I got a tip by email from JohnA who runs solarscience.auditblogs.com about this NASA press release. John’s skeptical about it. He makes some good points in this post here.
What I most agree with JohnA’s post is about sunspots. While we’ve seen some small rumblings that the solar dynamo might be on the upswing, such as watching Leif’s plot of the 10.7 CM solar radio flux, there just doesn’t appear to be much change in character of the sunspots during the last year. And the magnetic field strength just doesn’t seem to be ramping up much.
He writes:
“Let’s check out the window”
On Solarcycle24.com they’ve got yet another sun speck recorded yesterday, that by today had disappeared. Exactly the same behaviour we’ve been having for 12 months with no end in sight.
I agree with JohnA, it’s still a bit slow out there. Leif is at the conference in Boulder where NASA made this announcement below, so perhaps he’ll fill us in on the details.
Here is the NASA story:
Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved?
June 17, 2009: The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years. Now, for the first time, solar physicists might understand why.
At an American Astronomical Society press conference today in Boulder, Colorado, researchers announced that a jet stream deep inside the sun is migrating slower than usual through the star’s interior, giving rise to the current lack of sunspots.
Rachel Howe and Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona, used a technique called helioseismology to detect and track the jet stream down to depths of 7,000 km below the surface of the sun. The sun generates new jet streams near its poles every 11 years, they explained to a room full of reporters and fellow scientists. The streams migrate slowly from the poles to the equator and when a jet stream reaches the critical latitude of 22 degrees, new-cycle sunspots begin to appear.
Above: A helioseismic map of the solar interior. Tilted red-yellow bands trace solar jet streams. Black contours denote sunspot activity. When the jet streams reach a critical latitude around 22 degrees, sunspot activity intensifies. [larger image] [more graphics]
Howe and Hill found that the stream associated with the next solar cycle has moved sluggishly, taking three years to cover a 10 degree range in latitude compared to only two years for the previous solar cycle.
The jet stream is now, finally, reaching the critical latitude, heralding a return of solar activity in the months and years ahead.
“It is exciting to see”, says Hill, “that just as this sluggish stream reaches the usual active latitude of 22 degrees, a year late, we finally begin to see new groups of sunspots emerging.”
he current solar minimum has been so long and deep, it prompted some scientists to speculate that the sun might enter a long period with no sunspot activity at all, akin to the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century. This new result dispells those concerns. The sun’s internal magnetic dynamo is still operating, and the sunspot cycle is not “broken.”
Because it flows beneath the surface of the sun, the jet stream is not directly visible. Hill and Howe tracked its hidden motions via helioseismology. Shifting masses inside the sun send pressure waves rippling through the stellar interior. So-called “p modes” (p for pressure) bounce around the interior and cause the sun to ring like an enormous bell. By studying the vibrations of the sun’s surface, it is possible to figure out what is happening inside. Similar techniques are used by geologists to map the interior of our planet.
In this case, researchers combined data from GONG and SOHO. GONG, short for “Global Oscillation Network Group,” is an NSO-led network of telescopes that measures solar vibrations from various locations around Earth. SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, makes similar measurements from Earth orbit.
“This is an important discovery,” says Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “It shows how flows inside the sun are tied to the creation of sunspots and how jet streams can affect the timing of the solar cycle.”
There is, however, much more to learn.
“We still don’t understand exactly how jet streams trigger sunspot production,” says Pesnell. “Nor do we fully understand how the jet streams themselves are generated.”
To solve these mysteries, and others, NASA plans to launch the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) later this year. SDO is equipped with sophisticated helioseismology sensors that will allow it to probe the solar interior better than ever before.
Right: An artist’s concept of the Solar Dynamics Observatory. [more]
“The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on SDO will improve our understanding of these jet streams and other internal flows by providing full disk images at ever-increasing depths in the sun,” says Pesnell.
Continued tracking and study of solar jet streams could help researchers do something unprecedented–accurately predict the unfolding of future solar cycles. Stay tuned for that!
A point is a much lower class of being than a polygon, and much more dangerous and painful, too.
Anaconda (14:11:19) :
How much electrical energy is in these collimated Birkeland current “magnetic tornadoes”?
Answer: A lot!
NASA reports: “…These storms can dump the equivalent of 50 gigawatts of power, …
…So, Dr. Svalgaar, you and apparently most others aren’t counting this energy because of primarily two reasons: One, the TSI calorimeters in space don’t detect this electrical energy because it is not diffuse like irradiance, but is collimated, and, two, the scientist’s assumptions such as yourself don’t provide you a basis to look for or consider this energy source to the Earth from the Sun.
Might it be time to consider changing your assumptions
Consider this:
Humans generate much more power than this for only electrical energy:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table63.xls
Total electrical energy generation all sources = 1.8014e13 kWh/year
assume 40% efficient total thermal generation is 4.5e13 kWh/year
= 4.5e16 Wh/year
==5.1e12 W generation
=5,100 GW i.e 100 times more than the power in Birkeland current “magnetic tornadoes”
So Anaconda “Might it be time to consider changing your assumptions” or are you now willing to say that global power generation will affect climate.
In fact even the generation of power station heat is insignificant compared to the total insolation
250 watts/sq metre over earths surface
5.1e8 sq km=5.1e14 sq m
total insolation=1.28e17 watts =128,000,000 GW
i.e. 2.5 million times greater than power generation
Yes Bill you are quite correct: the total energy is insignificant.
What is more interesting is what effect the ionisation of the atmosphere at the poles has on the weather.
For instance I live at 54 deg N and we seldom see A Borealis directly, perhaps once in a generation. The last time was fifteen years ago and it was clearly visible for a single night. And very spectacular it was too: like the glow of a distant city over the horizon only white rather than yellow, although, as I am, you had to be in a rural area away from streetlights to see it.
What we do see quite often are what are called locally skyrockets, a long ragged coloured trail in the night sky which appears over a few minutes and persists for perhaps half an hour.
Now if ionised particles from the North pole can not only reach this far south but do so in sufficient quantity, if you will, for the effect to be seen by the naked eye what do they do to the weather?
After all cosmic rays can induce condensation but so can ionised particles.
Kindest Regards
@ur momisugly bill:
Not likely, as we can’t even compute all the energy coming from the Sun to the Earth.
And some people want to blame a trace gas that is .04% of the atmosphere.
I don’t think so.
Re: Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:36:17)
I see little value in choosing to view every mention of center of mass through a “spin-orbit coupling lens”. The value of Dr. Charvatova’s contribution does not hinge solely on insights derived from viewing through this single lens.
Clarification:
I’m not saying I agree with the more speculative comments Dr. Charvatova makes.
However:
In fairness to Dr. Charvatova:
1) “Spin-orbit coupling” is NOT mentioned in the paper Adolfo cited.
2) Much of the content of Dr. Charvatova’s papers is non-speculative.
3) The central premise driving Dr. Charvatova’s research is reasonable. (Anyone planning to attack it should – in fairness – first make sure they are clear on what it is.)
Paul Vaughan (19:34:04) :
3) The central premise driving Dr. Charvatova’s research is reasonable. (Anyone planning to attack it should – in fairness – first make sure they are clear on what it is.)
It is not reasonable as the Sun is in free fall and does not feel what she calls ‘the solar motion’, no matter if the orbit is ‘stable’ or ‘disordered’. Her basic premise is thus wrong.
Anaconda (14:11:19) :
this goes to the heart of the question of the energy dynamics of the Sun’s output and whether additional energy comes from the Sun beyond solar irradiance in the form of electrical energy which at present isn’t considered in climate models, therfore, the climate models can hardly be expected to be accurate.
I’m continually amazed at your [and other’s] ability to fool yourself, but can see clearly the motivation for this, namely your anti-AGW stance. I will stand with every other scientist in awe at your willful ignorance. You quote that the electric energy hitting the Earth by the way of Birkeland currents is 50 GW. The electromagnetic energy from radiation [what the calorimeter measures as TSI] is 347,208,000 GW. Make your own comparison.
Leif Svalgaard (10:33:32) “[…] In extracting the TO, a common rotation rate was assumed […] Perhaps Frank can comment on that?”
Frank Hll (14:39:47) “[…] with helioseismology we will be able to take out the asymmetric rotation rate, and we will see what the level of asymmetry for the TO remains […] we need to analyze the data.”
Let me see if I understand where this is going:
Are you saying that the forthcoming analysis will completely abandon reliance on the following equation?
Omega = A + B sin^2(B) + C sin^4(B)
If so, I strongly commend this development.
I will also take this opportunity to comment that (in general) it would be (additionally) of interest to see plots of unadjusted data – i.e. without subtraction of latitude-specific ‘central’ values. (Spatially there are the same compromises & hazards as there are temporally in applying seasonal adjustments.)
Questions for anyone who might be able to answer:
1) Wherever I read the term “spherical harmonics” in the solar literature, can I always trust that what is being addressed is not actually “cylindrical harmonics”? [This question is, in part, motivated by awareness of: (a) 0-meridian sampling (which is used in some measures) & (b) the standard (plotting) projections.]
2) Are quaternions (widely? generally? increasingly?) used in analyzing TO (& solar phenomena more generally)?
Anaconda (14:11:19) :
The problem, here, is that the scientist who developed MHD, Hannes Alfven, […] declared that his ideas on “frozen in” magnetic fields were wrong.
Hannes was a good friend of mine and we often discussed this issue. His lament was not that his ideas on frozen-in magnetic fields were wrong, but that many scientists overused the concept in situations were the MHD approximation breaks down, namely when the particle density and the magnetic field vary fast enough so that charged particles can become strongly accelerated. These conditions occurs but rarely in the cosmos, e.g. in reconnection events, but when they occur the bursty acceleration of electrons and ions by the double layer provides a mechanism for the conversion of the electromagnetic energy associated with the currents into kinetic energy of the plasma. But I guess that the physics is not important to you as long as physics [wrong or right] supports your desire that climate models be shown to be wrong. By invoking wrong physics, the AGW crowd instead of taking what you say seriously, they will laugh at you, and you will [sadly] be hurting your cause.
Paul Vaughan (19:34:04) “The central premise driving Dr. Charvatova’s research is reasonable. (Anyone planning to attack it should – in fairness – first make sure they are clear on what it is.)”
Leif Svalgaard (19:49:59) “It is not reasonable as the Sun is in free fall and does not feel what she calls ‘the solar motion’, no matter if the orbit is ’stable’ or ‘disordered’. Her basic premise is thus wrong.”
–
Regarding the central premise driving Dr. Charvatova’s research [considered collectively] – as I said Leif: “Anyone planning to attack it should – in fairness – first make sure they are clear on what it is.”
Paul Vaughan (20:20:41) :
Let me see if I understand where this is going:
Are you saying that the forthcoming analysis will completely abandon reliance on the following equation?
Omega = A + B sin^2(B) + C sin^4(B)
Of course not, as the formula is a very convenient way of expressing the rotation law, as long as its limitations are always kept in mind, as in this paper:
On the supposed anticorrelation of solar polar and equatorial rotation rates, Duvall, T. L., Jr.; Svalgaard, L.
Solar Physics, vol. 56, Feb. 1978, p. 463-466.
DOI: 10.1007/BF00152485
Abstract
The anticorrelation between two of the three parameters [B and C] used to calculate the angular velocity of the sun’s differential rotation is here said to be due to numerical coupling. A computer simulation technique shows that the relationship between the two parameters is caused by the effect of noise on the least-squares analysis used to obtain the three parameters used to determine the angular velocity in terms of the heliographic latitude. The computer simulation technique is described. The supposed anticorrelation had been used to infer that variations of the sun’s polar and equatorial rotation rates are anticorrelated.
I will also take this opportunity to comment that (in general) it would be (additionally) of interest to see plots of unadjusted data
That would not be useful nor desirable in most cases [there are usually good and valid reasons for why data are shown the way they are]. Specifically in case of the TO, the ‘unadjusted’ values would vary from 0 m/s at the poles to 2000 m/s at the equator and you would not be able to see the 5 m/s TO.
1) Wherever I read the term “spherical harmonics” in the solar literature, can I always trust that what is being addressed is not actually “cylindrical harmonics”?
Spherical harmonics are what they say they are. You might find it of interest to see how we actually calculate those critters for the Wilcox Solar Observatory magnetic data: http://www.leif.org/research/Calculation%20of%20Spherical%20Harmonics.pdf
For other data [e.g. the Doppler signal] the details differ, but the procedure is the same.
2) Are quaternions (widely? generally? increasingly?) used in analyzing TO (& solar phenomena more generally)?
No, not that I know of. Frank may be able to ‘no’ for his analysis.
Paul Vaughan (20:54:01) :
Regarding the central premise driving Dr. Charvatova’s research [considered collectively] – as I said Leif: “Anyone planning to attack it should – in fairness – first make sure they are clear on what it is.”
I have served as reviewer of some of her papers and know very well what it is. Perhaps you can clarify for us what you think it is?
Leif Svalgaard (20:10:32) :
Anaconda (14:11:19) :
You quote that the electric energy hitting the Earth by the way of Birkeland currents is 50 GW. The electromagnetic energy from radiation [what the calorimeter measures as TSI] is 347,208,000 GW. Make your own comparison.
I have to correct my number [and yours]. Yours should be doubled [to include both hemispheres] and mine should be halved to 173,604,000 GW, or only ~2,000,000 times more. When one deals with such large numbers, clerical errors creep in evolution has not provided us with a basic ability of the brain to catch obvious errors, nor to distinguish between millions, billions, and trillions.
The important point is that the energy measured by TSI totally swamps all other forms of energy coming from the Sun.
Paul Vaughan (20:20:41) :
“Leif Svalgaard (10:33:32) “[…] In extracting the TO, a common rotation rate was assumed […] Perhaps Frank can comment on that?”
Frank Hll (14:39:47) “[…] with helioseismology we will be able to take out the asymmetric rotation rate, and we will see what the level of asymmetry for the TO remains […] we need to analyze the data.”
Let me see if I understand where this is going:
Are you saying that the forthcoming analysis will completely abandon reliance on the following equation?
Omega = A + B sin^2(B) + C sin^4(B)
If so, I strongly commend this development.”
For the ring-diagram analysis that we will use to study the full asymmetric flows, we track a large number of relatively small areas at the surface rotation rate appropriate for the central latitude of each patch. For this tracking rotation rate we do indeed use the equation Omega = A + B sin^2(B) + C sin^4(B). However, the flows we get for each patch then have a number of sources, including any deviations from the surface rotation rate that may arise from asymmetric north-south rotation. We can determine that asymmetric contribution by averaging over all longitudes at a given latitude, which will allow us to remove those effects from the TO measurement as well as study the north-south rotation asymmetry in its own right.
—————————–
“I will also take this opportunity to comment that (in general) it would be (additionally) of interest to see plots of unadjusted data – i.e. without subtraction of latitude-specific ‘central’ values. (Spatially there are the same compromises & hazards as there are temporally in applying seasonal adjustments.)”
As Leif points out these plots show only the surface rotation which is about 400 times larger than the TO flow in magnitude. What will also be interesting is the rotation residuals mentioned above.
———————————————–
“Questions for anyone who might be able to answer:
1) Wherever I read the term “spherical harmonics” in the solar literature, can I always trust that what is being addressed is not actually “cylindrical harmonics”? [This question is, in part, motivated by awareness of: (a) 0-meridian sampling (which is used in some measures) & (b) the standard (plotting) projections.]”
It is easy to confuse “harmonics” with “projections”. Harmonics are the solution of the Helmholtz wave equation in various coordinate systems, while projections are usually methods to transfer data from one geometrical surface onto another (but see below). In the solar literature, spherical harmonics are mostly used to describe the global solar oscillations. We do not use cylindrical harmonics in helioseismology, but we do use Bessel functions for some purposes. Bessel functions can be interpreted as harmonics of a circular planar surface, like a drum head. On the other hand, we do speak of “projecting” data onto a set of mathematical functions (like spherical harmonics or sinusioids in Fourier analysis). So it’s easy to get confused.
—————————————-
“2) Are quaternions (widely? generally? increasingly?) used in analyzing TO (& solar phenomena more generally)?”
No. The simple complex numbers are so far enough for describing solar phenomena.
Leif Svalgaard (21:19:15) “That would not be useful nor desirable in most cases […] in case of the TO, the ‘unadjusted’ values would vary from 0 m/s at the poles to 2000 m/s at the equator and you would not be able to see the 5 m/s TO.”
Clarification: I would be more interested in rates of change (calculated via differencing) – not just in time, but also in space (for example, with respect to latitude). I would further be interested in the spectra of adjustable-bandwidth integrations of rates of change – i.e. let the data speak on all scales rather than risking obfuscation (& complicating interpretation) of analyses by removing ‘dominant’ patterns first. [Note: In an earlier WUWT thread you led me to believe that the spatial sampling frequency should be (perhaps a lot more than) adequate to pursue what I am suggesting here.]
–
Thanks for the link to these notes:
http://www.leif.org/research/Calculation%20of%20Spherical%20Harmonics.pdf
–
Regarding Dr. Charvatova’s central premise:
Leif Svalgaard (21:19:15) “I have served as reviewer of some of her papers and know very well what it is. Perhaps you can clarify for us what you think it is?”
Perhaps the central premise driving Dr. Charvatova’s research (in general) is not made explicit in the specific papers you reviewed.
Paul Vaughan (22:49:13) :
Regarding Dr. Charvatova’s central premise:
Leif Svalgaard (21:19:15) “I have served as reviewer of some of her papers and know very well what it is. Perhaps you can clarify for us what you think it is?”
Perhaps the central premise driving Dr. Charvatova’s research (in general) is not made explicit in the specific papers you reviewed.
I know all of her papers well [part of the review process]. Perhaps you tell me what you think her central premise is. After all, it has to be clear to you after your admonishment…
Paul Vaughan (22:49:13) :
let the data speak on all scales rather than risking obfuscation (& complicating interpretation) of analyses by removing ‘dominant’ patterns first.
Rest assured that all good scientists do their utmost to present their data the best way possible without obfuscation and the like, certainly Frank Hill should be counted in that category.
Re: Frank Hll (22:29:05)
Hi Frank,
I don’t see much risk of confusing harmonics with projections – but your comments on harmonics in helioseismology are certainly appreciated — thank you.
My instinct? Reliance on the rotation law to remove spatial trends boxes an analyst into a real mess when it comes time to interpret the residuals of which you speak.
There are feasible ways to ease the interpretational challenges which stem from the decomposition you describe [as outlined briefly above – see Paul Vaughan (22:49:13)], while at the same time affording opportunity to investigate the sensitivity of parameter estimates to spatiotemporal scale (in addition to location).
This is a fascinating branch of research. I see the potential for quantum leaps in understanding once analysts finish figuring out how best to sink their teeth into these data. It appears you have the good fortune of participating in a golden era in solar science.
Best Regards,
Paul.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (23:24:21) “Rest assured that all good scientists do their utmost to present their data the best way possible without obfuscation and the like […]”
Clarification: I am talking about inadvertent obfuscation stemming from unnecessary decompositions.
On a lighter note: I am glad to see the adjective “good” in your sentence.
Perhaps ‘By Jupiter’ needs to be reminded that the late summer frosts of 1816 had absolutely nothing to do with the Dalson Minimum and absolutely everything to do with the eruption of Mt. Tambora the previous year.
As Leif wearily keeps mentioning there is no convincing evidence to support the hypothesis that low sunspot numbers cause a reduction in global temperatures….none. An ongoing ‘experiment’ is currently taking place with a relatively prolonged solar minimum. There is also a -ive PDO. Having read this blog for sometime I would ask “where is the cooling?” Kim says the globe is cooling, but all the evidence suggests that there is no cooling. Surely temperatures should be well below the mean temperatures if the theories were correct, the fact that they are not, and indeed still above average would suggest that we can fully dismiss the link between sunspots and global temperature
Dear Anaconda,
Here is what you wrote:
* * *
@ur momisugly Anaconda (14:11:19) :
First in the excerpt and the link Dr. Parker acknowledges the requirement of Maxwell’s equations that electric currents cause magnetic fields:
“…magnetic fields appear only in association with electric currents…”
And, “In the laboratory we create static magnetic fields by driving an electric current through a coil of wire. The emf [electromotive force, 10^36 more powerful than gravity] and the current are clearly the CAUSE [original emphasis] of the magnetic field.” (p. 25, Conversations)
So, Dr. Parker acknowleges that, here, on Earth in the laboratory electric currents are the cause and magnetic fields are the effect, not the other way around.
* * *
But the very next sentence in that source reads:
“On the other hand, in the cosmos the deformation of the magnetic field embedded in the swirling plasma causes the flow of electric current in the plasma in the manner described by equation 1.6, because the energy that drives the current comes from the magnetic field.”
Did you simply stop reading just before this sentence? Perhaps I am missing something gargantuan here?
Dr Parker continues:
“That is to say, the current is driven to the required value by the change of B. So in the cosmos the large-scale currents are obliged to conform to Ampere’s law. In view of the small but non-vanishing friction between the relative motions of the electrons and ions, there is a continuing trickle of energy from the magnetic field to the current to maintain the flow of current required by ampere, from which it follows that the field is the continuing cause of the current and not vice versa.”
It seems unbelievable, but it appears that you took your quotes from exactly the paragraph where Dr Parker addresses and refutes what you are saying (convincingly, too). You misrepresented his point by suggesting a false context for his words, did you not?
Perhaps you didn’t think anybody would read the source for themselves? That is not quite cricket, my dear chap. I am sure that you are extremely clever, but that doesn’t mean that everybody else is extremely stupid.
Anyway, you never replied to my comment. Even if you meant this as a reply to it, obviously I can’t accept it as valid. You are of course welcome to try again.
Paul Vaughan (00:45:34) :
Clarification: I am talking about inadvertent obfuscation stemming from unnecessary decompositions.
Now, who would do such a thing? Give a link to an example.
Perhaps the central premise driving Dr. Charvatova’s research (in general) is not made explicit in the specific papers you reviewed.
I know all of her papers well [part of the review process]. Perhaps you tell me what you think her central premise is.
Is the above yet another example of you not wanting to tell me…
Just to clarify a couple of points that some try to make regarding global temperature issues.
1. Because temp’s do not immediately track a proposed variable, does not mean that a coupling does not exist with that variable. This could be applied to all hypotheses held here: CO2, Solar, and endogenous oscillations. It likely takes a while to cool or heat up global temp’s if any one of these proposed couplings are in fact a coupling. The fact that some say “where is the cooling” or say that “there is not enough cooling” cannot stand alone as a falsifying thought experiment.
2. Falsifying one of these hypotheses does not prove another, nor does it even make it somehow look better. I very much dislike this rather disingenuous method of stating your own case. The Solar and CO2 sides do this frequently.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard (20:10:32) :
Svalgaard wrote: “[I] can see clearly the motivation for this, namely your anti-AGW stance.”
My motivations?
I don’t subscribe to AGW because the best available science currently available doesn’t support it.
Your motivations?
Your insistence that irradiance is the only measure of energy from the Sun by the Earth (and to justify your professional opinion and others in the field — to protect the “community”).
But really, scientists must be able to account for all the scientific evidence.
I note you don’t dipute that the Earth does receives electrical energy from the Sun (kind of hard to refute the NASA findings), and don’t refute the fact that “space calorimeters” don’t count that energy, but simply state that the electrical energy produced by the Sun and received by the Earth doesn’t amount to much.
The problem is that the NASA findings refute your opinion.
In the NASA report I linked, NASA found 50 GW of electrical energy from the Sun enters the Earth’s atmosphere in one substorm at one pole which you recognized is to be doubled to account for both North and South poles.
But you did something you did before: Fail to acknowledge substorms are an ongoing “event”.
Consider this NASA news release from 10/30/08: “It’s called a flux transfer event or ‘FTE,'” says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn’t exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible.”
It’s new scietntific understanding…so, I can understand your professional opinion was formed without reference to it — but now you must incorporate that scientific understanding into your opinions, but it’s not clear you are doing that.
Your reference to the 50 GW of electrical energy recieved from Sun by the Earth treats it as a one time event, it is not as you well know.
NASA’s “Sibeck is telling an international assembly of space physicists at the 2008 Plasma Workshop in Huntsville, Alabama, that FTEs are not just common, but possibly twice as common as anyone had ever imagined.”
“We used to think the connection was permanent and that solar wind could trickle into the near-Earth environment anytime the wind was active,” says Sibeck. “We were wrong. The connections are not steady at all. They are often brief, bursty and very dynamic.”
“Approximately every eight minutes…”, a Birkeland current enters the Earth’s atmosphere from the Sun.
Some back of the envelope computations shows rougly 7.5 times an hour a Birkeland current enters the atmosphere times 24 hours a day times 365 days a year. Add that all up and the 50GW ends up being about 7,347,000GW per year.
So, consider the Earth’s climate as a balance beam: Any additional amount of energy will throw it off balance. My very rough calculations show 7,347,000GW of electrical energy on the warming side of the balance that irraiance doesn’t count.
It may or may not be a lot of energy, but to blithely say it’s not important and can be ignored when attempting to model climate is irresponsible.
You simply can’t provide an accurate model of climate when ignoring that amount of energy, particularly when we’re talking about only a couple degrees Celsius anyhow.
Addition:
The NASA news release quoted from is this:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
A word about TSI computations for laymen.
Everbody knows irradiance will progessively “glance” off an object the higher the inclination or angle is increased, which as you move towards the Earth’s poles increases. There is some question whether this is factored into the TSI figure.
Dr. Svalgaard states that it is factored into the TSI figure.
But I’d like to know if the Earth’s atmosphere is computed into this calculation as well. The amount of “glance” increases progressively, but while the Earth’s atmosphere at the 90 degree angle may not make a lot of difference (most irradiance makes it to the surface), toward the poles, not only in the “glance” higher (irradiance bounces back into space), but the irradiance will have a tendency not to reach the surface, but “glance” off the upper levels of the atmosphere.
Maybe this is figured into TSI, but then again, maybe science doesn’t completely understand the dynamics involved.
If so TSI is being overestimated.