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!
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard:
Certainly, I haven’t had time to read all of Parker’s hypothesis. It is not concise, but I have read the excerpt you provided and additional material from the link. Thank you for providing the link.
Svalgaard wrote: “Don’t hide behind your ignorance of what a mathematical point is.”
I’m not hiding behind anything. But since you call me ignorant. What is your mathematical definition of a point?
And, yes, it is important, because I I agree with your statement: “There are real physical issues at stake.”
Which brings us back to your eariler comment where you provide Eugene Parker’s hypothesis. Eugene Parker discovered the solar wind and deserves much credit for that discovery. Although, I note subsequent in situ empirical observation & measurement of the solar wind has outdated aspects of Parker’s hypothesis of the mechanics of the solar wind:
“However, the acceleration of the fast wind is still not understood and cannot be fully explained by Parker’s theory.” And, “In the late 1990s the Ultraviolet Coronal Spectrometer (UVCS) instrument on board the SOHO spacecraft observed the acceleration region of the fast solar wind emanating from the poles of the sun, and found that the wind accelerates much faster than can be accounted for by thermodynamic expansion alone. Parker’s model predicted that the wind should make the transition to supersonic flow at an altitude of about 4 solar radii from the photosphere; but the transition (or “sonic point”) now appears to be much lower, perhaps only 1 solar radius above the photosphere, suggesting that some additional mechanism accelerates the solar wind away from the sun.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
My point is this: In Science, “theory” must give way to empirical observation & measurement. No “theory” is written in stone, all are subject to revision upon further observation & measurement that contradicts the theory.
Theories aren’t “proven”, rather they are falsified.
You attempt to cast aspersions on my opinion: “[I]f you are an avid ‘Electric Universe’ cult-follower, the reading will be a depressing experience, so perhaps you should not even try.”
But all my references (in a prior post) were to in situ observations & measurements made by NASA regarding the electromagnetic dynamics of the solar system where they confirmed the existence of electric currents within the interplanatary medium.
Surely, you aren’t calling NASA a bunch of cult-followers?
And NASA’s findings in confirm the requirements of Maxwell’s equations. The laws of physics as established, here, on Earth apply equally to the interplanatary medium of the solar system.
So, apparently, Parker’s hypothesis, and that’s all it is, has not been confirmed, but rather, contradicted in the solar system by empirical observation & measurement.
And as I stated before, no theory has precedent over contradicting empirical observation & measurement, no matter how honored the author of that theory may be.
Science has conducted no in situ observations outside the solar system. So there is no basis to either confirm or contradict Parker’s hypothesis in regards to the interstellar medium or beyond.
But the empirical scientific method does follow this axiom: Explain the unknown by comparing it to the known. So far, what is known of the solar system validates Maxwell’s equations. Which, if physical relationships of matter and energy are constant in the Universe, bodes well for the validity of Maxwell’s equations beyond the solar system, and does not bode well for Eugene Parker’s hypothesis.
Here is the Germane point to the post: When you attempt to put a square peg (the facts) into a round hole (the theory), you get two results: Data gets ignored and the understanding of physical relationships of matter and energy is faulty.
It’s apparent, Science doesn’t understand the dynamics of the Sun, and with all due respect, the climate record and the sun spot record (that we know of) does not support your theory of irradiance being the only meaningful measure of the Sun’s energy output. That strongly suggest heliographer’s ideas on what is the measure of the Sun’s energy output are wrong.
So, yes, let’s talk about the physics and more important let’s not allow attachment to dogma to stop us from considering all the scientific evidence at our disposal.
The stakes are too high!
Anaconda (14:46:03) :
I’m not hiding behind anything. But since you call me ignorant. What is your mathematical definition of a point?
I’m willing to learn from the master, so tell us.
But all my references (in a prior post) were to in situ observations & measurements made by NASA regarding the electromagnetic dynamics of the solar system where they confirmed the existence of electric currents within the interplanatary medium.
Of course there are electric currents in the interstellar medium, even one co-discovered by me: http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/helio.gif
but the important issue for you to understand is that “The dynamics of the plasma is driven by the magnetic stress and the inertia and pressure of the plasma and not by electric currents”. As Parker shows this follows from Maxwell’s equations. The reference I gave has nothing to do with the solar wind and how it is formed, but solely with dispelling the false notion that electric currents are causes of plasma flows.
It is important that you clearly understand this crucial point, otherwise you’ll never make any progress to understanding the physics of the cosmos.
Anaconda, are you coming from the perspective that it “must” be the Sun? If you are, you are the one maybe that needs to let go of a dogma to look at other plausible mechanisms that explains weather pattern variation. I am not being negative here, just pointing out maybe a hidden belief that seems to be driving your posts that might blind you to other considerations that are capable of producing variation.
My belief, that it is an endogenous set of variation drivers, comes simply from the fact that so far, of what is known (as opposed to your feeling that it must be something unknown), endogenous drivers are easily demonstrated and match observations. Better than CO2 and better than ol’ Sol. So I continue to study endogenous drivers until such a time that something else explains variation better. I have not read a reasonable, plausible, soundly based, “something else” to date.
Anaconda (14:46:03) :
It’s apparent, Science doesn’t understand the dynamics of the Sun, and with all due respect, the climate record and the sun spot record
That the climate is not understood does not mean that physics is not understood. I do not think you can find a single scientist in the world today that will claim that there is a lot more energy coming from the Sun than we measure with calorimeters in space. The Earth itself absorbs energy the same way as our instruments, so you are postulating that the Earth picks up energy that our instruments cannot. And NASA certainly is not saying this. Find us a single reference to a paper that supports your misguided idea that the 1361 W/m2 we measure is a lot less than the ‘total energy’ [and electromagnetic at that] we receive from the Sun. Then we can discuss the evidence.
(that we know of) does not support your theory of irradiance being the only meaningful measure of the Sun’s energy output. That strongly suggest heliographer’s ideas on what is the measure of the Sun’s energy output are wrong.
So, yes, let’s talk about the physics and more important let’s not allow attachment to dogma to stop us from considering all the scientific evidence at our disposal.
The stakes are too high!
Anaconda (14:46:03) :
It’s apparent, Science doesn’t understand the dynamics of the Sun, and with all due respect, the climate record and the sun spot record
That the climate is not understood does not mean that physics is not understood. I do not think you can find a single scientist in the world today that will claim that there is a lot more energy coming from the Sun than we measure with calorimeters in space. The Earth itself absorbs energy the same way as our instruments, so you are postulating that the Earth picks up energy that our instruments cannot. And NASA certainly is not saying this. Find us a single reference to a paper that supports your misguided idea that the 1361 W/m2 we measure is a lot less than the ‘total energy’ [and electromagnetic at that] we receive from the Sun. Then we can discuss the evidence.
The stakes are too high!
Indeed they are, and that is why pseudo-scientific notions that you have somehow gathered on the Internet [the various cults I was referring to] should be countered with sound science so the public can make informed decisions.
Leif Svalgaard (19:04:42) :
“The stakes are too high!
Indeed they are, and that is why pseudo-scientific notions that you have somehow gathered on the Internet [the various cults I was referring to] should be countered with sound science so the public can make informed decisions.”
Of course.
But things get muddled for some when science itself is called into question for not being fastidious or exact enough. Or for not thinking out of the box. Or when it’s too hard to fathom.
And science seems to be at its worst when it prognosticates. When it makes bold predictions, it leaves the future open to the dogmatic and the cultists.
Joel Seligmann (20:39:11) :
But things get muddled for some when science itself is called into question for not being fastidious or exact enough. Or for not thinking out of the box. Or when it’s too hard to fathom.
Science is a human endeavor and often funded by the public so is dependent on understanding and public support. Some things are just hard, but I dare say that science has made great strides. Science is in the box of reason and laws of Nature and shouldn’t stray too far.
Anaconda (05:45:28) :
In isolation, an electric current is necessary to cause a magnetic field. A magnetic field can not stand in isolation without an electric current (ordered electron movement) to sustain it.
The other large misunderstanding that drives blog conversations, the confusion of cause and effect, appears largely in all your passionate and sometimes not so polite expostulations about electric currents. This is the inability to recognize the terms , necessary, sufficient, and necessary and sufficient, very important in building and using mathematical theories.
What is sufficient may not be necessary and what is necessary may not be sufficient, if you get my drift. This is very important in dealing with solutions of theoretical equations, Maxwell’s not excepted.
Please read the reply of Data (14:40:25) : to you. It says in simple terms the same thing. Your quoted statement is wrong as discussed there.
Maybe you are very young?
Leif Svalgaard (21:47:02) :
“Science is a human endeavor and often funded by the public so is dependent on understanding and public support. Some things are just hard, but I dare say that science has made great strides. Science is in the box of reason and laws of Nature and shouldn’t stray too far.”
Ed Jaynes in Probability as logic summed it up well in his introduction.
It seems that mankind has always been occupied with the problem of how to deal with ignorance.Primitive man, aware of his helplessness against the forces of Nature but totally ignorant of their causes, would try to compensate for his ignorance by inventing hypotheses about them. For educated people today, the idea of directing intelligences willfully and consciously controlling every detail of events seems vastly more complicated than the idea of a machine running; but to primitive
man (and even to the uneducated today) the opposite is true. For one who has no comprehension of physical law, but is aware of his own consciousness and volition, the natural question to ask is not: \What is causing it?”, but rather: \Who is causing it?”…….
…..This oldest of all devices for dealing with one’s ignorance, is the fi rst form of what we have called the \Mind Projection Fallacy”. One asserts that the creations of his own imagination are real properties of Nature, and thus in eff ect projects his own thoughts out onto Nature. It is still rampant today, not only in fundamentalist religion, but in every field where probability theory is used.”
correct repetition:
Anaconda (05:45:28) :
In isolation, an electric current is necessary to cause a magnetic field. A magnetic field can not stand in isolation without an electric current (ordered electron movement) to sustain it.
The other large misunderstanding that drives blog conversations, the first being confusion of cause and effect, appears largely in all your passionate and sometimes not so polite expostulations about electric currents. This is the inability to recognize the terms , necessary, sufficient, and necessary and sufficient, very important in building and using mathematical theories.
What is sufficient may not be necessary and what is necessary may not be sufficient, if you get my drift. This is very important in dealing with solutions of theoretical equations, Maxwell’s not excepted.
Please read the reply of Data (14:40:25) : to you. It says in simple terms the same thing. Your quoted statement is wrong as discussed there.
Maybe you are very young?
Leif Svalgaard (21:47:02) :
“Science is in the box of reason and laws of Nature and shouldn’t stray too far.”
Agreed.
Unfortunately, not satisfied with well-reasoned explanations about what is, some people want more from science than it can safely provide: a glimpse into what isn’t: the future. That’s when science can go astray and lead to a lack of trust.
“Always in motion is the future.”
DavidW (11:11:39) :
“This has probably already been brought up, but a little observation.
1) Aside from the markings of the sunspots, is it just me, or is the northern hemisphere, per se (positive latitude) an almost-perfect mirror image of the southern hemisphere (negative latitude)?”
Hi DavidW — You have sharp eyes. The picture is indeed perfectly symmetric across the equator. That is a consequence of the way we analyzed the data. Our method can only produce an average of the north and south hemipsheres. In reality the flow is not symmetric across the equator. Here is a link to a picture of the flow at the surface that has not been averaged:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/torsional.html
As you can see, there are very interesting differences between the surface flow in the two hemispheres. We do have a helioseismic method of separating the two hemispheres, and will be looking at the results soon.
“2) If a sunspot cycle is based on the blue vertical longitude line (approximately mid-January, 1997) and intersects a critical point of 22 degrees and also shows the torsional oscillation at beginning or “elbow” points 52 degrees and -52 degrees, then the second “beginning” blue line (mid-June, 2006), should also reflect a beginning or an “elbow” of the next torsional oscillation flow, or am I missing something here?”
No, you are not missing anything. The polar spin-up has not yet started. If we are correct, it too should start soon.
“To add on 2), I would think that if 22 was the magic number then the blue line would be at the very end (far right) of the image, rather than the mid-June 2006 position, unless they meant for that to be the bulk of the sunspots (confused). Either way, even if it is at the very right, where I would assume it would be, based on my limited knowledge, we should still be seeing the torsional oscillation start at 52 and -52 degrees.”
The blue line at mid-2206 corresponds to the left edge of the image, not the blue line at 1997.2.
Adolfo Giurfa (08:57:52) “[…] http://www.giurfa.com/charvatova.pdf […]”
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (15:12:34) “You are referring to the idea of spin-orbit coupling.”
Carsten, this is an unfair comment; Dr. Charvatova does not push “spin-orbit coupling”.
– – –
Frank Hill (22:51:44) “The picture is indeed perfectly symmetric across the equator. That is a consequence of the way we analyzed the data. Our method can only produce an average of the north and south hemipsheres. In reality the flow is not symmetric across the equator.”
Thank you for explaining the artificial appearance of the plot (which may have been taken out of a context which clearly conveys information essential to interpretation).
OK, a tiny tim and a coupled tinier one on the 7clock line in SOHO 6:24, and Gong magnetogams at 10:04, cycle 24. ( the SOHO magnetogram is late in updating). The stronger one is on white and the weak one on black ?
Much better lower than 22degrees.
” [TSI] is the power per unit area of the sun integrated over all spectral wavelengths… The TSI fluctuates much less than the SSI in some wavelengths.”
As faculae and flaring have been extraordinarily low over the past 26 odd months, the ‘normality’ of measured TSI during this period indicates to a number of us that the quantity is manifestly not well-measured.
gary gulrud (09:33:50) :
As faculae and flaring have been extraordinarily low over the past 26 odd months, the ‘normality’ of measured TSI during this period indicates to a number of us that the quantity is manifestly not well-measured.
You know not whereof you speak. The low solar activity has been well reflected in the TSI. Flares emit so little energy compared to the ‘normal’ photosphere that even the very largest [and very rare] barely rises over the background level.
Gary, how much lower? Significantly lower? What is your standard deviation? And has it been this low in recent cycles, or to your knowledge is this off the charts? And finally, on what basis is this current measure correlated with low Earth temps? One correlation is likely just chance. You have to show multiple and consistent tight correlations over time. Even then, you need a plausible mechanism. Else you speak from personally held dogma, not science.
Leif, you beat me to it. I was hoping Gary would discover his error.
Frank Hill (22:51:44) :
Hi DavidW — You have sharp eyes. The picture is indeed perfectly symmetric across the equator. That is a consequence of the way we analyzed the data. Our method can only produce an average of the north and south hemipsheres. In reality the flow is not symmetric across the equator. Here is a link to a picture of the flow at the surface that has not been averaged:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/torsional.html
As you can see, there are very interesting differences between the surface flow in the two hemispheres. We do have a helioseismic method of separating the two hemispheres, and will be looking at the results soon.
Is there a graph that has the last two years data or is that the most recent? It would be interesting to see the most current observation (as I appreciate the graph going back at least as far as it does for trending)
Pamela Gray (10:00:49) :
Leif, you beat me to it. I was hoping Gary would discover his error
No chance!
DavidW (10:06:31) :
Is there a graph that has the last two years data or is that the most recent?
As always, you can find such stuff on my website 🙂
http://www.leif.org/research/UlrichSolarCycleMinima.ppt
Leif Svalgaard (10:24:00) :
DavidW (10:06:31) :
Is there a graph that has the last two years data or is that the most recent?
some comments on the graph:
1) The early data [pre-1985] are very noisy especially at high latitudes. That they look different is not solar effects
2) There is a [real] asymmetry between the hemispheres in that the rotate at slightly different rates [a few meters per second]. In extracting the TO, a common rotation rate was assumed, which makes the South appear faster [more red] and the North appear slower [more blue]. There likely is no such real difference in the TO. Perhaps Frank can comment on that?
3) At times you may see an annual variation. This is instrumental and not solar.
Your claim of ‘unfair comment’ is unfounded, and appears therefore in itself unfair. I was commenting on Adolfo Giurfa (08:57:52) quoting the paper, saying The results indicate that `solar dynamo’ that was long sought in the solar interior, operates more likely from the outside, by means of the varying planetary configurations.
The paper talks about orbital motions, angular momentum and “solar inertial motion” (the motion of the Sun around the centre of mass of the solar system). These are key elements of the spin-orbit coupling idea, which proposed that exchange of orbital angular momentum between the planets and Solar spin somehow caused inertial effects (again supposedly modulating solar activity via some undescribed mechanism). Clearly, the paper suggests the same mechanism known as the spin-orbit coupling idea, and that mechanism has been shown not to take place, it is falsified. Orbital angular momentum is completely balanced between the sun and the planets, so the suggested “outside mechanism” for causing solar activity cannot be based on that parameter.
Charvátova does not propose any other mechanism in that paper, but still suggests that solar motion offers predictive power for solar activity. If you believe the paper talks about some other mechanism than the spin-orbit coupling idea, please explain which other “outside mechanism” that would be.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard (15:08:07) :
I [Anaconda] asked Dr. Svalgaard: “What is your mathematical definition of a point?”
And, instead of a direct andswer, Dr. Svalgaard responded: “I’m willing to learn from the master, so tell us.”
Well, I already offered there was more than one definition, or that a mathematician might say that a point is undefined, and Svalgaard called me ignorant for my troubles.
My question is straightforward, it shouldn’t be hard to answer if it’s as easy as Dr. Svalgaard implies, yet rather than simply answering the question, Svalgaard responded with a distracting and avoiding dig.
Could that be because my initial offering that that there are inconsistent definitions of terms has merit?
So I’d still like to know Dr. Svalgaard’s mathematical definition of a point.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Of course there are electric currents in the interstellar medium…”
Okay, good. certainly there are electric currents within the solar system.
And based on the schematic of the Parker spiral Dr. Svalgaard provides the solar wind is a diffused electric current of charged particles (electrons and ions) and when the Sun is at solar maximum Coronal Mass Ejections of charged particles are transferred directly to the Earth via Birkeland currents. The solar wind (and Birkeand currents) is not simply kinetic energy that gets converted to electrical energy when it reaches Earth: Rather, it is emitted from the Sun as electrical energy and is received by the Earth as electrical energy, some directly from the Sun to the Earth (Birkeland currents as a result of Coronal Mass Ejections, themselves composed of charged particles, and some as the more diffused and indirect process of solar wind electrical energy being captured and collected in the Earth’s magneto tail and then being regularly released as Birkeland currents (NASA calls them “magnetic tornadoes”) into the Earth’s atmosphere. Both the larger direct Birkeland currents and the smaller indirect Birkeland currents cause auroral electrical ‘substorms’.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “[T]he important issue for you to understand is that ‘The dynamics of the plasma is driven by the magnetic stress and the inertia and pressure of the plasma and not by electric currents’. As Parker shows this follows from Maxwell’s equations. The reference I gave has nothing to do with the solar wind and how it is formed, but solely with dispelling the false notion that electric currents are causes of plasma flows.”
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 Dr. Parker does immediately state ib the next sentence: “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…” (p.25)
The reason for this difference is the assumed difference of the terrestial environment and space as Dr. Parker expressed: “The air that we breathe is an example and only upon reaching the ionosphere does MHD [magnetohydrodynamics] become effective.” (p.3 Conversations)
There are several problems with this assertion:
Dr. Parker cites no experiments for his proposition, but relies on a priori mathematical extrapolation for his hypothesis. In other words, instead of in situ observation & measurements or in situ experiments, Dr. Parker relies on mathematical ‘thought experiments’ as justification for his hypothesis.
Dr. Parker states: “The essential feature is that no significant electric field can arise in the frame reference of moving plasma.” (p. 1) Therefore, if there is no electric field, there are, in Dr. Parker’s opinion, no electric currents in space to speak of. Dr. Parkers justification for this is the study of MHD. Essentially, Dr. Parker, proposes a varient of “frozen in” magnetic fields in space plasma.
The problem, here, is that the scientist who developed MHD, Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize winner for his work on MHD, who first announciated the concept of “frozen in” magnetic fields in his original MHD work, later found out by continued experimental work that the concept of “frozen in” magnetic fields was incorrect. Alfven felt so strongly that the record needed to be corrected that he took the biggest moment of his life, his own Nobel Prize acceptance speech, to declare that his ideas on “frozen in” magnetic fields were wrong.
Dr. Parker includes in his hypothesis planetary magnetospheres and stars.
NASA’s in situ observations & measurements both of the Sun and the Earth’s magnetosphere contradict Dr. Parker’s hypothesis.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The reference I gave has nothing to do with the solar wind and how it is formed, but solely with dispelling the false notion that electric currents are causes of plasma flows.”
I respectfully disagree because 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.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “I do not think you can find a single scientist in the world today that will claim that there is a lot more energy coming from the Sun than we measure with calorimeters in space. The Earth itself absorbs energy the same way as our instruments, so you are postulating that the Earth picks up energy that our instruments cannot.”
Perhaps, scientists aren’t looking for this energy because they share the same assumptions that you hold, namely that it doesn’t exist — you can hardly expect someone to look for something they assume doesn’t exist.
As stated by Dr. Svalgaard, scientists use calorimeters positioned in space to measure irradiance, a diffused energy, and assume that whatever “hits” the calorimeter is representitive of what “hits” the Earth. This is an extrapolation, but is it warranted?
Irradiance, tends to be diffuse, but electrical energy tends to be collimated, in other words, directional and focussed, an example is the electric current in a wire, you can be right next to the wire, but not receive any of the energy, but get right in the course of the wire and you will get shocked and even heat up (think electric chair).
Birkeland currents, both the larger CME variety and the smaller “magnetic tornado” variety from the magneto tail are collimated flows of energy. The majority of their energy is not radiated, but transported in colimated directional currents. Unless a “space calorimeter” is right within the Birkeland current’s beam or path of electrical energy, the calorimeter will not observe & measure this electrical energy coming from the Sun to the Earth.
How much electrical energy is in these collimated Birkeland current “magnetic tornadoes”?
Answer: A lot!
NASA reports: “The team’s study reveals that magnetic blast waves can be used to pinpoint and predict the location where space storms dissipate their massive amounts of energy. These storms can dump the equivalent of 50 gigawatts of power, or the output of 10 of the world’s largest power stations, into Earth’s atmosphere.
The energy that drives space storms originates on the sun. The stream of electrically charged particles in the solar wind carries this energy toward Earth. The solar wind interacts with Earth’s magnetic field. Scientists call the process that begins with Earth’s magnetic field capturing energy and ends with its release into the atmosphere a geomagnetic substorm.
“Substorm onset occurs when Earth’s magnetic field suddenly and dramatically releases energy previously captured by the solar wind,” said David Sibeck, project scientist for the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions During Substorms (THEMIS) mission at NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center in Greenbelt, Md.” (see link below)
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/magnetic_tremors.html
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?
DavidW (10:06:31) :
“Is there a graph that has the last two years data or is that the most recent? It would be interesting to see the most current observation (as I appreciate the graph going back at least as far as it does for trending)”
Hi David — As far as I know, the UCLA/Mt. Wilson site has the most up-to-date data of that type.
————————————————-
Leif Svalgaard (10:24:00) :
“some comments on the graph:
1) The early data [pre-1985] are very noisy especially at high latitudes. That they look different is not solar effects
2) There is a [real] asymmetry between the hemispheres in that the rotate at slightly different rates [a few meters per second]. In extracting the TO, a common rotation rate was assumed, which makes the South appear faster [more red] and the North appear slower [more blue]. There likely is no such real difference in the TO. Perhaps Frank can comment on that?
3) At times you may see an annual variation. This is instrumental and not solar.”
Hi Leif — it was good to see you last week in Boulder at the SPD! I agree with your comments 1 and 3. As for comment 2, 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. The sunspot activity is certainly asymmetric, so I actually expect to see some differences in the TO as well. But we need to analyze the data.