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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@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.
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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.