schematic discusses: “…plasmoids…”
“Plasmoids” are entirely an electromagnetic description, as in plasma…
A plasmoid per Wikipedia entry:
“A plasmoid is a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields. Plasmoids have been proposed to explain natural phenomena such as ball lightning, magnetic bubbles in the magnetosphere, and objects in cometary tails, in the solar wind, in the solar atmosphere, and in the heliospheric current sheet. Plasmoids produced in the laboratory include Field-Reversed Configurations, Spheromaks, and the dense plasma focus.
The word plasmoid was coined in 1956 by Winston H. Bostick (1916-1991) to mean a “plasma-magnetic entity”:
The plasma is emitted not as an amorphous blob, but in the form of a torus. We shall take the liberty of calling this toroidal structure a plasmoid, a word which means plasma-magnetic entity. The word plasmoid will be employed as a generic term for all plasma-magnetic entities.
Bostick wrote:
Plasmoids appear to be plasma cylinders elongated in the direction of the magnetic field. Plasmoids possess a measurable magnetic moment, a measurable translational speed, a transverse electric field, and a measurable size. Plasmoids can interact with each other, seemingly by reflecting off one another. Their orbits can also be made to curve toward one another. Plasmoids can be made to spiral to a stop if projected into a gas at about 10−3 mm Hg pressure. Plasmoids can also be made to smash each other into fragments. There is some scant evidence to support the hypothesis that they undergo fission and possess spin.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid
The, below, linked schematic is of Mercury, although, it is similar to Earth in regards to it’s electromagnetic envronoment:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/mercury/mercmag.jpg
Readers will note in the schematic there is a legend entitled “PLASMOID”, along with other legends that spell out the electromagnetic nature of Mercury’s near-space environment.
The full NASA news release is linked below:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/30apr_mercury.htm
Svalgaard states: “And since my views are shared with a great majority of ‘modern’ astronomers and you correctly point out, I take it that your point is that we collectively have no scientific credibility.”
Those that ignore new scientific data don’t have scientific credibility and the doctrinaire viewpoint that space is “charge neutral” is falling by the wayside as more and more astronomers take an open-minded look at the Scientific evidence presented by NASA.
In regards to the solar system the doctrinaire viewpoint is fast changing because the scientific evidence is so overwhelming, that many in “modern” astronomy are now accepting the electromagnetic dynamics of the solar system, yet, obviously enough, there are antiquated, doctrinaire holdouts such as yourself.
Few, informed scientists that study the solar system and are current on the NASA findings still cling to the space is “charge neutral” dogma.
The new “mantra” is “yes, but”, as in “yes, the solar system is electromagnetically dynamic, but this does not include anything beyond the solar system.”
Svalgaard states: “We can live with your assessment of the state of modern astronomy.”
It is not my “assessment”, but the scientists at NASA who have made this assessment, I’m only the messenger, here.
I note that instead of refuting my arguments regarding the necessity of electric currents for generating manetic fields, you simply “surround yourself with the herd” for self-justification.
Actually, you are quite naked, just like the “emperor with no clothes.”
Anaconda (13:28:42) :
Svalgaard and most of “modern” astronomy insist on ignoring the only way to generate magnetic fields, electric current.
…
Few, informed scientists that study the solar system and are current on the NASA findings still cling to the space is “charge neutral” dogma.
Looks like you are changing your mind about how widespread my antiquated, old, dogmatic view is. I’m beginning to enjoy your postings. It is not every day that one comes across such vehemence, please keep it up. It is quite entertaining now. I look forward to the next installment.
@ Leif Svalgaard:
Simply answer the assertions and that will be enough.
As to my statements: Certainly, many “modern” astronomers insist on ignoring the only way to generate magnetic fields is electric current — that is why so many papers do ignore electric currents when discussing magnetic fields (these papers primarily are focussed on structures beyond the solar system), but that is slowly changing, more papers are discussing electric currents.
Regarding the study of the solar system, few scientists THAT ARE CURRENT on the NASA findings still cling to the space is “charge neutral” dogma.
Remember, many if not most of the NASA findings are only from the last two years or so, this is not a long time in terms of diffusion of knowledge especially considering the longstanding position of “modern” astronomy.
Leif Svalgaard (01:50:47) : I wonder how many more times you will stand corrected, if I would take the trouble…
Leif, I don’t think he will stand much more correction …
Hey, E.M. Smith:
I have no problem with being corrected. Fire away!
(I’m interested with matching human understanding with reality, including my own understanding.)
But it does seem that Dr. Svalgaard has a problem with acknowledging inconvient facts and evidence.
Anaconda (18:30:08) :
I have no problem with being corrected. Fire away!
Perhaps the NASA messenger would comment on with this NASA press release”
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/jul/HQ_08185_THEMIS.html
“GREENBELT, Md. — Researchers using a fleet of five NASA satellites have discovered that explosions of magnetic energy a third of the way to the moon power substorms that cause sudden brightenings and rapid movements of the aurora borealis, called the Northern Lights.
The culprit turns out to be magnetic reconnection, a common process that occurs throughout the universe when stressed magnetic field lines suddenly snap to a new shape, like a rubber band that’s been stretched too far.”
This press release is a year old, and perhaps the messenger knows of later NASA releases that overturn everything they have said in the past? Such as reconnection not happening…
Anaconda (18:30:08) :
I have no problem with being corrected. Fire away!
Perhaps ESA is stupider than NASA:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM3GYMPQ5F_index_0.html
“At the centre of the magnetotail is a denser region known as the plasma sheet. Plasma is a gas composed of ions and electrons which is electrically neutral.”
Just to remind you:
Anaconda (00:56:14) :
So-called “magnetic reconnection” is a flight of fancy. Electromagnetism acts as a circuit.
Leif Svalgaard is simply passing on a faulty theory that has nothing to do with the Laws of Electromagnetism as established in plasma physics laboratories across the world. […]
Svalgaard states: “Reconnection has been directly observed and is a cornerstone of our understanding of plasmas in the Universe.”
The, above, statement just shows that “modern” astronomy has severe problems, as any competent plasma physicist will tell you that magnetic reconnection has not been observed and has no basis in electrical theory or practice.”
Obviously, NASA has changed their tune or perhaps they are deliberately try to fool their messenger?
Just to remind you:
Anaconda (00:56:14) :
So-called “magnetic reconnection” is a flight of fancy. Electromagnetism acts as a circuit.
Leif Svalgaard is simply passing on a faulty theory that has nothing to do with the Laws of Electromagnetism as established in plasma physics laboratories across the world. […]
Svalgaard states: “Reconnection has been directly observed and is a cornerstone of our understanding of plasmas in the Universe.”
The, above, statement just shows that “modern” astronomy has severe problems, as any competent plasma physicist will tell you that magnetic reconnection has not been observed and has no basis in electrical theory or practice.”
Obviously, NASA has changed their tune or perhaps they are deliberately try to fool their messenger?
@ Leif Svalgaard:
Svalgaard states: “Perhaps the NASA messenger would comment on with this NASA press release”
I already did, in effect, see the below link, it’s the same one I posted above:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/24jul_plasmabullets.htm
Notice the dates are the same and the material is roughly the same in both links.
Apparently,you didn’t bother reading the NASA link I provided.
Why am I not surprised.
Just to refresh your recollection this is what I stated above:
“The, below linked, NASA news release states: “Although the explosion happened inside Earth’s magnetic field, it was actually a release of energy from the sun. When the solar wind stretches Earth’s magnetic field, it stores energy there, in much the same way energy is stored in a rubber band when you stretch it between thumb and forefinger. Bend your forefinger and—crack!—the rubber band snaps back on your thumb.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/24jul_plasmabullets.htm
“… it was actually a release of energy from the sun.”
Note the discussion in the NASA release uses the term “plasma”.
The NASA release to on to say, “The blast launched two ‘plasma bullets,’ gigantic clouds of protons and electrons, one toward Earth and one away from Earth.”
The New Scientist schematic shows that these “clouds” don’t take the shape of a “cloud” in actuality, but rather a filamentary shape, “twisted magnetic field lines” (reflecting the underlying electric current dynamics), with a vortex, thus, the reason it is referred to as a “magnetic tornado”.
It is the storage and release of electrical energy.”
As i stated already, above, “magnetic reconnection” doesn’t happen (NASA doesn’t get everything right, nobody does), rather electric currents change and/or ‘double layers’ can explode. But keep going and demonstrate some more, that you don’t seriously consider evidence by commenters that disagree with you.
Svalgaard states: “Perhaps ESA is stupider than NASA:”
Of course, the article goes on in the next sentence to say: “It is spread over large distances in space and guided by the action of magnetic and electric fields. A substorm induces violent changes in the plasma sheet. It energises ions and electrons and hurls them Earthward. The substorm itself can occur as a series or in isolation.”
Yes, “electric fields”, probably a result of ‘double layers’ as I stated above.
And, I bet if the authors were questioned closely they would acknowledge the concept of ‘quasi neutral’ and the existence of ‘double layers’ in space plasma.
Really, Svalgaard, you are being too easy and it only hurts your credibility more.
I stand by my statement you were so good enough to quote. And as I stated above: “‘magnetic reconnection’ doesn’t happen (NASA doesn’t get everything right, nobody does), rather electric currents change and/or ‘double layers’ can explode. But keep going and demonstrate some more, that you don’t seriously consider evidence provided by commenters that disagree with you.
“You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.”
That’s true, Svalgaard, if you don’t consider the evidence you aren’t going to learn anything, but ultimately that’s up to you.
All I can do is point out the facts and evidence so readers can inverstigate and decide for themselves.
@ Leif Svalgaard:
The post is old and off the board, so this is for the record if nothing else.
I rasied Maxwell’s equations several times which require an electric current to generate a magnetic field. This was ignored, so I asked a direction question of Svalgaard about the validity of Maxwell’s equations.
Svalgaard responded this way: “…in a plasma, the magnetic field generates the current that sustains the magnetic field.”
And I noted Svalgaard’s response was a classic case of circular reasoning to which he never responded.
Also, Michael Gmirkin (17:03:20), made a comment in which he stated: “frozen in” fields and ”econnection” are bunkum.”
(So-called “frozen in” magnetic fields are the supposed justification for ignoring Maxwell’s equations.)
And Svalgaard responded:
“Reconnection has been directly observed [ http://www.astroengine.com/?p=475 ] and is a cornerstone of our understanding of plasmas in the Universe [although not in the laboratory because we cannot make plasmas that are dilute enough for reconnection to work]. And we are beginnig to drift off topic again. This is not the place to debunk the debunking of everything we know. There are specialized websites for such activities. Go there.”
The thrust of my comments on this thread have been that space is not “charge neutral” and electric currents to flow in space (as a side proposition I agreed with Gmirkin that so-called “magnetic reconnection” was a faulty idea), therefore, the Sun’s irradiance is not the only energy received by the Earth from the Sun, and failure to take this electromagnetic energy into account will render climate models inaccurate.
Dr. Svalgaard consistently denied my proposition that there are electric currents in space.
But looking at the above link provided by Dr. Svalgaard, which was about so-called “magnetic reconnection”, I noted this statement:
“Although magnetic reconnection is one of the bedrock theories within the field of space plasma physics, it has been very difficult to observe. We know that magnetic instabilities and electric currents operate within the plasma environment, but the triggering mechanism is difficult to understand.”
Looking at Svalgaard’s above quoted statement and the quote from the article, it seems Dr. Svalgaard paraphrased the article, nothing wrong with that, but he left out of his paraphrase, “We know that magnetic instabilities and electric currents operate within the plasma environment…”
So the very article that Dr. Svalgaard linked to and quoted from, clearly stated, “We know…electric currents operate within the plasma environoment…”
Yet, Dr. Svalgaard continued to deny the existence of electric currents in space, even though the article he linked to stated there are electric currents in space.
This seems a strange contradiction and one is left wondering why?
Michael Gmirkin (17:03:20) comment is a good exposition of why “frozen in” magnetic fields doesn’t work.
It should also be noted that Hannes Alfven was the 1970 Nobel Prize winner in physics for his work in Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). Alfven was the one who origninally developed the concept of “frozen in” magnetic fields in space plasma as part of his work on MHD. Alfven’s idea was that space plasma is a superconductor with zero electrical resistence. Science now knows that to be false. Plasma does have some resistence and is not a “perfect” conductor.
How do we know that?
Plasma physicists have confirmed the electrical conducting properties of plasma in the laboratory and that plasma is not a “perfect” electrical conductor — good — but not “perfect”.
But also, Hannes Alfven who developed the idea of “frozen in” magnetic fields continued to challenge himself and his ideas, he was not satisfied, so he continued to work in his laboratory and found his earlier assertions about “frozen in” magnetic fields were wrong and publically stated his ideas on “frozen in” magnetic fields were wrong.
But “modern” astronomy had jumped on the idea of “frozen in” magnetic fields because they could then ignore electric currents in space, as a result they ignored Alfven’s repudiation of his own ideas.
But Hannes Alfven was so concerned this was wrong that he dedicated his Nobel Prize winner acceptance speech to publically stating his ideas were wrong.
Alfven took the biggest moment of his life, his own Nobel Prize acceptance speech, to declare that his ideas were wrong.
That is a profile in courage and intellectual honesty and a testiment to the best traditions of the Scientific Method.
Sadly, even though the author of MHD had repudiated “frozen in” magnetic fields in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, “modern” astronomy wouldn’t listen.
Where have we seen that before?
Bernie Said: “We should also instute EMF Day where everybody would give up using all electronic and electric powered devices for a day to show how commitment to preserving spaceship earth.”
Uh, Bernie…. That would include:
Emergency radio dispatchs … people would die
Air control radar … people would die
Almost all medical equipment … people would die
Traffic lights … people would die
My pacemaker … people would die
I’m all for saving spaceship earth as long as I don’t lose my chance to stick around and enjoy the ride.
Tell you what: You give up your pacemaker first, I’ll give mine up second. Bless you and keep you Bernie, and I hope the devil has nice spots reserved for the people who filled the role of educators in your life.