From Spaceweather.com with apologies to Linus and Charles Schulz
The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) is tracking an enormous magnetic filament on the sun. It stretches more than one million kilometers from end to end, which makes it an easy target for backyard solar telescopes. For the seventh day in a row, an enormous magnetic filament is hanging suspended above the surface of the sun’s southern hemisphere. The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) has a great view. How long can it last? Solar filaments are unpredictable. If this one collapses and hits the stellar surface, the impact could produce a powerful Hyder flare.
The most recent SOHO image is here
Hyder Flares: from Australian IPS 1. What is a Hyder flare?
Flares are intense brightenings that occur in the solar chromosphere. Flares are generally observed from Earth using narrow band filters, typically with a bandwidth of less than 0.1 nm, and often centred on the Hydrogen-Alpha wavelength of 656.3 nm. (Flares also have counterparts, that is, sudden outbursts, in the radio and X-ray spectrum).
Most flares occur around active regions associated with sunspot groups. However, occasionally a flare (sudden brightening) is observed well away from an active region or sunspot group. These flares are invariably associated with the sudden disappearance of a large (thick, long, ‘bushy’) dark solar filament, and are termed Hyder flares.
2. Why are Hyder flares so named?
Max Waldmeier wrote a paper in 1938 which described the phenomenon of suddenly disappearing filaments (disparition brusque), and mentioned that these can be associated with flare-like brightenings, but it was left to Charles Hyder to postulate the first comprehensive mechanism for the such flares.
Following on work from his doctoral thesis with the University of Colorado in Boulder (1964), Hyder published two papers in the second volume of the journal Solar Physics (1967) in which the mechanism by which Hyder flares might occur was discussed in detail. Hyder was then on the staff of the (US) Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories at the Sacramento Peak Observatory in New Mexico.
It was these papers in Solar Physics by which Hyder’s name became associated with the flares in question, even though he was by no means the first to observe them.
3. What are the characteristics of Hyder flares?
As previously mentioned, the name Hyder flare is given to a flare that occurs away from an active region or sunspot group and that is associated with the sudden disappearance of a dark filament. The appearance of these flares can range from a string of bright knots on one or both sides of the filament (or rather, the position previously occupied by the filament, sometimes called the filament channel), to a single or double ribbon flare. The ribbons are parallel to the filament channel. If only one ribbon is present, it will lie to one side of the channel, whereas if two parallel ribbons occur, one ribbon will lie on one side of the filament channel, and the other ribbon will lie on the opposite side.
One interesting characteristic of Hyder flares is that they usually develop or rise to maximum brightness much more slowly than do the more common flares associated with active regions. The larger Hyder flares may take 30 to 60 minutes to rise to a peak intensity, and then they may last for several hours. Although they may attain a large area, they usually have a relatively low intensity. Thus, classifications for a large Hyder flare may read 2F, 2N or possibly even 3F. This contrasts to an active region flare in which 3F is very rare. An active region flare that attains sufficient area to put it into the importance class 3, will invariably have either a Normal or more usually a Brilliant brightness classification.
X-ray flares and radio (microwave) bursts associated with the optical Hyder flare, are also generally long lived phenomenon and are classified as the gradual rise and fall type of event (in contrast to the impulsive and complex events associated with large active region flares).
Generally Hyder flares are not associated with energetic particle emission or geomagnetic storms (implying that they may not be associated with a coronal mass ejection). However, this is not always the case, as a large halo CME observed by the LASCO solar coronagraph on board the SOHO spacecraft was most definitely associated with a Hyder flare (2N/M1) observed on 12 September 2000. This same complex also appeared to have produced energetic protons at geosynchronous orbit with energies in excess of 100 MeV, and in substantial numbers at energies of 10 MeV. It is believed that the sudden storm commencement observed at 0450UT 15 September, and the subsequent minor geomagnetic storm was produced by this particular CME.
4. What produces Hyder flares?
Hyder’s explanation of the flare type now named after him depended on the observational evidence that (1) often the flare was a parallel ribbon flare with one ribbon each side of the filament channel, and (2) that geomagnetic storms were not associated with these flares. This led to the speculation that the filamentary material was not ejected far into the corona, but in fact fell back to the chromosphere producing the flare.
Stable or quiescent filaments are believed to lie in and along a magnetic trough. It is thought that the sudden disappearance of such a filament is due to a reconfiguration of the field. In essence, the magnetic trough becomes a magnetic ridge (the bottom of the trough elevating in a period of tens of minutes to become the peak of the ridge). In this process, the filamentary material (cooler gas) is thought to be accelerated into the corona. Hyder’s explanation is that, in the case of the Hyder flare, some or even most of the filament material, instead of suffering acceleration and ejection, falls down the sides of the magnetic ridge and interacts with the lower chromospheric material producing the flare. If the infall process is symmetrical, then the double parallel ribbon flare will result, if asymmetrical, then only one ribbon results. If the infall is sporadic, or the material insufficient, then only bright knots of flare are produced. Hyder did calculations to show that the kinetic energy of the infalling material should be sufficient to provide the required flare energy release observed.
Of late, the Hyder mechanism has come into question. Some people (notably Zirin) have questioned whether infall occurs, stating that the magnetic reconfiguration must always produce ejection. The respective roles of flares and CME’s in solar active processes has also been hotly debated, and this has implications for the exact mechanism of Hyder flares. We certainly have enough observational evidence to show that Hyder flares can be associated with both CME’s and energetic particle production. For the moment, the question of Hyder flare production mechanism appears unresolved, and will probably be sidelined until the more significant (and undoubtedly related) issue of CME – flare production mechanism is sorted out.
The bottom line is that at this stage in solar physics we do not really know what produces a flare nor what produces a CME. There are competing theories, but all tend to have deficiencies with respect to matching the observational evidence. We certainly believe that they all depend on the reconfiguration of magnetic fields as their primary energy source, but in the final analysis, we really only believe this because we can conceive of no other solar energy source of sufficient magnitude.
Jim Steele:
Dr. Svalgaard is wrong.
Filaments are an expression of electric current just as the paper stated: “…depending on the internal electric current of the filament.”
It is important to understand that filaments and prominences are the same.
Once one understands that filaments and prominences are the same structure it becomes clear that, indeed, filaments are plasma flows possessed of electric currents:
From NASA:
“Filaments are formed in magnetic loops that hold relatively cool, dense gas suspended above the surface of the Sun,” explains David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. “When you look down on top of them they appear dark because the gas inside is cool compared to the hot photosphere below. But when we see a filament in profile against the dark sky it looks like a giant glowing loop — these are called prominences and they can be spectacular.”
http://spaceweather.com/glossary/filaments.html
Why?
Because Coronal Mass Ejections (CME’s) are often observed developing from prominences (filaments):
Per Wikipedia:
“A typical CME has a three part structure consisting of a cavity of low electron density, a dense core (the prominence, which appears as a bright region on coronagraph images) embedded in this cavity, and a bright leading edge. It should be noted, however, that many CMEs are missing one of these elements, or even all three.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection
Per Carlqvist and Hannes Alfven address the issue in a peer-reviewed published paper:
Title: Energy source of the solar wind (1980)
Journal: Astrophysics and Space Science
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/Ap%2BSS/0071/0000203.000.html
Partial Abstract: “A direct transfer of energy from photospheric activity to the solar wind by means of electric currents is discussed. Currents are assumed to flow in quiescent prominences [filaments, as discussed in the instant post] which occasionally erupt and give rise to expanding loop-like structures in the corona…[CME’s]”
Futher:
“1. Electric Current Models of Cosmic Plasma Phenomenon”
“A model of magnetized plasma can be based either on a magnetic field description or on an electric field description.”
[As expressed by Maxwell’s equations where electric fields and magnetic fields have a reciprical physical relationship. Dr. Svalgaard chooses to only use the magnetic field description and exclude the electric field description. Hannes Alfven acknowledges that both descriptions are valid.]
“The study of these alternative approaches (Alfven, 1968, 1979a) shows that the current description is necessary for the understanding of the formation of double layers, explosive phenomenon, and transfer of energy from one region to another.”
[Dr. Svalgaard rejects using the electric current model for understanding energy transfer from one region to another]
[Double layers in plasma as Hannes Alfven stated are necessary to understand many plasma phenomenon:]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
Continuing with the Carlqvist & Alfven paper:
“We base our model on the current model of solar prominences and solar flares. If photospheric motion in the presence of magnetic fields produces a voltage differences between two points of intersection of a magnetic field line with the photosphere, a current starts to flow along this line. Due to drift motions caused by crossed electric and magnetic fields, matter from the corona is sucked in by this current so that a prominence [filament] is formed.”
So, Alfven and Carlqvist are clear, filaments are flowing plasma consisting of electric current.
Let’s cite two scientific papers that are more recent:
Title: Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits
Submission August 6, 2009
“A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
To highlight:
“This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents.”
And further:
Title: Driving Currents for Flux Rope Coronal Mass Ejections
Submitted on 23 Oct 2008
“We present a method for measuring electrical currents enclosed by flux rope structures that are ejected within solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Such currents are responsible for providing the Lorentz self-force that propels CMEs. Our estimates for the driving current are based on measurements of the propelling force obtained using data from the LASCO coronagraphs aboard the SOHO satellite. We find that upper limits on the currents enclosed by CMEs are typically around $10^{10}$ Amperes. We estimate that the magnetic flux enclosed by the CMEs in the LASCO field of view is a few $\times 10^{21}$ Mx.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4210
To highlight:
“We present a method for measuring electrical currents enclosed by flux rope structures that are ejected within solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs).”
Remember, Coronal Mass Ejections, are a “stretched out” filament or prominence that eventually explodes.
When one considers Dr. Svalgaard’s earlier comments where he expressed the sentiment that anybody who presents Alfven’s ideas is anti-science and dangerous, one understands why Dr. Svalgaard persists in denial about the role of electric currents, and that quiescent prominences or filaments are flowing plasma animated by electric currents as stated by Alfven & Carlqvist.
It’s a shame that Dr. Svalgaard’s judgment is clouded by such animosity.
Suranda (10:43:51) :
Will you cosmology cowboys help me please to discern what this is:
http://www.mijnalbum.nl/GroteFoto-YH7MMXEV.jpg
and this:
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/02/25/ahead/cor2/2048/20100225_100935_n7c2A.jpg
Thank you!
Skylurker Suranda
~
Hmmm Skylurker, good questions. Dust on one and codes and secret writing on the other? lol dunno
Hello Leif
Can you comment on the accuracy of this article;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3869753.stm
and the study it cites?
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf
James F. Evans (16:57:19) :
..Let’s cite two scientific papers that are more recent:
Title: Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits
Submission August 6, 2009
“A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.”
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.0813v1.pdf
~
Thanks James, this article just finished printing and is now in 3rd place on my list of reads. I see it is out of the European community Germany, Postsdam. Should be a good read. Thanks.
Leif, you in?
Or don’t even tell us old hat now?
WOZZ 93.5 now playing Heart “Straight On.”
Carla (18:43:30) :
Leif, you in?
Sure, the fact that currents and magnetic fields are mentioned in the same papers is irrelevant to the issue. The way Nature works is quite simple [although the details are messy]: gravity or temperature gradients cause plasma with equal number of positive and negative charges to move around. Magnetic fields are everywhere, and when the plasma is forced by gravity or temperature across magnetic field lines, electric fields are generated. If enough free charges are present, electric currents will flow that will neutralize the electric fields [‘the battery going flat’], unless the plasma movements continue to generate the emf. All energetic effects are caused by the thus generated currents.This is well-known and accepted by everybody who knows event the least of physics.
What Evans is advocating is quite different, namely that gigantic electric currents criss-cross the Universe [without specifying where they come from] generating magnetic effects, solar energy even, flares, you name it. This view, the Electric/Plasma Universe is simply wrong and pure nonsense. They often claim that 99.999…% [with an unspecified number of 9s] of the Universe is a plasma. Even that is wrong, the percentage is in single digits. There was even a time [for about a million years after 380,000 years ago] when the temperature of the Universe dropped below 2967K when there was no plasma at all anywhere in the Universe. Etc, etc, etc. The whole thing is pseudo- and anti-science almost as sublime as Oliver’s. and as I said, a blot on our proudest achievement. It is tiresome to have to point that out again and again, so perhaps it is time simply to let it fall under its own weight. The sad thing is that it probably won’t, as the public will rather drink the Koolaid than think for themselves.
Carla (18:43:30) :
Evans even understands so little that he cites a paper that states: “This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents”. Just as I said. What he is missing, but the paper, of course, is not, is that those motions must be across magnetic field lines for currents to be generated as I have tried to explain to him so many times. Just waving a piece of copper wire [or any other conductor, e.g. a plasma] in the air imagining for a second that the Earth didn’t have a magnetic field] does not generate electric currents.
Suranda (14:31:24) :
There seems to be a humongous amount of transmission errors of late, yes?
The spacecraft is nearing the end of its life [has long ago exceeded its ‘nominal’ life span], so these failures will become more and more frequent, until one day the systems will go completely dead.
Just The Facts (18:21:44) :
Can you comment on the accuracy of this article;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3869753.stm
It and the other paper are based on finding by Lockwood et al. extending a study of me long ago [see: http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf ], that the sun’s magnetic field has more than doubled in the last 100 years. Recent results, both by Lockwood and by me [and others] have shown that this conclusion is in error. The calibration of the cosmic ray data that was based on that erroneous conclusion is therefore not valid, and there is today very little support for the notion that we are [or have been] at a 1000 year or 10,000 year [or whatever large number people quotes] high in solar activity.
Leif Svalgaard (21:08:10) :
Do you see any significant correlations between solar activity and Earth’s temperature?
Just The Facts (21:48:11) :
Do you see any significant correlations between solar activity and Earth’s temperature?
No, although there must be a small contribution [of the order of 0.1K] due to varying TSI. This contribution is so small that it is hard to measure conclusively.
Leif Svalgaard (22:04:59) :
Do you see any basis for Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1542332/Cosmic-rays-blamed-for-global-warming.html
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/i23/p5004_1
Just The Facts (22:24:58) :
Do you see any basis for Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis?
The data does not support it:
1) cosmic ray intensity has been flat since 1950s [apart from the 11-yr period that hardly shows up in temperatures]
2) Examining the largest Forbush Decreases shows no effect
3) the effect is supposed to work though the albedo, but the latter does not show any marked solar cycle effect.
Again, it is possible that there is a very small effect that we have not been able to detect yet, so the mechanism may be viable although its amplitude may be small.
Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t see any significant correlation between solar activity and Earth’s temperature.
Right. After this stunning revelation, why would anybody pay attention to whatever Dr. Svalgaard has to say?
Leif Svalgaard (22:48:43) :
I struggle with the possibility that variations in the local G-type main sequence star do not have significant impacts on Earth’s climate system.
What do you think of the possibility that variations in solar activity impact Earth’s climate system through mechanisms that we have yet to discover?
Alexander Feht (23:24:38) :
“Right. After this stunning revelation, why would anybody pay attention to whatever Dr. Svalgaard has to say?”
I think it’s probably because Leif is one of the foremost solar scientists in the world.
The dumbing down that he represents (Evans) is a blot on the greatest human achiement: The understanding of our Universe.
Statements like these cause one to question the recent statement “I think it’s probably because Leif is one of the foremost solar scientists in the world.”
It astounds me the effort expended to quell any opposing views. Surely not good science and more akin to the recent Climate Gate fiasco.
Aren’t highly energetic cosmic rays being created by that thang which isn’t supposed to be there being referred to as “local fluff”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/26/voyager-tells-us-we-live-in-a-fluffy-interstellar-cloud/
Clive E Burkland (01:33:02) :
The dumbing down that he represents is a blot on the greatest human achiement: The understanding of our Universe.
Statements like these cause one to question the recent statement “I think it’s probably because Leif is one of the foremost solar scientists in the world.”
It astounds me the effort expended to quell any opposing views. Surely not good science and more akin to the recent Climate Gate fiasco.
~
Who better to help refine EU thought than Leif? There is no squelch to the opposing view. The opposing view is frequently stated here and debated.
~
Suranda (04:56:17) :
Aren’t highly energetic cosmic rays being created by that thang which isn’t supposed to be there being referred to as “local fluff”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/26/voyager-tells-us-we-live-in-a-fluffy-interstellar-cloud/
~
Gotta watch out for those little cloudlettes wafting by and clipping your heliosphere bubble from time to time. *esp. if they were once attached to a G cloud or ah something. heh Maybe the local cavity isn’t so consistent and uniform throughout but has structure some behind us too! providing perhaps a look into the past as well as into the future.
WOZZ for George Harrisons birthday played Traveling Wilburys, “End of the Line.” It’s all right…
Good video ..good song.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqhdRs4jyA
Just The Facts (23:35:06) :
I struggle with the possibility that variations in the local G-type main sequence star do not have significant impacts on Earth’s climate system.
The variation is very small and has thus a very small effect. If the ‘increase’ in temperature since 1965 is mainly due to artificial adjustments rather than being real [see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/ ] then there is even less evidence that the high solar activity during that time had any climate effects.
What do you think of the possibility that variations in solar activity impact Earth’s climate system through mechanisms that we have yet to discover?
Before we introduce [or believe in] mechanisms not yet discovered we should be relatively certain there is something to be explained, and as I just pointed out, any solar effects seem very elusive. But I guess that one might maintain that impacts not yet discovered could be explained by mechanisms also not yet discovered.
Suranda (04:56:17) :
Aren’t highly energetic cosmic rays being created by that thang which isn’t supposed to be there being referred to as “local fluff”
some are, but only a few, the vast majority come from far away, mainly galactic supernovae.
Clive E Burkland (01:33:02) :
It astounds me the effort expended to quell any opposing views.
Anti-science is not a valid ‘opposing view’. Dissent is critical to good science, but the dissent has to be scientifically valid. If I come up with a new theory that the Moon is made of green cheese, then that is not a valid opposing view and Lunar scientists should rightfully oppose me, although chances are that they will just ignore my nonsense, and perhaps I should just ignore the EU/PU nonsense as well. I’ll try to do that [for a while].
I think it’s probably because Leif is one of the foremost solar scientists in the world.
You are entitled to think whatever you want. You thinking it, however, doesn’t make it a fact.
One of the foremost solar scientists in the world says that there is no significant correlation between solar activity and Earth’s temperature. Therefore, it must be so.
I am going to sleep naked in the snow from now on: what do I care about solar activity or lack of it? The foremost scientist in the world told us it doesn’t matter.
Cool song Carla, but I may need to wait an hour to play that one again ~ I’m listening to Radio New Zealand right now (evacuating Banks Peninsula) ~ the Pacific (as well as Hawaii) is going to be hit with a tsunami effect of that EQ in Chile. Solar connection? Mag seems to be very calm right now.
As for the heliosphere, from what I can see it looks like she’ll be coming around the bend and maybe not so alright! I guess I need another sip of my Kool Aid.
You guys/gals are amazingly optimistic considering your field of expertise (the Sun)!
Suranda (09:47:21) :
Cool song Carla, but I may need to wait an hour to play that one again ~ I’m listening to Radio New Zealand right now (evacuating Banks Peninsula) ~ the Pacific (as well as Hawaii) is going to be hit with a tsunami effect of that EQ in Chile. Solar connection? Mag seems to be very calm right now.
As for the heliosphere, from what I can see it looks like she’ll be coming around the bend and maybe not so alright! I guess I need another sip of my Kool Aid.
You guys/gals are amazingly optimistic considering your field of expertise (the Sun)!
As for the heliosphere, from what I can see it looks like she’ll be coming around the bend and maybe not so alright! I guess I need another sip of my Kool Aid.
~
Hey no koolaid before lunch. But I can see and hear what you are saying. Tx fro the update tsunami.
Certainly, Carla. No worries! (I wish) I’ll stay tuned to Radio NZ and let you know (should hit the Chatham Islands first in about half an hour).
Here’s good live coverage for Hawaii:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/category.asp?C=176904&nav=menu55_1_1
and live beach webcams in HI:
http://hawaiianbeachcams.com/beachcams/livecams/lanikai.html
Carla (18:43:30) :
Thank you very much for providing the full peer-reviewed paper:
Title: Generation of Large Scale Electric Fields in Coronal Flare Circuits
Authors: H. One and G. J. Mann, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam
Published: Cen. Eur. Astrophys. Bull. (2009)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.0813v1.pdf
It is informative and interesting reading.
Anybody who wants to have a better understanding of the physical explanation of CME’s (and filaments) is well advised to read and study this paper.
Dr. Svalgaard (20:48:31) stated: “What Evans is advocating is quite different, namely that gigantic electric currents criss-cross the Universe [without specifying where they come from] generating magnetic effects, solar energy even, flares, you name it. This view, the Electric/Plasma Universe is simply wrong and pure nonsense. They often claim that 99.999…% [with an unspecified number of 9s] of the Universe is a plasma. Even that is wrong, the percentage is in single digits.”
Carla, notice Dr. Svalgaard skips over without comment the fact that he was previously asserting that the filaments did not have an “internal electric current” or that the filament did not express an electric current.
But the Carlqvist & Alfven paper and the full paper you, Carla, provided make quite clear that in fact filaments are an expression of flowing plasma that constitutes electrical current.
Carla, one has to ask, themself, why Dr. Svalgaard was so determined to obscure this fact that he was willing to mislead readers. And, if so, how much credibility should readers give Dr. Svalgaard on this subject or even on other subjects?
Carla, I’m presenting the considered assessment of recognized scientists:
Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize winner in physics
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Carl-Gunne Fälthammar (list of papers):
http://www.ee.kth.se/php/modules/people/publications/437.pdf
Per Carlqvist
And many other reputable scientists.
Yet, Dr. Svalgaard attempts to label me and others, here on this website, who convey the ideas of these scientists by presenting peer-reviewed scientific papers and recognized physical principles, “anti-science”, “dangerous”, and “nuts”. This reveals how manic Dr. Svalgaard is about this issue and, I’ll note, many of his associates are equally manic & hostile.
And, it does rightly cause reasonable people to question Dr. Svalgaard’s ability to be objective and honest in his discussions when these issues are involved.
(As this discussion has demonstarated what Dr. Svalgaard is capable of when he thinks it’s “necessary” to protect his world-view.)
Of course, when I pointed out that I’m simply conveying the ideas of reputable scientists and that when he labels me “anti-science”, “dangerous”, and “nuts”, he is really calling his fellow scientists all these names — Dr. Svalgaard backed-off.
In reviewing the peer-reviewed published paper by One and Mann, one can see a line of papers that support the idea that electrical currents and electric fields are important in astrophysical relationships.
The insight that Alfven provided is that these electromagnetic phenomenon are scale independent, therefore, can be studied in the plasma laboratory and, now, in situ satellite probes, and, thus, these principles can be applied to distant astronomical structures & processes because of the scale-independence of electromagnetism, a fundamental force of Nature.
Carla, notice how Dr. Svalgaard has conflated “Electric/Plasma Universe” together? This is part of his “slick & shtick” routine that he often employs.
The Plasma Universe concept is seperate and distinct from ‘Electric Universe’, which is a more expansive extension of Plasma Universe concepts, but implacable critics, such as Dr. Svalgaard, often conflate the two for maximum prejudical effect.
Dr. Svalgaard: “They often claim that 99.999…% [with an unspecified number of 9s] of the Universe is a plasma. Even that is wrong, the percentage is in single digits.”
The percentage of plasma in the Universe is only in “single digits” if your gospel & faith is placed in the existence of so-called “dark” matter and “dark” energy, which have never been directly observed & measured and its advocates can’t even describe or explain its physical nature.
The observable Universe is, indeed, 99.99% plasma, and even the good doctor knows not to deny that:
The following link lays out in its footnotes (20 footnotes) citational support for the assertion that over 99% of the observable Universe is plasma:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/99.999%25_plasma
Of course, this is why Dr. Svalgaard is willing to “go to the wall” to assert the existence of so-called “dark” matter, because without it, his whole world-view crumbles into the ash-heap of history.
And, indeed, I suggest this fear of his world-view crumbling to dust likely motivates Dr. Svalgaard and his associates to act in this overall ruthless fashion and engage in what I call his “slick & shtick” campaign.
Dr. Svalgaard: “…the public will rather drink the Koolaid than think for themselves.”
Actually, Dr. Svalgaard is the one who attempts to indoctrinate as much as he can and intimidate & mislead as much as he thinks necessary to acheive his objectives — it’s clear, for Dr. Svalgaard, the “ends justify the means”.
However, the “ends justify the means” strategy & tactics is completely antithetical to the Empirical Scientific Method.
Dr. Svalgaard (21:08:10): “What he [Evans] is missing, but the paper, of course, is not, is that those motions must be across magnetic field lines for currents to be generated as I have tried to explain to him so many times.”
False.
I recognize the necessity of magnetic fields and their indespensible role. How may times have I cited Maxwell’s equations which speak to this requirement.
The difference between me and Dr. Svalgaard is that he holds up the magnetic field analysis as the only scientifically valid analytical tool, purposely excluding an electric field analysis, while I stand with Hannes Alfven and note that both electric field and magnetic field analysis is valid, and, also, I stand with Alfven to state the electric current analysis is necessary to properly understand formation of double layers, explosive phenomenon, and transfer of energy from one region to another.
Alexander Feht (23:24:38) wrote: “Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t see any significant correlation between solar activity and Earth’s temperature.”
And Feht continued: “Right. After this stunning revelation, why would anybody pay attention to whatever Dr. Svalgaard has to say?”
To which Just The Facts (23:45:20) responded: “I think it’s probably because Leif is one of the foremost solar scientists in the world.”
Just the Facts, how do you know that?
I’ve looked for Dr. Svalgaard’s curriculum vitae and can’t find it — yes, a list of papers (it’s not clear how many were ever peer-reviewed or published), but certainly not a biography of educational attainments or what institutions Dr. Svalgaard worked at or researched at.
What little I have found on the internet suggests that he taught at Stanford University over 30 years ago, but primarily has been a computer programmer (a very good computer programmer) that has worked for various companies and, now, owns his own company in parnership.
So, Dr. Svalgaard’s time has been divided and it’s unclear how much influence, prestige, high regard, or scientific value Dr. Svalgaard’s work has been given in the field of helio-astrophysics.
Just The Facts, I suggest you are making an assumption unwarranted by the available information.
Interesting the breach in our magnetosphere known as the Southern Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) begins in Chile at around the 36th degree latitude and that is also the location of these earthquakes.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/
http://www.earthquake.usgs.gov/
Quake caused by the Filament?
Leif Svalgaard (08:10:20) quotes Just The Facts (23:35:06)
“I struggle with the possibility that variations in the local G-type main sequence star do not have significant impacts on Earth’s climate system.”
Leif replies: “The variation is very small and has thus a very small effect.”
– – – – –
Leif, you do not understand the Sun, nor its influence on planet Earth, because you have steadfastly refused to consider these experimental data:
a) Neutron repulsion is clearly shown in nuclear rest mass data for all nuclei with two or more neutrons.
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf
b) The results of literally hundreds of different analysis of elements and isotopes in meteorites and planets are explained if the Sun itself exploded five Gyr ago to produce the solar system in this manner:
http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm
No results are inconsistent with the above conclusion.
c) The top of the solar atmosphere is 91% Hydrogen (H) and 9% Helium (He) because H is the lightest element (element #1) and He is the next lightest one (element #2). Solar mass fractionation is experimentally observed across isotopes (3 to 136 atomic mass units) in the solar wind and across s-products (25 to 207 amu) in the photosphere [“Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections”, The 36th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPSC), Houston, Texas, March 14-18, 2005].
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/LunarAbstract.pdf
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Alexander Feht (09:30:50) :
I think it’s probably because Leif is one of the foremost solar scientists in the world.
You are entitled to think whatever you want. You thinking it, however, doesn’t make it a fact.
One of the foremost solar scientists in the world says that there is no significant correlation between solar activity and Earth’s temperature. Therefore, it must be so.
I am going to sleep naked in the snow from now on: what do I care about solar activity or lack of it? The foremost scientist in the world told us it doesn’t matter.
One of the foremost solar scientists in the world says that there is no significant correlation between solar activity and Earth’s temperature. Therefore, it must be so.
~
Hey hey we know how you feel. After Al Gore koolaid withdrawls about CO2 I too thought the sun as the primary climate change factor. Not long on that path when I start seeing Dr. S. repeatedly state not a primary. huh and THEMIS confirmed what we already knew. huh again.
Now I pay attention to the Local Interstellar environment. Could it be so simple as to say denser extraterrestrial clouds make denser terrestrial clouds, who knows?