Solar wind surprise: "This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down,"

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.

solarwind

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.

Heejeong Kim and Larry Lyons
Heejeong Kim and Larry Lyons

“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.”

###

Share

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

239 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 12, 2009 6:43 am

Ulric Lyons (06:10:57) :
I also see that there was a heliocentric alignment of Earth and Mercury nearly opposite to Jupiter, 10:00am 20th Jan.
Assuming you mean 10 am UT, there is also an alignment with my flat tire event precisely 24 hours later [taking into account the LOD anomaly and the phase shift of the Chandler Wobble].

September 12, 2009 6:45 am

kim (06:27:26) :
Have you tried integrating those events yet, Leif?
Let the ones that claim such events [I can supply more timing details on my flat tire event on request] do whatever analysis they need to do.

September 12, 2009 10:57 am

Woo-hoo! What do I win?
Walt (08:00:18) :
I predict that in 2009 we’ll start hearing more about the interplay of the Earth’s magnetic field and the solar wind and related from the Sun. While the magnetic field interplay may not contribute anything to the solar forcing, we will see new models discussing atmospheric ablation and upper atmospheric heat flow due to changes in the shape of Earth’s magnetosphere. This will factor in to heat loss in polar regions during times of a quiet sun. Quantifying auroral expressions for polar warming/cooling scenarios will become almost as popular as watching for sunspots.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/the-worst-climate-predictions-of-2008/

September 12, 2009 10:59 am

Leif
I said:
“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?”
You said; ‘Fairly large, and disastrous.’
Can you point me to any recent paper on the likelihood of such an event and the likely dramatic impact. As far as I can see we are taking no measures to move to Carrington proof systems, although we are monitoring what is happening.
Second question; How much notice would we receive of such an event?
thanks for your help
tonyb

Paul Vaughan
September 12, 2009 11:01 am
September 12, 2009 11:23 am

Leif Svalgaard (06:12:25) :
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.
The twisted magnetic ropes that NASA has observed migrate towards the N.Pole in N.Hemisphere winter time, and varying connections here are a likely cause of SSW`s.
This article shows a bowshock event that had profound effects at the poles:
Conduits over the Arctic and Antarctic quickly expanded; within minutes they overlapped over Earth’s equator to create the biggest magnetic breach ever recorded by Earth-orbiting spacecraft.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm

September 12, 2009 12:34 pm

TonyB (10:59:59) :
Can you point me to any recent paper on the likelihood of such an event and the likely dramatic impact. As far as I can see we are taking no measures to move to Carrington proof systems, although we are monitoring what is happening.

2008:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/06may_carringtonflare.htm
2009:
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/Other_Discoveries_from_Carrington's_Flare

September 12, 2009 12:59 pm

Ulric Lyons (11:23:27) :
This article shows a bowshock event that had profound effects at the poles:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm

This has nothing to do with the bowshock, but with reconnection to southward magnetic fields. Take it from me, I’m one of the world’s leading expects on geomagnetic activity [seriously!].
TonyB (10:59:59) :
Can you point me to any recent paper on the likelihood of such an event and the likely dramatic impact. As far as I can see we are taking no measures to move to Carrington proof systems, although we are monitoring what is happening.
It is hard to quantify when the next ‘500-year flood’ will arrive, except that it will come. Some of our thoughts on this may be found here:
http://www.leif.org/research/1859%20Storm%20-%20Extreme%20Space%20Weather.pdf
I’m sure a google search will turn up much more.
Second question; How much notice would we receive of such an event?
8 minutes and 19 seconds on average. Kid you not…

September 12, 2009 1:35 pm

leif
thanks, that is a great read.
tony b Second question; How much notice would we receive of such an event?
Leif Svalgaard; 8 minutes and 19 seconds on average. Kid you not…
tonyb GULP!

September 12, 2009 1:46 pm

Leif Svalgaard (12:59:58) :
Ulric Lyons (11:23:27) :
This article shows a bowshock event that had profound effects at the poles:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm
This has nothing to do with the bowshock, but with reconnection to southward magnetic fields. Take it from me, I’m one of the world’s leading expects on geomagnetic activity [seriously!].
June 3rd 2007 Venus conjunct Mercury (heliocentric), June 5th 2007 Jupiter conjunct Earth (heliocentric), any flat tyres then?

September 12, 2009 1:50 pm

Ulric Lyons (13:46:54) :
June 3rd 2007 Venus conjunct Mercury (heliocentric), June 5th 2007 Jupiter conjunct Earth (heliocentric), any flat tyres then?
The planets failed to deliver. They often do, except to the true believers. I guess I didn’t believe hard enough; not that I want flat tires, but it is good to know when to stay home hiding under a rock.

September 12, 2009 1:54 pm

TonyB (13:35:17) :
Second question; How much notice would we receive of such an event?
Leif Svalgaard; 8 minutes and 19 seconds on average.
tonyb GULP!

This is the time it takes light from the Sun to reach us. The solar wind disturbance will not arrive for another ~15 hours or so, but deadly solar energetic particles will be coming in a few minutes to hours after the event, which will take a day or so to play out.

tallbloke
September 12, 2009 2:32 pm

Leif Svalgaard (06:43:35) :
Ulric Lyons (06:10:57) :
I also see that there was a heliocentric alignment of Earth and Mercury nearly opposite to Jupiter, 10:00am 20th Jan.
Assuming you mean 10 am UT, there is also an alignment with my flat tire event precisely 24 hours later [taking into account the LOD anomaly and the phase shift of the Chandler Wobble].

Suggest your perception of the Chandler Wobble was actually the flat tyre starting to come off the rim as you coasted to the side of the road.

September 12, 2009 2:36 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:50:05) :
Ulric Lyons (13:46:54) :
June 3rd 2007 Venus conjunct Mercury (heliocentric), June 5th 2007 Jupiter conjunct Earth (heliocentric), any flat tyres then?
“The planets failed to deliver. They often do, except to the true believers. I guess I didn’t believe hard enough; not that I want flat tires, but it is good to know when to stay home hiding under a rock.”
Not at all, the breach in Earth’s magnetic field was on the 3rd June.

September 12, 2009 3:11 pm

Ulric Lyons (14:36:09) :
“The planets failed to deliver.
In the flat tire department, that was.

September 12, 2009 3:16 pm

Ulric Lyons (14:36:09) :
Not at all, the breach in Earth’s magnetic field was on the 3rd June.
Actually, there was no such breach at that time:
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2007,6,3
and one would expect that to happen 4 days later than any planetary effect on the Sun, but perhaps not too relevant as there was none.

September 12, 2009 4:24 pm

So the NASA report is wrong then?
“The magnetosphere is a bubble of magnetism that surrounds Earth and protects us from solar wind. Exploring the bubble is a key goal of the THEMIS mission, launched in February 2007. The big discovery came on June 3, 2007, when the five probes serendipitously flew through the breach just as it was opening. Onboard sensors recorded a torrent of solar wind particles streaming into the magnetosphere, signaling an event of unexpected size and importance.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm
There is no doubt the Sun was very active on 3rd June 2007 with three M class flares. http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20070606_1019/index.html

September 12, 2009 4:31 pm

Leif Svalgaard (15:16:56) :
Ulric Lyons (14:36:09) :
Not at all, the breach in Earth’s magnetic field was on the 3rd June.
Actually, there was no such breach at that time:
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2007,6,3
and one would expect that to happen 4 days later than any planetary effect on the Sun, but perhaps not too relevant as there was none.
Why would NASA say there was a breach then?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm

September 12, 2009 5:04 pm

Ulric Lyons (16:24:26) :
So the NASA report is wrong then?
No, just your interpretation of what they said.
The Interplanetary Magnetic Field connects with the Earth all the time [that is even the topic of this very thread!]. The significance of June 3rd is just that on that day the spacecraft were all lined up in such a way that they could observe such a connection event particularly well.
There is no doubt the Sun was very active on 3rd June 2007 with three M class flares.
Indeed it was, but it takes 4 days for the solar wind from that activity to reach the Earth.
Why would NASA say there was a breach then?
They said “the five probes serendipitously flew through the breach just as it was opening” so they were really talking about the probes just being in the right place at that time.

kim
September 12, 2009 6:36 pm

TonyB 10:59:59
My understanding is that the Carrington Event was the strongest such event in 5,000 years, so it may well be a once in 5,000 years, or so, event.
Leif 6:45:18
Fair enough. Any takers on integrating these events? Leif knows I wouldn’t be able to analyze the data unless maybe my life depended upon it. Does this valve run the spigot?
======================================

kim
September 12, 2009 6:39 pm

I’m really tiptoeing over the edge here, but if these events are somehow caused by the tiny tidal shifts caused by the motion around the barycenter, then the correlation with the movements of the planets might be explained.
Is that a hippogryph over there?
==============================================

DaveE
September 12, 2009 6:46 pm

Nasif Nahle (19:53:25) : 11.09
Thanks Nasif. I wasn’t aware of that.
DaveE.

September 12, 2009 7:49 pm

kim (18:39:20) :
if these events are somehow caused by the tiny tidal shifts caused by the motion around the barycenter, then the correlation with the movements of the planets might be explained.
There are no tidal effects associated with the barycenter as it has no mass. There are extremely tiny tidal effects caused by each planet.

a jones
September 12, 2009 8:21 pm

No Hippogryphs live in Wonderland.
THEY say it’s a nice place to visit but you wouldn’t want to live there.
Me, it’s the THEY I worry about.
Kindest Regards

kim
September 12, 2009 9:00 pm

Now, c’mon, Leif, sure a theoretical point in space has no mass, but the barycenter represents the center of mass of the solar system. I think you are starting to quibble, here. And yes, the tidal effects are tiny; so are the flares in comparison to the mass of the sun.
================================================