From NOAA news: NOAA Scientist Finds Clue to Predicting Solar Flares
Forecasters at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
For decades, experts have searched for signs in the sun that could lead to more accurate forecasts of solar flares — powerful blasts of energy that can supercharge Earth’s upper atmosphere and disrupt satellites and the land-based technologies on which modern societies depend. Now a scientist at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center and her colleagues have found a technique for predicting solar flares two to three days in advance with unprecedented accuracy.
The long-sought clue to prediction lies in changes in twisting magnetic fields beneath the surface of the sun in the days leading up to a flare, according to the authors. The findings will be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters next month.
“For the first time, we can tell two to three days in advance when and where a solar flare will occur and how large it will be,” said lead author Alysha Reinard, a solar physicist at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center and the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, a partnership between NOAA and the University of Colorado.
Twisting magnetic fields beneath the surface of the sun erupt into a large solar flare, as shown above.
High resolution (Credit: NSF)
The new technique is already twice as accurate as current methods, according to the authors, and that number is expected to improve as they refine their work over the next few years. With this technique, reliable watches and warnings should be possible before the next solar sunspot maximum, predicted to occur in 2013. Currently, forecasters see complex sunspot regions and issue alerts that a large flare may erupt, but the when-and-where eludes them.
Solar flares are sudden bursts of energy and light from sunspots’ magnetic fields. During a flare, photons travel at the speed of light in all directions through space, arriving at Earth’s upper atmosphere—93 million miles from the sun—in just eight minutes.
Almost instantly the photons can affect the high-orbiting satellites of the Global Positioning System, or GPS, creating timing delays and skewing positioning signals by as much as half a football field, risking high-precision agriculture, oil drilling, military and airline operations, financial transactions, navigation, disaster warnings, and other critical functions relying on GPS accuracy.
“Two or three days lead time can make the difference between safeguarding the advanced technologies we depend on every day for our livelihood and security, and the catastrophic loss of these capabilities and trillions of dollars in disrupted commerce,” said Thomas Bogdan, director of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.
Reinard and NOAA intern Justin Henthorn of Ohio University pored over detailed maps of more than 1,000 sunspot groups, called active regions. The maps were constructed from solar sound-wave data from the National Science Foundation’s Global Oscillation Network Group.
Reinard and Henthorn found the same pattern in region after region: magnetic twisting that tightened to the breaking point, burst into a large flare, and vanished. They established that the pattern could be used as a reliable tool for predicting a solar flare.
“These recurring motions of the magnetic field, playing out unseen beneath the solar surface, are the clue we’ve needed to know that a large flare is coming—and when,” said Reinard.
Rudi Komm and Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory contributed to the research.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources. Visit us on Facebook.
Note to Editors: The paper has been accepted for publication in Astrophysical Journal Letters in February: “Evidence that temporal changes in solar subsurface helicity precede active region flaring,” by Alysha Reinard, Justin Henthorn, Rudi Komm, and Frank Hill.
tallbloke (11:53:14) :
from 23 October to 4 November 2003
Often you see flares on the limb before you can see the spot.
Just how big was the x flare on the 22nd?
X1.0: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/dimages/gxr1day/20031022.gif
The flare happened as 2000 UT, so late in the day.
tallbloke (11:53:14) :
from 23 October to 4 November 2003
There is a major flaw in Hung’s reasoning as far as prediction is concerned: If it is required that the final flare in a series be ~30 degrees [something], then you won’t know until the 30-degree condition is fulfilled AND there is a major flare there, if the flares on the many days before that will be caused by planets, so the foreknowledge you don’t have cannot be used to predict any of the flares.
Leif Svalgaard (11:59:11) :
No, those folks are ‘busy’ [and some are even smart] and not prone to spend time being educated. You get them to support you by showing them an example [and only one] of a case where your analysis leads to an interesting and solid RESULT that is useful.
Given that NASA forced Ferenc Miscolczi to resign after he objected to his boss pulling his second paper off JGR’s submissions site for proving the non-existence of the enhanced co2 effect, we can see that NASA is wedded to the co2 global warming dogma. Thus they are unlikely to take kindly to our project.
Leif Svalgaard (12:16:15) :
tallbloke (11:53:14) :
from 23 October to 4 November 2003
There is a major flaw in Hung’s reasoning as far as prediction is concerned: If it is required that the final flare in a series be ~30 degrees [something], then you won’t know until the 30-degree condition is fulfilled AND there is a major flare there, if the flares on the many days before that will be caused by planets, so the foreknowledge you don’t have cannot be used to predict any of the flares.
Once again, you are confusing the analysis in table III with the predictions in appendix D.
tallbloke (12:30:59) :
Once again, you are confusing the analysis in table III with the predictions in appendix D.
Once again, there are no predictions and there cannot be, since there has to be a flare first [and at the end of a series] in order to predict anything, as per the table.
tallbloke (12:30:59) :
confusing the analysis in table III with the predictions in appendix D.
The analysis of table III is claimed to be the basis for the predictions of appendix D, but appendix D contains no predictions. Table V is a hindcast, showing actual flares, not predicted flares. There must be thousands of case when planets are within ‘range’, and at solar max there are always spots on the Sun, so a valid test would include thousands of cases in the half century covered by table III. No wonder, Hung’s ‘method’ is not used by anybody. Or are we all confused?
[Sigh]
Appendix D
Trial Forecast of Solar Flares
The appearance of the previous largest known solar flares followed a pattern, which is described in
this report and again described briefly in the next paragraphs. It is hoped that this pattern can be used to
forecast future large solar flares. A practical way to test this possibility is to use the observed pattern to
make repeated trial forecasts in the coming months or years, and then compare the forecasts with the fact
that are subsequently observed. This appendix describes the first of such trial forecasts and comparisons.
Based on data from past events, when giant sunspot groups appear it is seen that the largest solar
flares (X9.0 and larger)
(A) are most likely to start when these sunspot groups rotate into a region where at least one of the
four tide-producing planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, or Jupiter) is either overhead or underfoot (within
10° longitude)
(B) are also likely to start when these sunspot groups are at 28° to 32° longitude away from the
overhead or underfoot points of at least one of the four tide-producing planets
(C) are least likely to occur when these sunspot groups are at 36° longitude or further away from the
overhead or underfoot points of all these four planets
tallbloke (12:30:59) :
confusing the analysis in table III with the predictions in appendix D.
From Table V one can see that there are planets ‘in range’ every day when a spot group crosses the disk. This is generally the case [with rare exceptions] for all groups, so there should be thousands of cases to look at, like here:
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2000,07,02
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2000,06,05
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2000,05,09
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=1999,11,02
tallbloke (13:02:51) :
Trial Forecast of Solar Flares [is it time for the Parrot Scketch again?]
Appendix D contains no table with predicted flares.
Now the proper way of predicting flares assuming his method works would be to compute a synoptic chart e.g. like this: ftp://solis.nso.edu/synoptic/level3/vsm/www_images/snsm.jpg of the Sun’s surface covering each rotation. The points [zones and belts] where the planets are overhead or underfoot will form a structure on the map [from the number of planets and the width he mentions, that structure will cover a good fraction of the map; if it covers 1% of the map, the method will be good, if 99% it will be useless. My estimate is some 25%]. The prediction is now that whenever a sunspot group appears within the structure it will flare. All these charts can be easily computed backwards and forwards in time for hundreds of years. Now plot all observed flares [we have many decades of data] on the chart for the time of the flare. Finally, compute the density [number of flares per 10 square degrees, say] and show that that density is much higher within the structure than outside [if it is only a bit higher, say 10% the method is no good]. You can do this for all flares, or only for flares larger than whatever you want. This would have been science.
Leif Svalgaard (11:59:11) “Find an example where you CAN make a claim that your methods leads to UNDERSTANDING.”
I have those – & they have recently attracted some funding.
I wrote up the JEV-R thing first because it was the least interesting ‘result’ (in conventional-mainstream terms) in my draft-files. My aim was to “get it out of the way first”. Unfortunately, it “tied me up at committee” – (on something I didn’t want to spend time on) – lesson learned.
The challenge with the other (more conventional mainstream) work is that climate is so politically charged that some robust results are not exactly welcomed by (all) key gatekeepers.
Paul Vaughan (14:05:42) :
some robust results are not exactly welcomed by (all) key gatekeepers.
The trick there is to ‘prostitute’ oneself and give specific gatekeepers what they want… some people do this, others can afford not to…
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (22:05:18) :
quotes: Oliver K. Manuel (21:15:09) :
‘Did Leif forget that the camera used 171 Å filters to see emissions from iron ions, Fe (IX) and Fe (X)’
“No, but that has nothing to do with what the dominant ions are. . . . . . Other filters are used . . to see the He(II) ions at 304 Å. The latter gives us a view at a temperature of ~70,000 K, but does not prove that the Sun consists entirely of Helium.”
OKM reply: Perhaps Leif noticed that Helium (He) and Hydrogen (H) comprise the fluid veneer of lightweight elements that covers the very top of the Sun’s atmosphere.
On the other hand, Iron (Fe) is in the rigid, mountainous material that the TRACE satellite recorded of a flare and mass ejection from solar Active Region AR 9143 on 28 August 2000:
http://tinyurl.com/y9sobnu
Look at the movie again, Leif, to see if you notice a difference between:
a.) The rigid, mountainous features of the Sun’s Iron-rich material, and
b.) The fluid, structureless Helium-rich material floating on the very top of the Sun’s atmosphere.
If you cannot “see” the difference, you may want to ask one of your students or research assistants to view the movie with you.
Thank you for acknowledging that the observation of light emitted by Helium “does not prove that the Sun consists entirely of Helium.”
The same is true for Hydrogen.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Paul Vaughan (14:05:42) “[…] some robust results are not exactly welcomed by (all) key gatekeepers.”
Leif Svalgaard (14:15:13) “The trick there is to ‘prostitute’ oneself and give specific gatekeepers what they want…”
Unpalatable – but simple.
Leif Svalgaard (14:15:13) “some people do this, others can afford not to…”
For those who can afford some degree of luxury: a matter of choosing battles wisely.
Thanks for the various notes.
Leif Svalgaard (14:05:12) :
tallbloke (13:02:51) :
Trial Forecast of Solar Flares [is it time for the Parrot Scketch again?]
Appendix D contains no table with predicted flares.
It contains a table with the flares that occurred after the prediction was made, along with a description of how the prediction turned out in comparison.
TABLE V.—PLANET POSITIONS RELATIVE TO POSITION OF SOLAR FLARE EVENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH SUNSPOT GROUP 960 IN JUNE 2007
[Recorded by satellites GOES10 and GOES11.]
(a) Large solar flares were forecasted to start between late June 3 and early June 5, 2007, when the
sunspot group 960 was rotated to overhead point of Mercury and Venus. They would also have been very
likely to start on June 7 or 8, 2007, when the sunspot group was rotated to the position overhead of Earth
and Jupiter.
As shown in table V, the largest solar flare (M8.9) for sunspot group 960 actually started at 5:06 a.m.
UT on June 4, within the first forecasted time period, but there was no large solar flare in the next
forecasted period (June 7 to 8). Instead, this second forecasted period was crowded with seven smaller
(C-class) flares. It appears that the decaying sunspot group could not produce a large solar flare but was
still strong enough to act with the tide to produce many smaller flares throughout this period.
(b) Based on the previous pattern, large solar flares would also have started when the sunspot group
was 28° to 32° from any of the four tide-producing planets. These happened from late on June 1 to early
on June 2, midday on June 5, midday and late on June 6, and midday on June 9.
Table V shows there were indeed solar flares in all of these time periods, when the sunspot group 960
was 28° to 32° from one or two of the four tide-producing planets. It is noted that the solar flare at
10:17 p.m. UT on June 1 happened as forecasted when the event position was 29° from Venus. However,
it was 25° from Mercury, not the forecasted 28° to 32° range. Separately, the M1.0 solar flare on June 9 is
most interesting because it happened at the time when the sunspot group had been significantly decayed
for 5 days since the last M flare, and a new M-class flare looked less and less likely. Yet it was correctly
forecasted based on the rules presented here when it started at 29° longitude from Jupiter at the start time
of the flare.
(c) Large solar flares would have been least likely to occur both before June 1 and after midday on
June 10, when the sunspot group was more than 36° longitude from all tide-producing planets.
Evans (12:07:46) wrote: “To explain the physical processes of “magnetic reconnection” is to explain electro-magnetic processes…[rather an “Electric Double Layer process, a process that encompasses magnetic fields, electric fields, plasma flows, and charged particle acceleration of free electrons and ions in opposite directions.”]
Dr. Svalgaard (12:22:59) responded: “This is not an electric-magnetic process. And I thought we had already closed that discussion: The energy is a release of magnetic energy stored in the field. Every well-versed physicist knows this… You can forget about the double layers. There are sometimes observed in the debris from reconnection, but play no role otherwise.”
The following quotes are from the peer-reviewed paper: Magnetopause reconnection impact parameters from multiple spacecraft magnetic field measurements published 30 October 2009.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040228.pdf
“Discrepancies between the measured components of E [electric field] and the corresponding components of v B [magnetic field] after a careful error analysis signify a nonideal electric field. We intend to show in a subsequent paper that the Cluster electric field and particle flow data for this event satisfy the criteria for a parallel electric field.”
“With the instantaneous coordinate system and the parallel electric field established, one can place particle moments, such as velocities, pressures, and temperatures, as well as magnetic and electric field measurements…”
The presence of parallel electric fields are exactly why Electric Double Layers are named as such because they have “parallel electric fields” at the heart of their structure.
Further from the paper:
“Sufficiently accurate ion and electron moments and electric field measurements within this coordinate system delineate ion and electron diffusion regions.”
The electric field…delineate ion and electron diffusion regions.”
(Which is also at the heart of “magnetic reconnection”, aka Electric Double Layer Process.”
Dr. svalgaard wrote: “There [double layers] are sometimes observed in the debris from reconnection…”???
The description in the paper puts this “parallel electric field” right at the heart of the process, the “X-line”, hardly just “debris”.
But to put it in clearer relief, the following is the caption for a schematic of “magnetic reconnection” from the peer-reviewed paper, Recent in-situ observations of magnetic reconnection in near-Earth space published 11 October 2008:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008GL035297.pdf
Figure 1. “(bottom [schematic, page 2 of 7] ) : “Zoom-in on the region around the X-line, with the ion and electron diffusion regions indicated by the shading and the rectangular box, respectively. The quadrupolar Hall magnetic field is pointing in and out of the plane of the figure. The Hall electric field is shown by the red arrows, while the blue arrows mark the oppositely directed jets in the outflow regions. Note that entry and acceleration occur all the way along the current sheet. Figure courtesy of Marit Oieroset.”
To see the schematic in Figure 1. it is on the second page of seven of the PDF, please go to the link above of the paper:
You’ll see that the “Hall electric field is shown by the red arrows” surrounds the X- line at the heart of the “reconnection” structure”.
Electric fields are certainly not periphery or simply “debris”. Actually, the “parallel electric fields”, where double layers get their name are right on both sides of the X – region.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “This is not an electric-magnetic process. And I thought we had already closed that discussion…”
Scientific discussions are never closed, but ongoing as observations & measurements come available.
Gee, Dr. Svalgaard, from the above quotes from the papers there sure is an “electric” part of the process, and a “magentic” part of the process, too.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Even the double layers that are at times postulated to occur in the Earth’s ionosphere are far from where the reconnection takes place, way out in the magnetotail.”
Funny, it seems the “parallel electric fields”, the structure that gives them their name, “double layers” because of electrons and ions lined up across from each other and form an “electric potential drop”, is central to the charged particle acceleration of the electrons and ions in opposite directions out the exhaust jets as noted in Figure 1.
And these processes have been observed & measured in the Earth’s magnetotail.
So, it would seem my original description, “a process that encompasses magnetic fields, electric fields, plasma flows, and charged particle acceleration of free electrons and ions in opposite directions”, matches up with the descriptions and schematic provided in the “magnetic reconnection” papers.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “You really should come to grips with modern space physics.”
Perhaps, Dr. Svalgaard, you need to reconsider.
Evans wrote: “and NASA hasn’t quite come to grips with that, or they have privately, but know any public clarification will upset the astronomy community — their most important constituency.”
Dr. Svalgaard responded: “I think there are other websites where you can peddle your conspiracy theories.”
You are twisting my statement. I was suggesting that there is a lot of political pressure involved which might make NASA hold back from any official pronouncements.
Although, we know NASA considers electro-magnetic processes in terms of the solar system’s plasma dynamics, as NASA discusses electromagnetic processes in their Stargazers website: To review here is the website:
http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/sun_earth_background.htm
Judging by your hostile reaction to my assertion of Electric Double Layers, I can see why NASA would be reluctant in this area, obviously, it is contentious and NASA can be cautious.
Dr. Svalgaard: “…where you can peddle your conspiracy theories.”
That comes across as nothing but an attempted smear rather than any constructive dialogue.
The evidence is clear and convincing for the assertion that “magentic reconnection” and Electric Double Layers are the same physical process.
I wonder, Dr. Svalgaard, if you are falling into a hole of your own making:
[snip]
Something to consider…
Oliver K. Manuel (14:26:00) :
Thank you for acknowledging that the observation of light emitted by Helium “does not prove that the Sun consists entirely of Helium.”
The same is true for Hydrogen.
And for Iron.
The spectral line one choose to observe in says nothing about the composition of the bulk of the Sun.
There is no ‘rigid’ structure. It only looks so because the elapsed time is so short. How long would that rigid structure last, do you reckon?
tallbloke (15:48:06) :
It contains a table with the flares that occurred after the prediction was made, along with a description of how the prediction turned out in comparison.
No prediction was made. I don’t see a table of predictions. To say that a very large sunspot group will flare is no prediction at all.
James F. Evans (16:02:03) :
The presence of parallel electric fields are exactly why Electric Double Layers are named as such because they have “parallel electric fields” at the heart of their structure.
Nonsense, there can be double layers without magnetic fields.
The electric field…delineate ion and electron diffusion regions.”
Which is what reconnection requires and maintains. No ‘aka’ here.
Gee, Dr. Svalgaard, from the above quotes from the papers there sure is an “electric” part of the process, and a “magentic” part of the process, too.
Yes that was a typo. You have said ‘electro-magnetic’. This term is used by physicists almost exclusively about electromagnetic waves, e.g. light.
I was suggesting that there is a lot of political pressure involved which might make NASA hold back from any official pronouncements.
I have never heard about such and I work closely with many inside NASA.
The evidence is clear and convincing for the assertion that “magnetic reconnection” and Electric Double Layers are the same physical process.
Interestingly enough, no modern papers make that connection, in particular the paper you referred to above. And if the two processes are the same, then why your reluctance to simply just call them what everybody else does: ‘magnetic reconnection’? To keep using outdated terminology is just going to confuse you and your followers.
I wonder, Dr. Svalgaard, if you are falling into a hole of your own making
Your wonderment is not of my concern.
Leif Svalgaard (18:32:25) quotes: Oliver K. Manuel (14:26:00) :
Thank you for acknowledging that the observation of light emitted by Helium “does not prove that the Sun consists entirely of Helium.”
The same is true for Hydrogen.
And Responds:
1. “And for Iron. The spectral line one choose to observe in says nothing about the composition of the bulk of the Sun.”
2. “There is no ‘rigid’ structure. It only looks so because the elapsed time is so short.”
3. “How long would that rigid structure last, do you reckon?”
– – – –
1. The relative intensity of spectral lines have been used for many decades to determine the composition of top of the Sun’s atmosphere.
I agree that those spectral lines say “nothing about the composition of the bulk of the Sun.”
Yes, and the TRACE camera was able to see rigid, mountainous features – unlike the fluid material at the top of the Sun’s atmosphere – when it used 171 Å filters to see light from Iron ions, Fe (IX) and Fe (X).
2. The rigid, iron-rich, mountainous material stayed in place while the fluid, iron-poor material rapidly vented upward.
How could you overlook that in this recording of a flare and mass ejection from solar Active Region AR 9143 on 28 August 2000
http://tinyurl.com/y9sobnu
Do any other readers fail to see the motion?
3. The rigid iron-rich structures lasted a lot longer than the fluid iron-poor material that vented upward.
Seriously, Leif, I think you have a problem with your vision if you do not see the iron-poor material venting upward from iron-rich rigid structures in this TRACE recording of a flare and mass ejection from solar Active Region AR 9143 on 28 August 2000
http://tinyurl.com/y9sobnu
Hang in there, Leif. Tell your NASA bosses that you deserve extra pay for effort!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Evans (16:02:03) wrote: “The presence of parallel electric fields are exactly why Electric Double Layers are named as such because they have “parallel electric fields” at the heart of their structure.”
Dr. Svalgaard replied: “Nonsense, there can be double layers without magnetic fields.”
A non-responsive answer because the issue is the presence of parallel electric fields, not whether all double layers have magnetic fields — and all double layers with flowing plasma will have magnetic fields:
“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory
A quote from the “magnetic reconnection paper: “The electric field…delineate ion and electron diffusion regions.”
Dr. Svalgaard replied: “Which is what reconnection requires and maintains. No ‘aka’ here.”
A flowing plasma double layer has an electric field that delinates an ion and electron diffusion region (an ion and electron acceleration region), so, yes, also known as is appropriate.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “You have said ‘electro-magnetic’. This term is used by physicists almost exclusively about electromagnetic waves, e.g. light.”
Apparently, NASA uses the term “electromagnetic” when discussing plasma dynamics:
“ELECTOMAGNETISM
In the late 1700s and early 1800s many scientists and philosophers believed that all forces of nature had the same source. This was especially easy to believe about electricity (see Electricity) and magnetism (see Magnetism). Both phenomena seemed to have two kinds of something – a positive and a negative charge or a north and a south pole. In addition, like charges and poles repel and unlike charges and poles attract. It was noted that compass needles could be affected by lightening strikes and Benjamin Franklin had reported that he had magnetized needles with a stored electric current. However, no firm evidence existed that linked electricity and magnetism until Hans Christian Oersted performed a critical experiment during a lecture in 1820.”
No mention of “light”, or electromagnetic waves, or more specifically the “electromagnetic wave spectrum” Just “electromagnetism”:
http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/electromagnetism.htm
If the term “electromagnetism” is good enough for NASA, I’ll use the term as well. And why does NASA refer to “electromagnetism”? Because as the above passage indicates “electromagnetism” expresses the concept that electric fields and magnetic fields interact with each other and on many occasions are both present in dynamic processes.
To put my use of “electromagnetism” in context, I’ll present the word in the passage I used it:
Evans (12:07:46) : “NASA can’t explain it [“magnetic reconnection”] because the causation process is fundamentally an electromagnetic process and astronomy is in denial about the fundamental importance of electric fields and plasma flow in space plasma phenomenon.”
(But apparently, NASA judging by their website understands and acknowledges “electromagnetic” processes are at work in space plasma within the solar system.)
So-called “magnetic reconnection”, [aka Electric Double Layers], as the peer-reviewed published papers attest is an electro-magnetic process, electric fields and magnetic fields, which interact with each other, so the use of the term “electromagnetism” as an adjective to describe the noun, “magnetic reconnection”, a process being a noun, is appropriate.
Evans wrote: “I was suggesting that there is a lot of political pressure involved which might make NASA hold back from any official pronouncements.”
Dr. Svalgaard: “I have never heard about such and I work closely with many inside NASA.”
Perhaps, the people you work with are not involved with that issue.
All I know is that when given a chance to publically comment on “magnetic reconnection” those researching it stated:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/31aug_mms.htm
“It’s ubiquitous [“magnetic reconnection].
The problem is, researchers can’t explain it.”
“But how? How does the simple act of crisscrossing magnetic field lines trigger such a ferocious explosion?”
And given your reaction to my use of the term Electric Double Layer and the published peer-reviewed papers which speak for themselves, observing & measuring electric fields and magnetic fields interacting, and even “parallel electric fields”, something is going on there.
Dr. Svalgaard: “Interestingly enough, no modern papers make that connection, in particular the paper you referred to above. And if the two processes are the same, then why your reluctance to simply just call them what everybody else does: ‘magnetic reconnection’?
One, I don’t accept the premise of your question, there are astrophysicists that use the term double layer, Dr. Anthony L. Peratt being one of them; but, also, the term “magnetic reconnection” obfuscates the true physical nature of the process, which is a process where magnetic fields and electric fields interact and are sustained by a flow of plasma, free electrons and ions, and has parallel electric fields and the process accelerates electrons and ions and generates electric currents.
Electric Double Layers is a more appropriate descriptive & explanatory term.
Leif Svalgaard (14:15:15) October 29, 2009:
Dr. Svalgaard presented Evans statement: “Frankly, the descriptions [of “magnetic reconnection”] are consistent with a plasma ‘double layer’”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Of course, nobody doubted that for a second. These double layers are generated in currents resulting from plasma moving in a magnetic field.”
Let me put my statement and Dr. Svalgaard’s response in proper context:
James F. Evans (13:35:15) Oct. 29, 09 : “…Frankly, the descriptions are consistent with a plasma ‘double layer’, as stated in the abstract: “The simulations reveal that the dissipation region develops a two-scales tructure: an inner electron region and an outer ion region.”
This “inner electron region and an outer ion region” is an exact description of a double layer. See double layer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
Dr. Svalgaard: “Of course, nobody doubted that for a second. These double layers are generated in currents resulting from plasma moving in a magnetic field.”
Why have you been so obdurate when you already have acknowledged that double layers are “magnetic reconnection”?
Leif Svalgaard (18:35:43) :
tallbloke (15:48:06) :
It contains a table with the flares that occurred after the prediction was made, along with a description of how the prediction turned out in comparison.
No prediction was made.
Ching Cheh Hung: “This appendix describes the first of such trial forecasts and comparisons”
I don’t see a table of predictions.
Ching Cheh Hung: “the data are summarized in table V.”
Tallbloke: “It contains a table with the flares that occurred after the prediction was made, along with a description of how the prediction turned out in comparison.”
To say that a very large sunspot group will flare is no prediction at all.
Ching Cheh Hung: “(A) are most likely to start when these sunspot groups rotate into a region where at least one of the
four tide-producing planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, or Jupiter) is either overhead or underfoot (within
10° longitude)
(B) are also likely to start when these sunspot groups are at 28° to 32° longitude away from the
overhead or underfoot points of at least one of the four tide-producing planets
(C) are least likely to occur when these sunspot groups are at 36° longitude or further away from the
overhead or underfoot points of all these four planets
These three rules were good in the past, but will they hold true in the future? The first opportunity to
answer this question came when the very large sunspot group 960 rotated into the east limb of the solar
disk on June 1, 2007, and the precondition for the above three rules was met (giant sunspot group
appeared).”
The prediction was that the flare occurrences would be consistent with rules A, B, and C. And they did indeed turn out to be so, as detailed in Table V. Although Hung hasn’t had the opportunity to spend more time on this as far as we know, it looks like a promising line of investigation into the relationship between solar activity and the angular relationships between the sun and the orbiting planets.
Hung’s paper:
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330
Further discussion in a less combative environment:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/what-is-the-solar-planetary-theory/
Oliver K. Manuel (22:07:32) :
How could you overlook that in this recording of a flare and mass ejection from solar Active Region AR 9143 on 28 August 2000
http://tinyurl.com/y9sobnu
Do any other readers fail to see the motion?
I can see it. I know the clip is only 2 seconds long, but obviously it is time lapsed.
Does anyone know what period of time the clip covers? Several hours? Minutes?
Oliver K. Manuel (22:07:32)
2. The rigid, iron-rich, mountainous material stayed in place while the fluid, iron-poor material rapidly vented upward.
How could you overlook that in this recording of a flare and mass ejection from solar Active Region AR 9143 on 28 August 2000
http://tinyurl.com/y9sobnu
Do any other readers fail to see the motion?
Being a woman and a fairly good cook, I would not presume to say that the surface caught by this instance of venting is solid ( if the times are real times).
Thick soups vent H2O loaded with traces of the soup and settle back and after a while the traces of the bubbling disappear.
I would like to see the same coordinates for the next day and over a year before I could call something solid. I mean the man on the moon is there smiling at us since forever and we have given names to the features, mare this and that. That is solid. There are no permanent features on the sun as far as I know.
Since the picture sees iron I do not know why you call the vent iron poor. It would be invisible. If I filter red, I see red, etc.
Yes, I see motion, but cannot extract what you think you are seeing just by looking at the link you provide. Something vented that carried iron. Are there no other filters for this event? Even in these three seconds I can see the secondary “bubbles” settling, this does not bode well for solid. When a volcano erupts the neighboring land does not change in seconds.
Interesting video. thanks.
Clive E Burkland (16:55:16) :
Vuk mentions a NASA report on a 27 day period in the solar wind, this might be different to the 20-30 day observation in TSI fluctuations outside of sunspot activity.
I remember a story on WUWT dealing with a 27 day frequency picked up on earth via grids used to measure lightning. They were suggesting it was a solar signal.
Has there been a comparison of both data sets?
Leif Svalgaard (18:01:50) :
Clive E Burkland (16:55:16) :
Has there been a comparison of both data sets?
I don’t think so. There are lots of physical parameters that vary with an approximate 27-day quasi-period, so any number of plausible reasons can be put forward, but would be of little practical significance, except on the very occasions where the current is really huge. (snip)
My reply:
links to the original story…
http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10921
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091111142518.htm
I had been hopeful that there would be a direct indication of the connection of 27 day lunar declinational cycle, having an effect on the atmosphere asw they all were in sync with the magnetic rotation of the sun’s fields.
But the jist of the article insinuates that it is solely an effect of the deflection of the VLF waves in the atmosphere and is not an indicator of the total power of lightning strikes varying in response to the solar rotation.
(article quote)
Waxing and waning, every 27 days
Using Very Low Frequency (VLF) wire antennas that resemble clotheslines, Prof. Price and his team monitored distant lightning strikes from a field station in Israel’s Negev Desert. Observing lightning signals from Africa, they noticed a strange phenomenon in the lightning strike data — a phenomenon that slowly appeared and disappeared every 27 days, the length of a single full rotation of the Sun.
“Even though Africa is thousands of miles from Israel, lightning signals there bounce off Earth’s ionosphere — the envelope surrounding Earth — as they move from Africa to Israel,” Prof. Price explains. “We noticed that this bouncing was modulated by the Sun, changing throughout its 27-day cycle. The variability of the lightning activity occurring in sync with the Sun’s rotation suggested that the Sun somehow regulates the lightning pattern.”
He describes it as akin to hearing music or voices from across a lake: depending on the humidity, temperature and wind, sometimes they’re crystal clear and sometimes they’re inaudible. He discovered a similar anomaly in the lightning data due to the changes in Earth’s ionosphere — signals waxed and waned on a 27-day cycle. Prof. Price was able to show that this variability in the data was not due to changes in the lightning activity itself, but to changes in Earth’s ionosphere, suspiciously in tandem with the Sun’s rotation.
Taking the pulse of the Sun
The discovery describes a phenomenon not clearly understood by scientists. Prof. Price, an acclaimed climate change scientist, believes it may help scientists formulate new questions about the Sun’s effect on our climate. “This is such a basic parameter and not much is known about it,” says Prof. Price. “We know that Earth rotates once every 24 hours, and the moon once every 27.3 days. But we haven’t been able to precisely measure the rotation rate of the Sun, which is a ball of gas rather than a solid object; 27 days is only an approximation. Our findings provide a more accurate way of knowing the real rotation rate, and how it changes over time,” he says. (/quote)
I was wondering about duration. Unfortunately the link does not have timing as this does http://www.spacew.com/m8ha.mpg, which lasts about a minute and a half.
So my questioning still holds. These are short time frames.