This gives a whole new meaning to “Total Solar Irradiance”. Instead of TSI, perhaps we should call the energy transfer that comes from the sun to the earth TSE for “Total Solar Energy” so that it includes the solar wind, the geomagnetics, and other yet undiscovered linkages. Jack Eddy is smiling and holding up the patch cord he’s been given at last, wondering how long it will be before we find all the connectors.
Scientists discover surprise in Earth’s upper atmosphere
From the UCLA Newsroom: By Stuart Wolpert
UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth’s magnetosphere. The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, could improve the safety and reliability of spacecraft that operate in the upper atmosphere.
“It’s like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down,” said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
The sun, in addition to emitting radiation, emits a stream of ionized particles called the solar wind that affects the Earth and other planets in the solar system. The solar wind, which carries the particles from the sun’s magnetic field, known as the interplanetary magnetic field, takes about three or four days to reach the Earth. When the charged electrical particles approach the Earth, they carve out a highly magnetized region — the magnetosphere — which surrounds and protects the Earth.
Charged particles carry currents, which cause significant modifications in the Earth’s magnetosphere. This region is where communications spacecraft operate and where the energy releases in space known as substorms wreak havoc on satellites, power grids and communications systems.
The rate at which the solar wind transfers energy to the magnetosphere can vary widely, but what determines the rate of energy transfer is unclear.
“We thought it was known, but we came up with a major surprise,” said Lyons, who conducted the research with Heejeong Kim, an assistant researcher in the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, and other colleagues.
“This is where everything gets started,” Lyons said. “Any important variations in the magnetosphere occur because there is a transfer of energy from the solar wind to the particles in the magnetosphere. The first critical step is to understand how the energy gets transferred from the solar wind to the magnetosphere.”
The interplanetary magnetic field fluctuates greatly in magnitude and direction.
“We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field,” Lyons said. “The closer to southward-pointing the magnetic field is, the stronger the energy transfer rate is, and the stronger the magnetic field is in that direction. If it is both southward and big, the energy transfer rate is even bigger.”
However, Lyons, Kim and their colleagues analyzed radar data that measure the strength of the interaction by measuring flows in the ionosphere, the part of Earth’s upper atmosphere ionized by solar radiation. The results surprised them.
“Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that’s wrong,” Lyons said. “Generally, it’s correct, but when you have a fluctuating interplanetary magnetic field, you can have substorms going off once per hour.
“Heejeong used detailed statistical analysis to prove this phenomenon is real. Convection in the magnetosphere and ionosphere can be strongly driven by these fluctuations, independent of the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field.”
Convection describes the transfer of heat, or thermal energy, from one location to another through the movement of fluids such as liquids, gases or slow-flowing solids.
“The energy of the particles and the fields in the magnetosphere can vary by large amounts. It can be 10 times higher or 10 times lower from day to day, even from half-hour to half-hour. These are huge variations in particle intensities, magnetic field strength and electric field strength,” Lyons said.
The magnetosphere was discovered in 1957. By the late 1960s, it had become accepted among scientists that the energy transfer rate was controlled predominantly by the interplanetary magnetic field.
Lyons and Kim were planning to study something unrelated when they made the discovery.
“We were looking to do something else, when we saw life is not the way we expected it to be,” Lyons said. “The most exciting discoveries in science sometimes just drop in your lap. In our field, this finding is pretty earth-shaking. It’s an entire new mode of energy transfer, which is step one. The next step is to understand how it works. It must be a completely different process.”
The National Science Foundation has funded ground-based radars which send off radio waves that reflect off the ionosphere, allowing scientists to measure the speed at which the ions in the ionosphere are moving.
The radar stations are based in Greenland and Alaska. The NSF recently built the Poker Flat Research Range north of Fairbanks.
“The National Science Foundation’s radars have enabled us to make this discovery,” Lyons said. “We could not have done this without them.”
The direction of the interplanetary magnetic field is important, Lyons said. Is it going in the same direction as the magnetic field going through the Earth? Does the interplanetary magnetic field connect with the Earth’s magnetic field?
“We thought there could not be strong convection and that the energy necessary for a substorm could not develop unless the interplanetary magnetic field is southward,” Lyons said. “I’ve said it and taught it. Now I have to say, ‘But when you have these fluctuations, which is not a rare occurrence, you can have substorms going off once an hour.'”
Lyons and Kim used the radar measurements to study the strength of the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere.
One of their papers addresses convection and its affect on substorms to show it is a global phenomenon.
“When the interplanetary magnetic field is pointing northward, there is not much happening, but when the interplanetary magnetic field is southward, the flow speeds in the polar regions of the ionosphere are strong. You see much stronger convection. That is what we expect,” Lyons said. “We looked carefully at the data, and said, ‘Wait a minute! There are times when the field is northward and there are strong flows in the dayside polar ionosphere.'”
The dayside has the most direct contact with the solar wind.
“It’s not supposed to happen that way,” Lyons said. “We want to understand why that is.”
“Heejeong separated the data into when the solar wind was fluctuating a lot and when it was fluctuating a little,” he added. “When the interplanetary magnetic field fluctuations are low, she saw the pattern everyone knows, but when she analyzed the pattern when the interplanetary magnetic field was fluctuating strongly, that pattern completely disappeared. Instead, the strength of the flows depended on the strength of the fluctuations.
“So rather than the picture of the connection between the magnetic field of the sun and the Earth controlling the transfer of energy by the solar wind to the Earth’s magnetosphere, something else is happening that is equally interesting. The next question is discovering what that is. We have some ideas of what that may be, which we will test.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard (14:40:13)
Paps 2006
The population of energetic particles in the heliosphere is modulated by the solar activity. At the solar minimum, the main sources of the energetic particles observed at 1 AU are:
1. The interstellar medium in the form of galactic cosmic rays observed at energies above 200 MeV for protons and above 3 MeV for electrons
2. The termination shock in the form of anomalous cosmic rays
3. The corotating interaction regions which accelerate electrons up to around 300 keV and ions up to a few MeV/nucleon; and
4. the Jovian magnetosphere that generates electrons observed at 1AU during quiet times in the range from a few hundreds keV to a few MeV.
Rusch, D. W., Gerard, J.-C., Solomon, S., Crutzen, P. J., and Reid,
G. C.: The effect of particle precipitation events on the neutral
and ion chemistry of the middle atmosphere-I. Odd nitrogen,
Planet. Space Sci., 29, 767–774,1981
William (06:38:43) :
1) I am thinking if the atmorsphere doesn’t store heat, then all of the discussion regarding climate change is irrelevant. But of course the notion that the atmosphere doesn’t store (contain) heat is an afront to science anyway. All matter stores some amount of heat energy, the atmosphere is made up of matter, therefore it stores some amount of heat. I do agree that the oceans store significantly more heat than the air; much denser matter.
2) I’m not sure I exactly understand what they’re looking at here. I thought the main issue with the diminished solar wind is that it allows cosmic radiation into the atmosphere, increasing the propensity for cloud formation, thus increased albedo. This somehow relates to the creation of aerosols which become the nuclei for water vapor condensation. I could be slightly off on my understanding though.
This article is about a different method of energy transference though; relating to the energy transfer between the the solar wind and the earth’s magnetosphere, and the relationship of the interplanetary magnetic field to that energy transference.
Leif
What do you think is the likelihood of another Carrington event of 1859 occurring, and if one did happen would that have a dramatic impact on our modern-electronically dependent- world?
Tonyb
Leif Svalgaard (14:40:13) :
I don’t know what you are trying to say, but I have rarely seen anything this muddled. The anomalous cosmic rays are simply ordinary neutral atoms that have exchanged an electron with solar wind protons lingering near the termination shock and can now be accelerated, but generally to much lower energies than the ‘regular’ galactic cosmic rays. Their energy density is so low that they have even less effect than the ‘regular’ solar wind. Please, how about some perspective here.
It is about the discovery of anomalous interstellar cosmic rays by the Voyagers at the Termination Shock. It shows how the predictions of Vidal Madjar et al on this issue were correct and it is clear signal that the solar system has penetrated into a cosmic cloud probably originated by a supernova.
Incidentally, the fluctuations of the interstellar cosmic rays coincide very closely to the variations of temperature during the period 2002-2007.
Gary Plyler (13:36:55) :
“As an engineer, I have to put things into perspective. Being excited about an amount of energy 3 or more orders of magnitude smaller than the total energy transfer is just silly.”
Comparison of the magnitude of flux A over flux b is irrelevant,the question that one asks is does the inclusion of an additional parameter(s) alter the composition , or perturb the non equilibrium steady state( in regard to symmetry breaking) and effect the chemical composition of the upper atmosphere.
eg
Modeling of JHR influence on the circulation and ozone concentration in
the middle atmosphere
Zubova, *,V., E.Rozanovb,d, A.Shirochkovc, L.Makarovac, T.Egorovab,d, A.Kiselev a,
Yu.Ozolin a, I. Karola and W. Schmutzb
Abstract
A Chemistry Climate model is used to evaluate of the possible influence of Joule heating induced by the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) elements on the ozone concentration and dynamics of the Earth atmosphere. The Joule heating rates in the stratosphere are parameterized on the base of the time series of the solar wind and IMF parameters taken from the NASA database (King,1999) for 1996. The results of the 10-year-long model run with the additional Joule source of heat are compared with the output of the unperturbed(control) 10-year-long model run. Both simulations are performed in equilibrium mode with prescribed boundary conditions and for the minimum of the 11-year solar cycle. The comparison of the model outputs shows that the simulated atmosphere is rather sensitive to the introduced Joule heating. The most significant changes were found in the lower stratosphere of the Northern Hemisphere (NH). The NH lower-stratospheric temperature increases by 1-3 K almost throughout the whole year with the significance level at 95% or higher. In boreal summer the changes of the ozone concentration are anti-correlated with the temperature as expected from the gas phase photochemical theory. In boreal autumn and spring the variations of the ozone mixing ratio can be affected not only by the local temperature changes but also by the redistribution of the meridional circulation in the stratosphere. In the Southern Hemisphere (SH) the additional Joule heating leads to a significant increase of the stratospheric temperature for the austral winter (~2K). The most substantial SH ozone changes (~10%) are found in the lower stratosphere during the austral spring.
tallbloke (23:33:53) :
My only reason for doubting this is that it would make Jupiter a net energy source.
I’m open to being corrected.
DaveE.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/06may_carringtonflare.htm
DaveE (18:21:48) :
tallbloke (23:33:53) :
Jupiter emits more energy than it absorbs. There are a couple of Russian papers on Jupiter’s effect on the heliospheric current sheet and IMF.
My only reason for doubting this is that it would make Jupiter a net energy source.
I’m open to being corrected.
DaveE.
Pioneer and Voyager starships confirmed this puzzle, which has been notified many years before from onground observations of the planet. Jupiter also emits a strong flux of electrons which also can cause “eddies” (turbulences) of the solar wind. So, Jupiter has its own source of energy, apparently, because it emits twice the energy it absorbs from the Sun.
James F. Evans (08:59:23) :
Svalgaard: “It is more than a thousand times smaller…[than TSI]”
Evans: “Does this mean, Dr. Svalgaard, that you subscribe to Man-made Global warming?”
Svalgaard: “It means that the solar wind energy in a thousand times smaller than the 2W/m2 that was mentioned. You be the judge. To me it shows that the solar wind is not the cause of ‘global warming’.”
I asked you, Dr. Svalgaard, a direct question.
But you dodge answering in a direct fashion.
Not what I would normally expect from a scientist.
Dr. Svalgaard, it appears you are playing both sides against the middle.
It is a precarious position for a scientist to take.
One could conclude by that kind of evasive answer, that you do, indeed, subscribe to Man-made Global warming.
But let me not be guilty of putting words in your mouth, so let me ask the direct question, again:
Do you, Dr. Svalgaard subscribe to Man-made Global warming?
tallbloke (08:53:02) :
savethesharks (20:55:44) :
It was January 21st and a HUGE and historic Suddent Stratospheric Warming event occurred in conjunction with the large GRB of the same date.
And on the same date, this:
Massive bowshock on magnetosphere
Coincidence?
Doesn’t look like a coincidence to me. Looks like a damn good correlation.
I’m not sure what Leif’s flat tire has to do with it, however.
The “flat tire” incident: Non-sequitur. Does not follow.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Alan Cheetham (11:06:07) “See the following for an examination of the influence of the earth and solar magnetic fields on global temperatures: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm “
Alan, thanks very much for the clues you have assembled. I hope Scafetta is aware of your webpage (as it may give him cause to pause).
I suggest that you include Figure 15 from here:
Johnston, D.P. (2008). An alternative view of global warming.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Johnston_MagneticGW.pdf
Have you read Yu.V. Barkin? The reason I ask: I am concerned that confounding is being overlooked in assigning “causes” (for example in Johnston (2008)). [This would explain some of the belligerent resistance.]
There are simple and complex explanations for the “excess” of energy emitted by the gaseous giant:
1. Shrinking by gravitational force (feasible; however, the shrinking rate is quite small, so the feasibility is quite small).
2. Water near its core (so, so).
3. Residual energy available since its formation (feasible)
4. Chemical reactions in its interior (a bit unfeasible).
5. A source of radioactivity in its interior (a feasible possibility by QT).
Leif Svalgaard (13:19:05) : I have steel-belted radials, so should have been Ok, but more to the point, geomagnetic activity and solar wind data were not unusual at that time: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2009%2C1%2C20 so nothing happened in the magnetosphere at that time.
Hmmm…..this was also from NICT at the very same time. Go figure.
Maybe it was just a big-ass flare.
Or perhaps it corresponded with this….maybe so…maybe not:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Magnetar_Observed_During_Outburst_Thanks_To_Rapid_Response_Of_INTEGRAL_999.html
http://news.skymania.com/2009/06/exploding-death-star-rocks-earth.html
The point is….none of this has anything to do with a flat tire.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Its an exuberant piece but I didn’t get much sense of the magnitude of any effects on climate – degree of warming, cloud making, etc.
maksimovich (14:57:34) :
4. the Jovian magnetosphere that generates electrons observed at 1AU during quiet times in the range from a few hundreds keV to a few MeV.
So what? Particles, e.g. GCRs can travel upwind. Electromagnetic effects cannot. The effect on the Earth of Jupiter emitting electrons should be even bigger than that on the Sun. As usual, one has to take into account how large [or rather how small] an energy is involved.
TonyB (15:51:36) :
What do you think is the likelihood of another Carrington event of 1859 occurring, and if one did happen would that have a dramatic impact on our modern-electronically dependent- world?
Fairly large, and disastrous.
Nasif Nahle (15:55:00) :
it is clear signal that the solar system has penetrated into a cosmic cloud probably originated by a supernova.
So what? I was once inside a supernova.
Incidentally, the fluctuations of the interstellar cosmic rays coincide very closely to the variations of temperature during the period 2002-2007.
The fluctuations of interstellar cosmic rays coincide also very closely to the variations of temperature last week.
maksimovich (16:45:14) :
the additional Joule heating leads to a significant increase of the stratospheric temperature
And to an increase of the temperature in the thermosphere by 1000 degrees. In both cases, these effects have little of nothing to do with our climate.
Nasif Nahle (19:53:25) :
Jupiter also emits a strong flux of electrons which also can cause “eddies” (turbulences) of the solar wind. So, Jupiter has its own source of energy, apparently, because it emits twice the energy it absorbs from the Sun.
‘strong’? No, not compared with the number of electrons emitted by the sun. again, lack of perspective.
James F. Evans (20:00:18):
Do you, Dr. Svalgaard subscribe to Man-made Global warming?
Of course. Doesn’t everybody? The only question is ‘how much?’ and THAT we don’t know. Or perhaps you know, or consider ‘the science settled’?
Nasif Nahle (20:18:48) :
There are simple and complex explanations for the “excess” of energy emitted by the gaseous giant
Even the Earth emits more than it receives. The only questions, again, is ‘how much?’ and what effect Jupiter shine has on the Earth [or the even less on the Sun].
savethesharks (20:29:08) :
Hmmm…..this was also from NICT at the very same time. Go figure. Maybe it was just a big-ass flare.
There were no flares either. The simulation uses real-time data, and the data providers always warn against drawing any conclusions from such as they contain spikes and glitches, tha are removed by quality control.
Leif Svalgaard (22:35:21) : “There were no flares either. The simulation uses real-time data, and the data providers always warn against drawing any conclusions from such as they contain spikes and glitches, that are removed by quality control.”
Thanks for confirming that. Must have been something else then.
There is nothing in this video that looks like a glitch.
Maybe a spike….and a big one.
If its not a flare…then what it is it?
What do you see before your eyes in this video??
Your expert opinion is appreciated.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
savethesharks (23:07:30) :
There is nothing in this video that looks like a glitch.
Here are the solar wind data (density, speed, temperature) for some hours around the glitch:
2009 01 21 1900 5.2 406.2 8.74e+04
2009 01 21 2000 5.6 399.1 8.93e+04
2009 01 21 2100 5.0 400.8 8.35e+04
2009 01 21 2200 4.6 407.9 6.61e+04
2009 01 21 2300 5.5 414.9 7.79e+04
2009 01 22 0000 3.7 406.6 5.66e+04
2009 01 22 0100 4.1 408.3 6.05e+04
2009 01 22 0200 4.1 409.9 5.38e+04
2009 01 22 0300 3.9 408.6 4.91e+04
2009 01 22 0400 4.2 401.4 5.33e+04
Nothing special.
Leif Svalgaard (22:35:21):
Note: Leif’s arguments in bold characters.
Nasif Nahle (15:55:00):
it is clear signal that the solar system has penetrated into a cosmic cloud probably originated by a supernova.
So what? I was once inside a supernova.
Of course, we were once inside a supernova. But now we are not just particles collapsing gravitationally, but more complex systems which are affected by the alterations of our surroundings. In the section of conclusions, from their article, Vidal-Madjar and colleagues wrote a significant prediction:
“The presence of a nearby cloud might also affect the physical conditions inside the solar system… an encounter with a cloud might not only affect the neutrino flux released from the Sun but also have some drastic influence on the terrestrial climate in the next 10^4 years.”
Incidentally, the fluctuations of the interstellar cosmic rays coincide very closely to the variations of temperature during the period 2002-2007.
The fluctuations of interstellar cosmic rays coincide also very closely to the variations of temperature last week.
This demonstrates that the correlation ICR-Earth’s temperature is real. Nevertheless, five years represents a longer period than one week.
Nasif Nahle (19:53:25):
Jupiter also emits a strong flux of electrons which also can cause “eddies” (turbulences) of the solar wind. So, Jupiter has its own source of energy, apparently, because it emits twice the energy it absorbs from the Sun.
’strong’? No, not compared with the number of electrons emitted by the sun. Again, lack of perspective.
Everything depends on the eye of the beholder. We have not detected any other planet which emits a relative amount of energy, not in the same proportion, as Jupiter does.
Let me tell you something, Leif: I don’t think that Jupiter has an internal source of energy of the radioactive kind, although I don’t discard a very low probability. I think it is residual energy left over since its formation.
Nasif Nahle (20:18:48):
There are simple and complex explanations for the “excess” of energy emitted by the gaseous giant
Even the Earth emits more than it receives. The only questions, again, is ‘how much?’ and what effect Jupiter shine has on the Earth [or the even less on the Sun].
Yes, you are right; nonetheless, Jupiter emits twice the energy it receives from the Sun. This gives us an idea about the magnitude of the thermal phenomenon happening in Jupiter.
I am not asking about the solar wind data.
I am asking about this:
When are you going to explain what you see before your eyes on this NICT video??
What is it??
Leif Svalgaard (22:35:21) :
“4. the Jovian magnetosphere that generates electrons observed at 1AU during quiet times in the range from a few hundreds keV to a few MeV.
So what? Particles, e.g. GCRs can travel upwind. Electromagnetic effects cannot. The effect on the Earth of Jupiter emitting electrons should be even bigger than that on the Sun. As usual, one has to take into account how large [or rather how small] an energy is involved.”
I presume you meant the effect from the sun should be greater,Up to 40 MeV jovian electron are dominant population eg Pamela experiment Casolino and others
“The Jovian magnetosphere is a powerful accelerator of electrons up to several tens of MeV as observed at first by Pioneer 10 spacecraft (1973). The propagation of Jovian electrons to Earth is affected by modulation due to Corotating Interaction Regions (CIR). Their flux at Earth is, moreover, modulated because every 13 months Earth and Jupiter are aligned along the average direction of the Parker spiral of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field.”
I did not mention EM effects.nor is it suggested the Jovian electrons are causal mechanism however electron precipitation does effect the ozone and hence stratospheric temperature. eg E. Rozanov et al
We have introduced additional NOy sources caused by energetic electron precipitation (EEP) during 1987 into a Chemistry-Climate model. Comparison of two model runs with and without EEP reveals increase of reactive nitrogen by about 2 ppbv in the middle stratosphere over the tropical and middle latitudes. In the upper stratosphere over the polar winter regions the simulated NOy enhancement reaches 10 ppbv. Decreases of the ozone mixing ratio in the stratosphere by up to 5% over midlatitudes and up to 30% over southern high-latitudes are calculated. A ∼0.5 K cooling in the middle stratosphere over the tropics and up to 2 K over southern high-latitudes is calculated with detectable changes in the surface air temperatures. These results confirm that the magnitude of the atmospheric response to EEP events can potentially exceed the effects from solar UV fluxes. These mechanisms work in phase outside polar latitudes, but can compensate each other within polar latitudes.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023041.shtml
Leif Svalgaard (23:44:15) :
savethesharks (23:07:30) :
There is nothing in this video that looks like a glitch.
Here are the solar wind data (density, speed, temperature) for some hours around the glitch:
Leif, I’m absolutley willing to accept the video is just showing a glitch, but I’m interested to know what sort of event could cause a bowshock of that magnitude, and whether such a bowshock could indeed split the polar vortex in two as happened during the sudden stratospheric warming event which coincidentally occurred at the same time as the ‘bowshock'(real or not) seen in the videao.
Interesting that January 20/21st shock event, it was immediately followed by a Sudden Stratospheric Warming in the Arctic.
http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/cgi-bin/times?plot=temps&alert=1
I also see that there was a heliocentric alignment of Earth and Mercury nearly opposite to Jupiter, 10:00am 20th Jan.
savethesharks (00:16:00) :
When are you going to explain what you see before your eyes on this NICT video?? What is it??
Since it is you who brought the video into the discussion, you should know. Anyway, if the solar wind density jumped up abruptly from 5 protons/cc to, say 500, we would see something similar. Missing data is encoded as 999 and should be ignored [or interpolated using neighboring good values]. If missing data was used, then we would see something similar, namely an abrupt compression of the magnetosphere.
tallbloke (01:22:36) :
whether such a bowshock could indeed split the polar vortex in two
The polar vortex is not up there where it is influenced by the bowshock events, so I would say “no”. Occasionally, cosmic rays [e.g. from the Sun or perhaps from the GRB] generate spurious data [e.g. the streaks and snow you see on images of the corona during a solar storm], so a coincidence in timing may just be something like that. Ask NICT to run the simulation again, but with ‘scrubbed’ data, if this is deemed to important.
maksimovich (01:12:27) :
I did not mention EM effects.nor is it suggested the Jovian electrons are causal mechanism
Since what you post are often disconnected snippings without further commentary, it is hard to guess what you suggest. That you post something is you me an implicit suggestion of some sort of causal connection. I have by now forgotten why Jupiter was important in the topic, but would assume it was because somebody thought that Jupiter shining [EM or electrons] on the Sun [or the Earth] would modulate solar activity or climate [or weather?]. From energy considerations I maintain that that is highly unlikely, unless the claimant shows how it could happen.
Have you tried integrating those events yet, Leif?
=============================