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!
Re: Leif Svalgaard (06:21:59) [June 22]
Rephrasing:
Prescribed spatial stationarity may be theoretically convenient, but on the empirical side it would probably be a lot more fruitful to look at observed gradients. Maybe someone differenced the series (in latitude & in time), saw a bunch of spikes, and misinterpreted the spikes as ‘noise’. The thing to do with the differenced-series is integrate over variable-bandwidth (in latitude & time). [For example, use time-integrated cross-correlation and cross-wavelet methods.] This will bring out important (temporal & spatial) frequency content, even for nonstationary series. Removing prescribed patterns corrupts the frequency content of a series (which is not so much of a problem for purely stationary series). [Tip: If you use the Morlet wavelet, be sure to vary the wavenumber when you are analyzing the cross-wavelet phase-differences – and if your patience goes far enough, don’t ignore harmonics.]
My experience has been that theoreticians are loathed to drop mathematically-convenient assumptions, even after it is well-understood by analysts that the assumptions are problematic empirically. I genuinely believe you will see better if you discard the assumption-loaded lens (i.e. the differential rotation law curve). This is not a partisan comment. I am deeply curious about these data and very much looking forward to seeing results of new analyses.
Now to Dr. Svalaard’s question:
(But first a couple of self-corrections. I have reviewed Dr. Svalgaard’s website and note the many papers, it would seem Dr. Svalgaard and Dr. Peratt are both attained in their respective fields of discipline, so for me to say Dr. Peratt’s standing was “higher” is not correct.
I stated that Hannes Alfven “devoted” his Nobel Prize speech [it’s actually called a “lecture”] to stating he was wrong. “Devoted” was the wrong word to use. Alfven noted the problem of “frozen in” magnetic fields and that empirical laboratory work didn’t support it, but it was part of a balanced presenation that covered more than just that topic.)
Leif Svalgaard (11:22:50) :
“[James F. Evans] (10:51:17) :
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.
To calculate how much of TSI actually gets to the Earth, one first divides by four to compensate for the effect you have rediscovered and then compensates for the amount of light reflected back to space [e.g. by clouds] by reducing the incoming flux by another 30% [the ‘albedo’]. The net effect is to reduce the incoming 1361 W/m2 to 1361/4*0.70 = 238 W/m2 or about 6 times less. In the calculations of the relative amount from TSI and solar wind, a similar factor should be applied to your 50 GW as the substorms are intermittent rather than continuous, so these two factors conveniently cancel out.”
At this time I have no solid basis to object to his calculations as to TSI reaching the atmosphere and surface and being converted to random thermal energy (heating of the Earth’s atmosphere).
An open question that should be considered is what amount of electrical energy reaches the Earth’s atmosphere during solar maximum when the amount of electrical energy is increased?
As, a side note I did review Dr. Svalgaard’s solar theory as presented below:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470
“The Total solar Irradiance (TSI) has several sources. The first and most important is simply the temperature in the photosphere. The hotter the sun, the higher the TSI.” (Question: what would be those other “sources”?)
Dr. Svalgaard goes on to state (if I understand him correctly) that there is no evidence that the Sun is “hotter” now than in the early part of last century and that the Sun was no “hotter” or “cooler” over the course of solar cycles 21, 22, and 23, which would fall in line with computations of TSI variance at .1%
The, above, in a “nutshell” is how Dr. Svalgaard arrives at his position that the variance of solar maximum and solar minimum do not contribute to global climate change (again, if I understand him correctly).
But to speak of the Sun being “hotter” or “cooler” is problematic. The Sun’s energy does not transfer as heat, but as various forms of electromagnetic energies (the electromagnetic wave spectrum, light, infrared and the other bands, and energetic electrical particals, electrons and ions in the form of electrical currents). When referring to the Sun, conventionally we think of “heat”, but on close inspection the various structures and phenomenon take on an electrical profile. It would strongly appear that the Sun is more electrically active during solar maximum than during minimum based on morphology.
The difference in solar morphology between solar maximum and solar minimum has not been adequately explained by those that maintain this “does not matter”. It is proposed that electrical activity increases and decreases in accordance with solar maximum and minimum.
Electrical activity may increase without detection as being “hotter” because increased electrical activity only shows up as “heat” if resistence increases. It is not clear that resistence increases in the near-space environment around the Sun as electrical activity increases. Scientific evidence exists that as electrical activity increases, an increased number of electrons and ions flow to the Earth through the solar wind by increased “pressure” [current density] and Coronal Mass Ejections (CME). What is unknown to this writer is whether the charged particles exhibit increased voltage energy or whether it is constant over the solar cycles.
This hypothesis is why it is important to figure total energy in all forms generated by the Sun and to determine the variance.
In other words, the Sun does not have to get “hotter” to make the Earth’s cliamte warmer, but rather, the Sun has to get electrically more active to warm the Earth.
If the Sun’s resistence does not increase as a result of increased electrical activity, (could the Sun’s electrical resistence actually decrease as acitivty increases [similar to Dr. Svalgaard’s more active, but “cooler” discussion], thus accounting for increased numbers of electrons and ions participating, but not adding to TSI) then possibly the level and intensity of photons does not increase accounting for the apparent steady TSI calculations over the solar cycles.
Until morphology is ruled out as a reason for the apparent variance of climate in accord with solar cycles, all electrical aspects need to be positively ruled out, instead of passively omitted from discussion.
Paul Vaughan (13:44:15) :
My experience has been that theoreticians are loathed to drop mathematically-convenient assumptions,
Might be, except that Frank Hill and Rachel Howe and company are observers, not theoreticians.
You seem to have forgotten, so let me remind you:
Paul Vaughan (00:45:34) :
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.”
James F. Evans (14:02:58) :
In other words, the Sun does not have to get “hotter” to make the Earth’s cliamte warmer, but rather, the Sun has to get electrically more active to warm the Earth.
It does and we have together calculated that it contributes several million times less that the ordinary heat and light.
for increased numbers of electrons and ions participating, but not adding to TSI) then possibly the level and intensity of photons does not increase accounting for the apparent steady TSI calculations over the solar cycles.
There is a solar cycle variation of the mass flux, but in energetic terms its influence is negligible.
Until morphology is ruled out as a reason for the apparent variance of climate in accord with solar cycles, all electrical aspects need to be positively ruled out, instead of passively omitted from discussion.
The shape and morphology of the corona is well understood and there is nothing special that need to be explained. The shape at minimum is well explained here http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf
At maximum the neutral line [explained in paper above] reaches to much higher latitudes because the polar fields are cancelled away and no longer ‘depress’ the coronal fields to low latitudes. Since the neutral line is marked by coronal streamers [and yes, there are currents flowing in them, created and channeled by the magnetic field] the streamers will extend to all latitudes and we get the typical ‘maximum type corona’. A movie of the meanderings of the neutral line can be seen here: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-SS.gif
In short, the morphology is totally explained and understood in terms of the movements of the magnetic fields in the photosphere as the frozen-in field is forced to move with the plasma. As Alfven pointed out, at times, when conditions for the freezing in fail, the field will collapse, strong shot-lived currents will be generated, particles accelerated by the current and streaming down to hit the lower atmosphere and heat it to millions of degrees [sometimes 10s or even 100s of millions] and we see a big solar flare. At other times the collapse is less severe and the upper part of the streamer is flung away as a coronal mass ejection. The total energy involved in all this, although looking impressive is very minute compared to the energy pouring out as heat and light, and is barely observable and only for the very biggest events.
All in all, it is true that currents and explosions and electric energy are present. Nobody disputes that. The crucial point is however that all that is totally dwarfed by the ordinary heat and light, and therefore does not need to be included in the energy budget of the Earth’s atmosphere. People who want to attribute climate change to the Sun therefore look elsewhere, such as UV and chemistry, cosmic ray modulation, and whatnot, and usually IMHO come up empty handed, which does not prevent them from feeling happy about what they think they find and to congratulate each other with thinking outside the box [albeit inside another box].
It might be time to encourage folks here to read a book or two about the Sun. There are some really good ones. Some with mostly pictures and some with mostly calculations. I like both. However, I am looking forward to the next set of books after this cycle is over. I will probably be retired by then and can read it at my leisure. Leif, I would hope that you would be the author of one of those books. So far, the odds on favorite is in your camp as far as I am concerned, due to your understandings and predictions being closer than anyone elses to the actual progression of this cycle.
Leif, what do you think of the book “Storms in Space”, by John Freeman and reviewed by Joe Allen on Amazon.com? I have been thinking of getting it to add to my Sun collection.
Pamela Gray (08:43:34) :
Leif, what do you think of the book “Storms in Space”, by John Freeman and reviewed by Joe Allen on Amazon.com? I have been thinking of getting it to add to my Sun collection.
I have it. It is good. I can also recommend 2nd edition of K.R. Lang “The Sun from Space”. Somewhat pricey, but up-to-date and very good.
Pamela Gray (08:11:12) :
Leif, I would hope that you would be the author of one of those books.
I have been asked by a publisher to write such a book and it is a long-standing project of mine. The problem is that the day only has 36 hours and 48 of those are already allocated to the exciting research that cries out to be done.
Pamela Gray:
“Gary, how much lower? Significantly lower? What is your standard deviation? ”
My apologies for an untimely reply, my current lot.
Robert Bateman who has the data and computations, has the faculae “an order of magnitude lower” than cycle 14 minimum. The current compact Ionosphere(search WUWT for link) is circumstantial confirmation of very low UV.
On TSI measurement, Kirchoff’s law requires a body in thermal equilibrium for ’emissivity’ to equal ‘absorptivity’. A plane-solid cavity is so held and via an aperture a calorimeter measures the radiation at the given temperature thus relating the material comprising the plane-solid to a black body.
I trust, despite its fuzzy description, the SORCE TIM “sensor” is an attempt to adapt this design, employing a reference and working ‘sensor’ at identical temperatures and measuring the solar radiant energy through an aperture.
I also trust that their reports of a ‘high degree of accuracy’ between measurements is valid.
This said, whatever the material whose thermal energy is being measured, it is by definition, not in thermal equilibrium and faulty terminology, e.g., “absorptance”, engenders no confidence in their protocol sans it’s engineering details.
We heard that TSI varies over the secular cycle less than 0.01% and this time around, 23 Rmax to 24 Rmin, is not an exception. GIGO, QED.
“I am impressed by the observation of Casper Amman that the warming seems to be coming from the bottom and not from the top of the atmosphere.”
Better check that, collegiality is overrated.
gary gulrud (09:35:07) :
The current compact Ionosphere(search WUWT for link) is circumstantial confirmation of very low UV.
UV creates and maintains the ionosphere. The magnetic effects of the diurnal currents are direct evidence that UV at every solar minimum since at least the 1840s reaches the same level, so this minimum is not exceptionally lower in UV.
GIGO, QED
You have previously on many occasions demonstrated your ignorance on how radiation is measured, so these acronyms seem to be a reflection on you rather than on the careful measurements of the experimenters.
anna v (13:17:40) :
James F. Evans (12:12:19) :
anna v wrote: “On the other hand, wrong claims of solutions of Maxwell’s equations (electric currents are necessary) do not make for favorable opinions on the people promoting them, as also the inability to deal with large numbers.”
anna can you point to one experiment or in situ observation & measurement that verifies your statement?
Somebody else has already pointed out that the electromagnetic field, light etc, does not need any electric currents. The magnetic field creates the electric field which creates the magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of energy propagation. Classical solution of Maxwell’s equations.”
anna v, you misstate the physical reality: It is true the electromagnetic radiation (the electromagnetic wave spectrum, i.e., visible light, X-rays, infrared, and so on doesn’t need electric current, but then again it doesn’t produce magnetic fields either; on the other hand, electric currents cause magnetic fields, apparently you ignore Dr. Parker’s quotes I provided where he acknowledges this as fact.
anna v you state: “The magnetic field creates the electric field which creates the magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of energy propagation. Classical solution of Maxwell’s equations.”
False.
You can have an electric field without electric current, but not a magnetic field without an electric current.
The electromotive force (attraction between electrons and ions) causes electric current, which then generates a magnetic field, thus generated, a magnetic field as a derivative action can cause secondary electric current.
But most important, the first cause is electromotive force, not magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are a “effect” of electric current. Only as a secondary derivative do magnetic fields cause electric currents.
A note about your answer: I asked you a direct question, “can you point to one experiment or in situ observation & measurement that verifies your statement?”
Your answer was non-responsive.
Your choices where: “No, I can’t.”; “Yes, and here they are…(a list of experiments or in situ observations & measurements.), “I don’t know of any, off-hand.”, or, “Yes, but I can’t provide them right now.”
Instead, you provided an abstract explanation (probably because you didn’t want to acknowledge that there are no experiments of such kind and to acknowledge that would cause cognitive dissonance and make my point).
Regrettably, your abstract answer was demonstratably wrong and a misstatment of Maxwell’s equations.
(But to express comedy [an effort at coming together to reach better understanding], let me note your below phrase:
anna wrote; “direction of energy propagation”.
The direction of energy propagation is the direction of electric current.)
Some could say, “That Evans, he’s being incredibly pedantic.”
It is extremely important because the correct starting principle determines if the following reasoning and logic, either of the linguistic or mathematical variety, correctly express the reality of the physical relationships, because no matter how elegant the mathematical equations, if it starts from an faulty premise, it will be wrong.
It’s that simple. And that important.
Now why was the form of my question to anna important?
Because one of the basic axioms of the empirical Scientific Method is for the unknown to be explained from the known, and as a corollary, physical relationships of Nature remain constant.
There are no experiments or in situ observations & measurements that demonstrate that magnetic fields in isolation are independent from a propagaing electric current. Therefore, until such time when empirical observation & measurement demonstrate such a physics (a magnetic field is the cause and electric current is the effect) is possible, it is wrong to make the assumption, no matter how elegant the ‘thought experiment’ and the supporting mathematical equations.
In short, Science is limited to observation & measurement and mathematical relationships must closely and strictly be based on actual verafiable and repeatable quantified observation & measurement.
To do other is to engage in speculation.
So, since the propostion that electric currents cause magnetic fields is based on actual verafiable and repeatable quantified observation & measurement, and there is no experiment or in situ observation to demonstrate otherwise, on Earth, as well as in space, It must be taken as a starting point that all magnetic fields in space are the result of electric currents.
To assume otherwise is non-scientific and ignores the strict requirments of the empirical Scientific Method.
Human preferences to reach conclusions that follow accepted dogmas are why non-empirical methods are doomed to failure and wrong results.
This “preference” factor has lead to the non-scientific conclusion that magnetic fields cause electric currents in space plasma. This is because it has long been held that gravity dominated astrophysical relationships. And for some reason there was a desire to exclude the electromotive force as a principle dynamic.
This has led to a series of non-scientific assumptions and conclusions in astronomy.
James F. Evans (11:23:02) :
It must be taken as a starting point that all magnetic fields in space are the result of electric currents.
Imagine that space was a vacuum. We would still at Earth feel the Sun’s magnetic field. Right? I have on my desk a strong magnet. At some distance from it an iron key can still feel the magnetic field, right? If I move the magnet across the street, there is still a magnetic field in my office [albeit much weaker], right. Are there any currents in my office or at the Earth in the first example? The only answer that experiments give is “no”. So we have in one region of space magnetic fields without any currents in that region, right?
You see, the question is not whether the magnetic field is caused by currents somewhere, it is whether there are currents everywhere the field is and those currents are causing the field locally. The answer to that is experimentally “no”. Quite the opposite: if I move a conductor [e.g. the iron key] in the magnetic field, that induces a current in the key. If the magnetic field came form an electromagnet, switching off the magnet would kill the current induced in the key.
But all this is just a straw man. The question was whether the energy in the magnetic field and the currents causing it wherever they flow is large or small compared to the radiant energy we get from the Sun, and that has been answered: the radiant energy is millions of times larger and allows us to ignore the electric and magnetic energy.
A corollary to the “preference” factor is that Man’s imagination is nearly limitless to derive “ways and processes” that fulfill the preferences and this includes mathematical reasoning.
In fact, it can be argued that mathematical reasoning is now the preferred way to reach desired results because it provides a cloak of perceived quantified rigorousness that justifies “belief” beyond established empirical knowledge, thus allowing for a kind of self-deception and a projection of certainty in ones opinions that can be communicated to others in a way to better persuade others of the validity of the opinion.
Man has an innate tendency to want to “believe” beyond what can be
established by the empirical process.
Thus we return to Hannes Alfven 1970 Nobel prize winner in physics:
“We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.” — Hannes Alfven
Alfven stressed the danger of theories that “are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods as it is only the plasma itself which does not understand how beautiful the theories are, and absolutely refuses to obey them!”
Hannes Alfven’s conclusions bare repeating:
“Space is fill with a network of currents whch transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances.” — Hannes Alfven
“in order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents.” — Hannes Alfven
I acknowledge at present time and current technology it is very difficult to map electric fields and electric currents in space and even harder to mathematically quantify them as electric currents are inherently non-linear, but if Man truly wants to match understanding with reality, “doing the difficult” is the prerequisite: It always has been and it always will be…
I would extend that we can ignore the Solar electric and magnetic energy at the Earth’s poles and at the equatorial/tropical belt (as well as all points inbetween), as the variant radiant energy at these areas is mitigated not by the Sun but by the tilt of our very own Terra Firma along with all the other endogenous weather pattern variation drivers, and simply overwhelms any increase or decrease in the heat budget coming from these relatively tiny potential Solar heat sources. You would never be able to find the signals and wouldn’t need to.
James F. Evans (11:23:02) :
So you have abandoned Maxwell’s equations?
You are way out of your depth here, pontificating, and absolutely wrong.
The direction of energy propagation is the direction of electric current.
!!!
The direction of energy propagation in electromagnetic waves is the direction of the Poynting vector and it is found by ExB, i.e. the cross product of the electric field and the magnetic field that make up the plane wave , the electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to the direction of motion. These vary, and the variation of one creates the the other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector#Independent_E_and_B_fields
This is so elementary as a solution of Maxwell’s equations that really no other proof is needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
Herz certainly designed experiments to check Maxwell’s plane waves and found him correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hertz#Electromagnetic_research
I think it is futile to discuss with you further. You probably do not even know what a cross product of two vectors is.
Leif Svalgaard (11:44:38) :
A bar magnet generates a magnetic field because of “electron movement”, either the electrons orbit their repective nucleus in a synchronized fashion or they are synchronized in their “spin” or possibly even valence electrons “flow” around the ferreous lattice. In any event, a bar magnet still has a magnetic field because of vector electron movement.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “So we have in one region of space magnetic fields without any currents in that region, right?”
As my explanation, above, illustrates, there is still electron movement that propagates the magnetic field.
The magnetic field extends beyond the the generating electric current (including the bar magnet example). In fact, with dipole processes the magnetic field can extend radially quite some distance from the generating electric current.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Are there any currents in my office or at the Earth in the first example?”
The currents are within the bar magnet (as explained above) or within the Earth (the Van Allen radiation belts are a torus of chaged particles that flow around the Earth, so while it is, in deed, assumed that the electric current that causes the Earth’s magnetic field is based strictly within the interior of the Earth, the Van Allen torus of flowing charged particles may contribute (as an electric current) to either the Earth’s magnetic field and/or to the Earth’s magnetosphere.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “the question is not whether the magnetic field is caused by currents somewhere, it is whether there are currents everywhere the field is and those currents are causing the field locally.”
I don’t accept the proposition of the first phrase of the sentence:
“the question is not whether the magnetic field is caused by currents somewhere,”
That is exactly the question at issue (and can not be rhetorically avoided).
The second phrase of the sentence:
“it is whether there are currents everywhere the field is and those currents are causing the field locally.”
This phrase essentially asserts the derivative secondary current idea. I do acknowledge that magnetic currents can, as a seondary derivative, cause electric currents, but the error is to place the derivative secondary current idea as a “first cause” or predominate in the chain of logic, instead of in the subordinate position.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The answer to that is experimentally “no”. Quite the opposite: if I move a conductor [e.g. the iron key] in the magnetic field, that induces a current in the key. If the magnetic field came form an electromagnet, switching off the magnet would kill the current induced in the key.”
This is an elaboration on the secondary derivative current idea with the fallacy of presenting it as a first cause instead of a derivative cause.
The first cause in the example your present is the electron movement in the bar magnet (whatever way that electron movement works in actuality) that generates the magnetic field that radiates around the bar magnet (the classic magnetic field lines around a bar magnet and interestingly enough, similar to the field lines exhibited by the Earth), the secondary derivative cause is the mechanical (your moving the key constitutes a mechanical action) action.
“If the magnetic field came form an electromagnet, switching off the magnet would kill the current induced in the key.”
Yes, that is true, but let’s look at what actually happens:
An electromagnet is a magnet where an electric current causes the magnetic field in the magnet, thus it is called an electromagnet.
So, this illustrates the classic pattern: An electric current causes a magnetic field in the magnet which in turn causes an electric current in the key (incidently, the key would then in turn have it’s own magnetic field).
This is a good example that illustrates the factal nature of electromagnetism.
Of course, when the electric current is shut off from the electromagnet, it ceases to have a magnetic field.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “But all this is just a straw man.”
Yes, it is incidental to the solar question in one sense, but in another sense, it goes to the heart of the matter.
Incidental, in that your proposition and my objection are about whether ” the radiant energy is millions of times larger and allows us to ignore the electric and magnetic energy.”
But it goes to the heart of the matter because electrical energy on the Sun is the cause of radiant energy from the Sun. It is the electrical interaction that leads to radiant energy release as opposed to “heat” per se.
The resistence on the Sun causes electrical energy to be converted to radiant energy (electrons and ions meeting resistence give up energy), this energy is given up in the form of radiant energy.
With all due respect this question hasn’t been zeroed-out yet, by any means, and the fact that you would, “ignore the electric and magnetic energy,” so early in the scientific investigation means that your basic assumptions have not changed and because of your basic assumptions you are blind to the possibility of electrical energy having an effect.
Your basic assumptions have not changed in a long time.
Science is learning at an accelerating rate just in the last couple of years about Sun — Earth dyanamics and physical elationships including electomagnetic relationships.
My hypothesis is that Science still does not account for the full measure of electrical energy that comes from the Sun to the Earth.
How can you measure something accurately if only recently you have acknowledged it exists at all.
Science does not know all the channels and ways that electromagnetic energy comes from the Sun to the Earth, in fact, we are just beginning to find out.
Your figures are at best provisional, and likely under reporting.
To come to a preemptory conclusion would only repeat the misstakes of the past.
Let’s do it differently this time.
(I do want to take time to say I appreciate your time and energy to addressing my concerns. That is curteous and generous and I want to recognize that gesture. While we obviously don’t agree on some basic questions, your willingness to explain and discuss in an extended format does exhibit your generous and polite nature.
I respect your offering a hand in understanding, please don’t consider my failure to agree with you as a failure to recognize the generousity of your time.)
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard:
I apologize, particularly after trying to end on a conciliatory note, but I forgot to address one issue:
I note you failed to list one experiment or in situ observation (formalized reporting of an in situ oboservation ) that supports the proposition that magnetic fields cause electric currents.
To my way of thinking this speaks volumes, while I didn’t ask you that question, surely, if there was an experiment or in situ observation that supports that proposition you would link it or at least mention it.
That there apparently isn’t one, just reaffirms my conviction that empiricism is the way forward in scientific investigation.
It is better to state: “Science doesn’t know” or the current empirical knowledge is “this”, than to engage in mathematical theorizing that just as likely as not will end up being wrong because it was a priori instead of post observation & measurment analysis and quantification of physical relationships established by prediction and testing and replication.
When scientists want you to “imagine” that is not a good sign, as it probably means there is no empirical observations to back up the claim.
Yes, the colloquial use is okay, but seeing what has happened to science when imagination has overpowered empirical rigor, it is useful to add a note of caution when one see the word.
Re: Svalgaard
Investigating relationships possibly involving SIM is worthwhile, in part since future SIM can be accurately predicted.
anna v (13:27:05) :
anna v asked: “So you have abandoned Maxwell’s equations?”
No.
You address, “The direction of energy propagation in electromagnetic waves…”
For the second time, that is not what I’m refering to.
I’m referring to electric current (the flow of electrons and ions via the electromotive force), not electromagnetic waves,i.e., visible light, X-rays, and so on.
Dr. Eugene Parker: “In the laboratory we create static magnetic fields by driving an electric current through a coil of wire. The emf [electromotive force] and the current are clearly the cause of the magnetic field.” (p. 25, Conversations)
So, anna v, your issue isn’t with me, it’s with Dr. Eugene Parker.
Dr. Parker’s distinction is that in space things are different due to MHD.
The problem is that Dr. Parker derives his proposition not through experiment or in situ observation, but by mathematical thought experiment (a priori mathematical equations) and the original developer of MHD (and “frozen in” magnetic field lines), Hannes Alfven, later unequivocally rejected this approach as contradicting empirical results he achieved in the laboratory.
anna v, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
Lief Svalaard wrote: “In short, the morphology is totally explained and understood in terms of the movements of the magnetic fields in the photosphere as the frozen-in field is forced to move with the plasma.”
No.
The movement of the plasma generates the magnetic fields.
As Alfven clearly explained “frozen in” magnetic field lines are an artefact of mathematical theorizing that has no basis in reality.
Paul Vaughan (14:29:45) :
Investigating relationships possibly involving SIM is worthwhile, in part since future SIM can be accurately predicted.
So what is her central thesis?
The orbits of the three bodies of Alpha Centauri are also predictable, but are unlikely to have any influence. Predictability in itself does nor seem to be a reason to investigate anything. Or are we back to you still not want to tell us [me]?
Re: Leif Svalgaard (21:20:59)
You misunderstand.
Paul Vaughan (01:29:12) :
Re: Leif Svalgaard (21:20:59)
You misunderstand.
Well, then explain so I can understand
James F. Evans (16:47:46) :
I’m referring to electric current (the flow of electrons and ions via the electromotive force), not electromagnetic waves,i.e., visible light, X-rays, and so on.
Dr. Eugene Parker: “In the laboratory we create static magnetic fields by driving an electric current through a coil of wire. The emf [electromotive force] and the current are clearly the cause of the magnetic field.” (p. 25, Conversations)
Please, your understanding of physics is so rudimentary that it is better for you to begin to learn something, instead of parroting things you do not understand. The very next paragraph of Parker’s is what you need to understand. But perhaps a simpler case: that of a dynamo: http://www.explainthatstuff.com/generators.html
where the mechanical energy that rotates a magnetic generates a current.