Spacequakes

From Science @ NASA.gov Researchers using NASA’s fleet of five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a form of space weather that packs the punch of an earthquake and plays a key role in sparking bright Northern Lights. They call it “the spacequake.”

Spacequakes (animation, 200px)

A spacequake in action. Click to launch a computer-simulated movie created by Walt Feimer of Goddard’s Scientific Visualization Lab.

A spacequake is a temblor in Earth’s magnetic field. It is felt most strongly in Earth orbit, but is not exclusive to space. The effects can reach all the way down to the surface of Earth itself.

“Magnetic reverberations have been detected at ground stations all around the globe, much like seismic detectors measure a large earthquake,” says THEMIS principal investigator Vassilis Angelopoulos of UCLA.

It’s an apt analogy because “the total energy in a spacequake can rival that of a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake,” according to Evgeny Panov of the Space Research Institute in Austria. Panov is first author of a paper reporting the results in the April 2010 issue of Geophysical Research Letters (GRL).

In 2007, THEMIS discovered the precursors of spacequakes. The action begins in Earth’s magnetic tail, which is stretched out like a windsock by the million mph solar wind. Sometimes the tail can become so stretched and tension-filled, it snaps back like an over-torqued rubber band. Solar wind plasma trapped in the tail hurtles toward Earth. On more than one occasion, the five THEMIS spacecraft were in the line of fire when these “plasma jets” swept by. Clearly, the jets were going to hit Earth. But what would happen then? The fleet moved closer to the planet to find out.

“Now we know,” says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “Plasma jets trigger spacequakes.”

Spacequakes (magnetogram, 550px)

During a spacequake, Earth’s magnetic field shakes in a way that is analogous to the shaking of the ground during an earthquake. Image credit: Evgeny Panov, Space Research Institute of Austria. [larger image]

According to THEMIS, the jets crash into the geomagnetic field some 30,000 km above Earth’s equator. The impact sets off a rebounding process, in which the incoming plasma actually bounces up and down on the reverberating magnetic field. Researchers call it “repetitive flow rebuffing.” It’s akin to a tennis ball bouncing up and down on a carpeted floor. The first bounce is a big one, followed by bounces of decreasing amplitude as energy is dissipated in the carpet.

“We’ve long suspected that something like this was happening,” says Sibeck. “By observing the process in situ, however, THEMIS has discovered something new and surprising.”

The surprise is plasma vortices, huge whirls of magnetized gas as wide as Earth itself, spinning on the verge of the quaking magnetic field.

Spacequakes (vortices, 200px)

A THEMIS map of plasma flows during a spacequake. The axes are labeled in Earth radii, so each swirl is about the size of Earth. [larger image]

“When plasma jets hit the inner magnetosphere, vortices with opposite sense of rotation appear and reappear on either side of the plasma jet,” explains Rumi Nakamura of the Space Research Institute in Austria, a co-author of the study. “We believe the vortices can generate substantial electrical currents in the near-Earth environment.”

Acting together, vortices and spacequakes could have a noticeable effect on Earth. The tails of vortices may funnel particles into Earth’s atmosphere, sparking auroras and making waves of ionization that disturb radio communications and GPS. By tugging on surface magnetic fields, spacequakes generate currents in the very ground we walk on. Ground current surges can have profound consequences, in extreme cases bringing down power grids over a wide area.

After THEMIS discovered the jets and quakes, Joachim Birn of the Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico conducted a computer simulation of the rebounding process. Lo and behold, vortices appeared in good accord with THEMIS measurements. Moreover, the simulations suggest that the rebounding process can be seen from Earth’s surface in the form of ripples and whirls in auroral displays. Ground stations report just such a phenomenon.

“It’s a complicated process, but it all fits together,” says Sibeck.

The work isn’t finished. “We still have a lot to learn,” he adds. “How big can spacequakes become? How many vortices can swirl around Earth at once–and how do they interact with one another?”

Stay tuned for answers from THEMIS.

Advertisements

114 thoughts on “Spacequakes

  1. Now that is more like it. NASA money well-spent. Fascinating.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  2. Wow. Fascinating. I wonder if earth’s magnetic “tail” has ever “broken off” and if so, I wonder what the effects would be as is recreated itself from the magnetic energy of the inner core?

  3. It would seem to me that the external effect is actually affecting a torque moment coupled to the magnetic field of the Earth, resulting in a ‘stuttering’ motion of the Earth itself.

  4. “We still have a lot to learn.”
    Whoa-ho! What a concept! I thought scientists were supposed to show how important and scientific they were by their hubris. Maybe science isn’t quite dead, after all.

  5. If earth has them then all planets in the solar system must have them.
    I wonder if there’s a cumulative effect when planetary alignment occurs?
    Suddenly the music of the spheres gets a lot more interesting.

  6. I’m more interested in how the reverberations of the field that result may add energy to the upper atmosphere, as well as how much thermal energy the plasma that reaches the poles adds to the atmosphere. These are energy budget issues that are not included in TSI numbers.

  7. Now imagine those spacequakes around Jupiter (which has a much stronger magnetic field than that of earth’s)…

  8. mikelorrey
    I’ve wondered if a mind like Faraday’s became versed in weather and the sun would find obvious electrical relationships that would explain warming and cooling on earth, and weather events, patterns, etc.

  9. The real question is, did NOAA retract their claim to omnipotence because of this discovery? 😉
    Very interesting stuff. I have often wondered if magnetism affects the winds on Earth. I bet THEMIS could help answer that question.

  10. Anyone from the Plasma Physics and Electrical Engineering community care to comment? Anyone knowledable about the Electrical Universe hypotheses care to explain?
    Can magnetic fields stretch out and snap like rubber bands? Isn’t there a non mechanical solution for this. Electrical maybe? We have magnetic fields, we have plasma. Would’nt this also neccessitate some electrical currents? We have plasma jets. Are’nt these Birkland currents?

  11. Will be even more interesting when these birds get going. So much we just do not know. Just think how knowledge could have been advanced over the last couple of decades had all those billions wasted on CO2 inspired fuzzy-felt games been spent on something useful like this.

  12. Now, that what I call a sub-woofer!! Move a hole continent (ice-sheet?).
    Thanks Anthony for posting, this is the NASA we all want.

  13. WOW! this sounds like one of the “unknowns, we didn’t know that we didn’t know about”
    So I wonder how many more unknowns are out there effecting the climate.

  14. mikelorrey says:
    July 27, 2010 at 10:51 pm
    “I’m more interested in how the reverberations of the field that result may add energy to the upper atmosphere, as well as how much thermal energy the plasma that reaches the poles adds to the atmosphere. These are energy budget issues that are not included in TSI numbers.”
    Very little, would be the answer I think. A small fraction of the energy in the event, which is a small fraction of the energy in the solar wind, which is itself a small fraction of the solar energy impinging on the planet. Where it might have a detectable climatic effect is in the production of and separation of ions in the troposphere and stratosphere, affecting cloud formation and precipitation (cf. Svensmark).

  15. tallbloke says: July 28, 2010 at 3:36 am
    “We believe the vortices can generate substantial electrical currents in the near-Earth environment.”
    Numbers man, numbers!

    Estimates from THEMIS, going back to 2007 are (if I remember correctly):
    Total current going into magnetosphere is of order of billion of Amps, but as far as the Arctic is concerned it is only fraction of it 0.5 -1 million Amps, with corresponding voltage of 30-50KV.
    It would be useful to know more up to date numbers.

  16. eilert says:
    July 28, 2010 at 12:16 am
    Anyone from the Plasma Physics and Electrical Engineering community care to comment? Anyone knowledable about the Electrical Universe hypotheses care to explain?
    Can magnetic fields stretch out and snap like rubber bands? Isn’t there a non mechanical solution for this. Electrical maybe? We have magnetic fields, we have plasma. Would’nt this also neccessitate some electrical currents? We have plasma jets. Are’nt these Birkland currents?

    Not to take this too far afield, but back around 1973 or so, I used to subscribe the the McGraw-Hill Electronic & Control Engineer’s book club.
    Well, they had a book up for sale which described the use of magnets and explosives to generate EMP’s (ElectroMagnetic Pulses) for the purposes of testing shipboard systems and the like for the USN.
    Basically, what they did was take a very powerful ALNICO magnet, and implode it with a powerful explosive, and in the process release the entire energy field of the magnet, creating an EMP.
    Needless to say, the book was pulled at the demand of the U.S. government …
    So yes: Rubber band magnetic fields are a distinct possibility.

  17. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 27, 2010 at 11:06 pm
    mikelorrey
    I’ve wondered if a mind like Faraday’s became versed in weather and the sun would find obvious electrical relationships that would explain warming and cooling on earth, and weather events, patterns, etc.
    Good Heavens!! Puh-Leeze DO NOT be giving them any more ideas!!!
    Geez, next thing you know, they’ll be suggesting that the electrical grid be taken down because —it too— is causing ‘globular warming’!!!

  18. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2010 at 4:12 am
    tallbloke says: July 28, 2010 at 3:36 am
    “We believe the vortices can generate substantial electrical currents in the near-Earth environment.”
    Numbers man, numbers!
    Estimates from THEMIS, going back to 2007 are (if I remember correctly):
    Total current going into magnetosphere is of order of billion of Amps, but as far as the Arctic is concerned it is only fraction of it 0.5 -1 million Amps, with corresponding voltage of 30-50KV.
    It would be useful to know more up to date numbers.

    This begins to sound like MagnetoHydroDynamics (MHD) all over again!
    http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/mhd.htm

  19. I am a Floridian that grew up in the thunderstorm hot spot that is our states north eastern quadrant. Then, for the last thirty odd years I have lived in the Keys and been a spectator at some wonderful light shows provided by the Gulf Stream…. And there were years spent in northern New Jersey where on one evening I found myself standing in my back yard looking up into an inverted bowl of interlaced lightning. I one thousand one, one thousand twoed a time count of a full uninterrupted minute of pure white light show. I could go on for a very long time like this but I think you get the point. I have also been enchanted by the anecdotal reports of luminous phenomena at the heart of tornadoes.
    Our atmosphere is an intensely electrical bit of reality!
    So, does anyone really understand the energy flow in this hoo ha? Anybody got a clue about the thermodynamics involved in this electrical aspect of of weather and, potentially, climate? That (think causation) it reaches all the way back to the sun seems a no brainer.
    Perhaps everybody already understands this. Perhaps it’s all old hat by now, the science all settled you know, but wouldn’t it be nice if some bright young post doc took aholt of its tail and gave us somethin new to talk about for the next thirty years?

  20. Gail Combs says:
    July 28, 2010 at 2:39 am
    WOW! this sounds like one of the “unknowns, we didn’t know that we didn’t know about”
    So I wonder how many more unknowns are out there effecting the climate.

    Well, there’s that Al Gore ‘crazed sex-poodle’ heat engine which hasn’t been accounted for, that fer shur!
    ;o)

  21. NASA is mighty slow at seeing the light. Flaring from the sun has the same effect when encountering our magnetic field and atmosphere.

  22. Earth’s Magnetic Field & Global Warming
    Gail Combs says: July 28, 2010 at 2:39 am
    WOW! this sounds like one of the “unknowns, we didn’t know that we didn’t know about”
    So I wonder how many more unknowns are out there effecting the climate.

    steven mosher July 6th, 2010 at 12:05 pm (not WUWT, elsewhere)
    .. theres a guy on WUWT who blathers on about this.
    Steven, there might be something to it after all.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm

  23. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2010 at 3:36 am
    “We believe the vortices can generate substantial electrical currents in the near-Earth environment.”
    Numbers man, numbers!

    It is nice to get close up and personal observations of what we have surmised for forty years. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf you can get the numbers [and those have not changed]. As for the energy involved, it is still many orders of magnitude less than what we get from TSI. The changing magnetic field generates the electric currents [Faraday’s Law] here as everywhere else in the Universe.

  24. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2010 at 3:36 am
    “We believe the vortices can generate substantial electrical currents in the near-Earth environment.” Numbers man, numbers!
    It is nice to get close-up-and-personal observations [again] of the basic process we have surmised for the past forty years. You can get the numbers from the Appendix of http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf [where I calculate the energy to be equivalent to a 6.7 Richter scale earthquake]. The numbers have not changed over time. The electric currents are generated by the rapidly changing magnetic field [Faraday’s law] here and everywhere else in the Universe. The energy involved is many orders of magnitude smaller than than delivered by TSI.

  25. The energy may be several orders of magnitude below that of TSI, but if you can demonstrate that the energy is focused, then there is a discernable effect somewhere on Earth to be reckoned with.

  26. Please allow me to beat one of my favorite dead horses and ask those here in the know if the displays so evident at the following link might possibly be the result of these spacequakes –
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/time_lat_t01_2005.gif
    As 2005 was more active than present, I use this record of global zonal mean temperature. The disturbances at the poles have been a curiosity I have held on to for some time. Can a spacequake cause polar temps to vary and impact global climate as well?

  27. rbateman says:
    July 28, 2010 at 7:45 am
    The energy may be several orders of magnitude below that of TSI, but if you can demonstrate that the energy is focused, then there is a discernable effect somewhere on Earth to be reckoned with.
    The energy is spread out over the magnetosphere and the upper atmosphere in the polar regions, so little focusing going on…

  28. So they are finally finding the data I need to develop the dynamics of the mechanism connection to explain what I have been looking at for 30 years, NICE. Check out the research sections of my site, free, commercial free, and totally paid for by myself only.
    “The truth is out there” we just need to look for it.

  29. Pascvaks says:
    July 28, 2010 at 8:00 am
    Can a spacequake cause polar temps to vary and impact global climate as well?

    space quakes occur every day on average, so no climate effects would be expected as also there is not enough energy in them.

  30. Perhaps this is another mechanism for inductive heating of the thermosphere. We might discover this is a significant source of energy when all the events that produce inductive heating are taken as a whole. If that’s the case and inductive heating is mostly being overlooked, it could explain why they’re missing 60% of the energy budget to explain the recent collapse of the thermosphere. Something like an inductively coupled plasma?
    Geomagnetic storm heating effects on the low-latitude dayside thermosphere from WINDII observations at equinox

    The response of the neutral thermosphere to geomagnetic storms is an important aspect of the study of “space weather”. Yet, this response above the magnetic dip equator has rarely been measured on the dayside because a satellite-borne instrument is required. WINDII, the WIND Imaging Interferometer on board UARS, NASA’s Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite, measured emission rates and apparent temperatures to altitudes as high as 270 km using its O(1S) 558 nm green line channel several days each week during 1993. On 2 days close to equinox in 1993 the maximum Kp index exceeded 7, and these days were selected for comparison with surrounding days of lesser magnetic activity.
    Evidence for thermospheric heating is seen in the Doppler broadening increase of 100 K, the green line volume emission rate increase of 30–78%, and the emission rate scale height increase of 5 km, all measured at 250 km in comparisons between storm and non-storm conditions.

    That seems to be a respectable increase in temp and O(1S) 558 nm emissions during those days of increased geomagnetic activity. I wonder what the effects of “spacequakes” are on temps and emissions in the thermosphere?
    cheers,
    Tim Erney

  31. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2010 at 6:34 am
    The energy involved is many orders of magnitude smaller than than delivered by TSI.

    Is this involved in any way with the occasional “Sudden stratopheric warming” events that occur occasionally?

  32. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2010 at 8:43 am
    space quakes occur every day on average, so no climate effects would be expected as also there is not enough energy in them.

    But a quote from the article says “the total energy in a spacequake can rival that of a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake.” That seems to suggest that a large amount of energy is released…

  33. Jeff in Calgary says:
    July 28, 2010 at 10:17 am
    So how often do these things occure?
    from 0 to 5 times a day
    mike Abbott says:
    July 28, 2010 at 10:50 am

    But a quote from the article says “the total energy in a spacequake can rival that of a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake.” That seems to suggest that a large amount of energy is released…

    That is not a large amount in weather/climate terms

  34. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2010 at 11:57 am
    That is not a large amount in weather/climate terms

    Then NASA is intentionally exaggerating the effects of spacequakes by including the quote about earthquakes.

  35. mike Abbott says: July 28, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    Then NASA is intentionally exaggerating the effects of spacequakes by including the quote about earthquakes.
    I don’t think they do, just that the power available isn’t sufficient for any significant direct effect.
    One possibility is that every magnetic ‘hit’ nudges the Earth’s magnetic field in downward direction. GMF and the solar activity are in reverse proportion; in its recorded history going back to 1590, the Earth’s magnetic field was strongest during the Maunder min.
    The Arctic currents have varied by factor of 2 as per shoreline erosion by the iceberg flows in Denmark Strait . Earth magnetic field has effect on the saline currents velocity, i.e. conductor in a magnetic field.
    Stronger solar activity, weaker GMF (as at the moment), higher ocean’s currents velocity, more heat transferred to the Arctic, more ice melt, lower the Arctic’s albedo, more heat absorbed and so on, until the sun reduces activity, as in the Maunder min, when GMF goes up, the currents slow down, resulting in less heat delivered to the Arctic, more ice, higher albedo, less absorption, in short the LIA.
    See links in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/27/spacequakes/#comment-441450

  36. Leif,
    do planetary magnetospheres tail out in a direct radial line from the sun or do they lie at an angle influenced by the curving of the ‘field lines’ in the IMF?

  37. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2010 at 1:01 pm
    do planetary magnetospheres tail out in a direct radial line from the sun or do they lie at an angle influenced by the curving of the ‘field lines’ in the IMF?
    Neither. E.g. the Earth’s magnetospheric tail is at a 4 degree angle to the radial. It’s an exercise for the student to figure out why 🙂 Hint: why do people hold their umbrella a bit out in front when walking in the rain rather than directly overhead?

  38. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2010 at 12:52 pm
    I don’t think they do, just that the power available isn’t sufficient for any significant direct effect. One possibility is that every magnetic ‘hit’ nudges the Earth’s magnetic field in downward direction.
    This is not even a possibility.

  39. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2010 at 1:09 pm
    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2010 at 1:01 pm
    do planetary magnetospheres tail out in a direct radial line from the sun or do they lie at an angle influenced by the curving of the ‘field lines’ in the IMF?
    Neither. E.g. the Earth’s magnetospheric tail is at a 4 degree angle to the radial. It’s an exercise for the student to figure out why 🙂 Hint: why do people hold their umbrella a bit out in front when walking in the rain rather than directly overhead?

    4 degrees which way? In the direction of the IMF curvature? Is the offset due to the bowshock or the solar wind after it has passed Earth? Is it an exercise for the student becase the prof doesn’t like admitting he doesn’t know? 🙂
    The rain falls on the just and unjust fella, but the unjust stole the just’s umbrella.

  40. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2010 at 6:20 am (Edit)
    changing magnetic field generates the electric currents [Faraday’s Law]

    Changing electric currents generate magnetic firlds too [right hand rule]

  41. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2010 at 1:25 pm
    Changing electric currents generate magnetic firlds too [right hand rule]
    How do you change an electric current? Or even make one?
    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2010 at 1:21 pm
    The rain falls on the just and unjust fella, but the unjust stole the just’s umbrella.
    You just failed the course. The Earth is heading into the 400 km/sec solar wind at 30 km/sec, so there is a phenomenon called aberration. A similar effect occurs for star light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light but is much smaller [depends on the ratio between the two speeds: Earth/Light = 30/300000 for an angle of 20.5 arc seconds]. For the solar wind the ratio is 30/400 which is an angle of 30/400*180/pi = 4.3 degrees.

  42. Leif Svalgaard says: July 28, 2010 at 1:11 pm
    This is not even a possibility.
    Of course, I was not expecting you to agree, but instead you can give us your erudite opinion why in the Denmark strait the GMF follows the envelope of the solar output as shown in here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
    No ‘fluff’, just plain explanation why?

  43. Hi Leif,
    Hi Leif, always nice to see you active here.
    Can you point me to the calculations of the magnitude of the energy that is available to the earth’s atmosphere from a relatively large “sunquakes” (to use the newfangled NASA term)?
    Thanks.
    John

  44. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2010 at 1:47 pm (Edit)
    How do you change an electric current? Or even make one?

    You take a bleddy great universe and spin it round.
    The Earth is heading into the 400 km/sec solar wind at 30 km/sec, so there is a phenomenon called aberration. A similar effect occurs for star light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light but is much smaller [depends on the ratio between the two speeds: Earth/Light = 30/300000 for an angle of 20.5 arc seconds]. For the solar wind the ratio is 30/400 which is an angle of 30/400*180/pi = 4.3 degrees.
    Thankyou. Doesn’t the solar wind contain lots of much heavier particles than light though?

  45. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2010 at 2:07 pm
    why in the Denmark strait the GMF follows the envelope of the solar output
    the correlation is fluff: just cherry picked coincidence.
    John Whitman says:
    July 28, 2010 at 2:17 pm
    Can you point me to the calculations of the magnitude of the energy that is available to the earth’s atmosphere from a relatively large “sunquakes” (to use the newfangled NASA term)?
    I did already: see appendix in http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
    We can also measure it directly with satellites: http://www.bcdxc.org/noaa_poes_essay.htm
    or here:
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/

  46. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2010 at 2:44 pm
    You take a bleddy great universe and spin it round.
    How do you spin a universe around? How is the electric current powering your computer this moment generated? Try to give your best description you can [according to your ability, of course] of the process.
    Thankyou. Doesn’t the solar wind contain lots of much heavier particles than light though?
    Read the wiki on this. The aberration does not depend on the particles at all, only one the speed with which you are heading into the wind.

  47. Leif Svalgaard says: July 28, 2010 at 2:48 pm
    the correlation is fluff: just cherry picked coincidence.
    Cherry picked, because Denmark Strait is the ‘sluice gate’ of the Arctic’s icebergs flows into the North Atlantic.
    Coincidence?!
    That answer shows total ignorance of the history of the Earth’s magnetic field in the Arctic. I was under impression that you spent some time studding the above in the Arctic itself. How can one professionally judge the quality of historical data from stations like Oulu and Thule if one is not familiar with the GMF at such locations.
    Just to jog your memory here is what the past GMF was along length and breath of the Arctic:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC16.htm
    the Denmark Strait’s is No.6.
    As you can see all of the Arctic shows more or less same pattern, just the strength varies.
    Still coincidence?
    What a nonsense!

  48. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2010 at 3:16 pm
    As you can see all of the Arctic shows more or less same pattern, just the strength varies. Still coincidence? What a nonsense!
    Of course, they show the same pattern. And if you were to operate a million observatories in the Arctic spaced a few meters apart, they would also all show the same pattern, because the variation comes from variations on the circulation is the Earth’s core far away.
    The coincidence speaks for itself. And breaks down when we go even further back in time. One wonders why you keep pushing this. Work out the numbers [as any competent engineer would do] and see for yourself why your physical ‘mechanism’ won’t work.

  49. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2010 at 6:20 am
    ” As for the energy involved, it is still many orders of magnitude less than what we get from TSI ”
    Using the same logic, CO2 has bugger all effect compare to H2O!
    That not stopping the IPCC claiming ” magic-feedback” to amplify the CO2 “polution”.
    Is it plausible some unknown mechanism amplify the local IMF ?

  50. Mick says:
    July 28, 2010 at 3:35 pm
    Is it plausible some unknown mechanism amplify the local IMF ?
    Not that I know of. And I don’t place much reliance on unknown mechanisms anyway.

  51. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2010 at 2:53 pm (Edit)
    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2010 at 2:44 pm
    You take a bleddy great universe and spin it round.
    How do you spin a universe around?

    Like this: (waves arm vigorously) Ask any cosmologist, they are all great at armwaving.

  52. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2010 at 3:51 pm
    Like this: (waves arm vigorously) Ask any cosmologist, they are all great at armwaving.
    How about spinning your head around, just as effective, I reckon. Now, how about the rest of my question?

  53. Leif Svalgaard says: July 28, 2010 at 3:27 pm
    ………….
    Are you now actually saying that using whole of the Arctic is cherry picking?
    Or may be you are withdrawing your original statement.
    I am sure you can do better than that.
    Prior 1590 we have no records, just paleomagnetic estimates. B10 and C14 records for the solar output are also estimates, based on paleomagnetic estimates, and both are inherently suspected as you are well aware.
    Are you saying that suspect proxies from before recorded history are more accurate then actual recorded history?
    Why I am pushing this?
    Simply data shows that the Arctic temperature and magnetic field show highest correlation of any ‘peer review’ so called climate studies. See it for yourself:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
    Why I am pushing this?
    Because the Arctic controls the AMO, one of the key climate elements of North-West quartersphere (see above link)
    Why I am pushing this?
    Because similar situation is in the Pacific Ocean where GMFz has been oscillating around an upward slope for the last 400 years.
    Section 1920-1990 GMFz values are plotted on an inversed scale (with a rising trend removed as is case with AO, AMO and PDO indices ) and compared to the PDO index for the same period, then correlation factor of 0.84 (R2 = 0.7042) is obtained.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO.htm
    Considering that ‘the causes of the AO, the NAO or the PDO are still unknown’, no ‘serious’ climatologist dare comment on such unrelated events.
    Pacific Ocean is more difficult to pin down since its currents change paths widely, unlike the Arctic where currents are restricted by Bering, Fram, Denmark, Davis straits etc.
    Why I am pushing this?
    Because it is a hypothesis which has good correlation and it makes good sense.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
    It’s getting late. Good night.

  54. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    it makes good sense.
    That is the problem: it does not make sense. But, hey, many people are pushing things that don’t make sense…
    BTW, there are no measurements [anywhere] of the intensity before ~1800. Gauss figured out to do this in the 1830s.

  55. A few guys are risking going to the stake. No one can dare to doubt the existence of a “flintstones universe”. The Inquisition friars won´t be convinced with arguments: That´s pure witchcraft that deserves holy punishment!

  56. Leif,
    Yes, based on your 1973 article, I can see now the kinetic energy from a substorm (your terminology in your 1973 Solar Wind report and is equivalent, I think, to NASA’s sunquake) impinging on the ionosphere is many orders of magnitude less than TSI or even delta TSI over a ~11 year solar cycle.
    Question: With this relatively very small energy source (compared to TSI or delta TSI/cycle) on the ionosphere wouldn’t it take a supersensitive mechanism to have even a small affect the lower atmosphere temps and surface temps?
    NOTE: I haven’t looked at the two NOAA docs your referred with the satellite results for power on the ionosphere. Enough for tonight here on the east coast of US.
    John

  57. For truth there is no need neither of consensus nor acceptance by anybody. Time will tell….unless the new inquisition decides to manipulate the genetics of the new generations in order to produce more “docile” humans.

  58. John Whitman says:
    July 28, 2010 at 6:09 pm
    Question: With this relatively very small energy source (compared to TSI or delta TSI/cycle) on the ionosphere wouldn’t it take a supersensitive mechanism to have even a small affect the lower atmosphere temps and surface temps?
    One would think so. But no such mechanism has been identified. Supersensitivity also runs the risk of run-away.
    The thermosphere is but a trillionth of the total atmosphere, so it does not take much to agitate that thin layer.

  59. Lief:
    Rachel Hock has an abstract at SHINE discussing EVE on SDO.
    You might hear something about why the SDO AIA-4500 is stuck on the same July 27th image.

  60. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2010 at 3:57 pm
    How do you spin a universe around?
    tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2010 at 3:51 pm
    Like this: (waves arm vigorously) Ask any cosmologist, they are all great at armwaving.
    Leif:
    How about spinning your head around, just as effective, I reckon. Now, how about the rest of my question?

    I’m not going there, because your adherence to outdated plasma physics with its ‘frozen in’ magnetic fields means we will end up in a fruitless argument.
    Treat yourself to an hour with Donald E Scott on this NASA video sometime.

  61. vukcevic says:July 28, 2010 at 12:52 pm
    One possibility is that every magnetic ‘hit’ nudges the Earth’s magnetic field in downward direction.
    Leif Svalgaard says: July 28, 2010 at 1:11 pm
    This is not even a possibility.
    Large magnetic disturbances are observed of up to 1000 nT (nanoTesla) which is about 2% of the total field in the auroral zone.
    2% may not sound large, but if the Earth’s magnetic field is frequently hit by such impulse than it is going to loose in intensity a small amount for each impulse (degaussing effect) but it does recover slowly.
    Since 1800 (Dalton min), the Arctic has lost 4% of its intensity ( ~2000nT ) or an amount of just two very strong geomagnetic pulses.
    Increased solar activity means more hits, less time for recovery.

  62. tallbloke says:
    July 28, 2010 at 11:19 pm
    I’m not going there, because your adherence to outdated plasma physics with its ‘frozen in’ magnetic fields means we will end up in a fruitless argument.
    You mentioned the spiral IMF. Its is a spiral because of the frozen in magnetic field.
    And you still evaded my question about how the electricity powering your computer is generated. Perhaps you truly do not know, in which case even Wikipedia might help you out: “Electricity generation , From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”
    Electricity generation is the process of creating electricity from other forms of energy.
    The fundamental principles of electricity generation were discovered during the 1820s and early 1830s by the British scientist Michael Faraday. His basic method is still used today: electricity is generated by the movement of a loop of wire, or disc of copper between the poles of a magnet.”
    vukcevic says:
    July 29, 2010 at 12:30 am
    but if the Earth’s magnetic field is frequently hit by such impulse then it is going to lose in intensity a small amount for each impulse (degaussing effect) but it does recover slowly.
    That is not how things work. Substorms do not penetrate into the core where the Earth’s field is generated. Now, to gain some credibility, try to outline the physics of what you think is going on.
    Also, take note of the fact that there are NO measurements of the intensity of the Earth’s field before ~1800. From http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9148-ships-logs-give-clues-to-earths-magnetic-decline.html we get:
    “The data was combined with 315 estimates of the field’s overall strength during that period, based on indirect clues, such as mineral evidence in bricks from old human settlements or volcanic rock. [so the estimates are just paleomagnetic estimates]
    Gubbins showed that the overall strength of the planet’s magnetic field was virtually unchanged between 1590 and 1840. Since then, the field has declined at a rate of roughly 5% per 100 years.”

  63. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2010 at 3:36 am
    The fundamental principles of electricity generation were discovered during the 1820s and early 1830s by the British scientist Michael Faraday. His basic method is still used today: electricity is generated by the movement of a loop of wire, or disc of copper between the poles of a magnet.”

    Yes, the Faraday’s disc is a reasonable model.
    Of course, you could replace the permanent magnets with an active field coil, whereby the dynamo generating the elctric current supplies some of that current to the field coils, generating the magnetic fields…
    How would you refresh a field coil which had lost the ability to get a current going Leif? By stroking it with a permanent magnet or by jolting it with current from the battery?

  64. tallbloke says:
    July 29, 2010 at 6:55 am
    the dynamo generating the elctric current supplies some of that current to the field coils, generating the magnetic fields…
    which is how cosmic dynamos (including the solar) work… You are catching on.
    How would you refresh a field coil which had lost the ability to get a current going Leif? By stroking it with a permanent magnet or by jolting it with current from the battery?
    Since the magnetic field is frozen in, it can’t really die, so no problem there. There can be no battery in a highly conducting plasma, because separated charges will immediately find each other again, apart from the problem of separating the charges in the first place.

  65. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2010 at 7:56 am
    tallbloke says:
    How would you refresh a field coil which had lost the ability to get a current going Leif? By stroking it with a permanent magnet or by jolting it with current from the battery?
    There can be no battery in a highly conducting plasma, because separated charges will immediately find each other again, apart from the problem of separating the charges in the first place.

    Uh huh. I think we’re going to find it’s all quite a lot more dynamic than previously thought, but as I said, I see no point in us getting into a debate about it, because…. well, because.

  66. “The plasma universe consists of swirling streams of electrons and ions flowing in filaments. Where pairs of these spaghettilike structures interact, the particle gain kinetic energy and at narrow ‘pinch’ regions produce the entire range of galaxy types as well as the full spectrum of cosmic electromagnetic radiation. Thus galaxies must lie ‘like pearl beads on a necklace’ along filaments, much as they are observed to do on a large scale. The bulk of the filaments are invisible from a distance, much like the Birkeland currents that circle the Earth but are invisible from its surface. In space, these currents are called Birkeland Currents, in honor of the 19th century physicist who suggested their existence. In the laboratory, they are called Bennett-pinches, Z-pinches, or ‘Zed’ pinches. In 1934 W. H. Bennett discovered that streams of electrons flowing in the axial or Z-direction, self pinch from the magnetic field they generate around themselves.”
    http://plasmauniverse.info/elec_currents.html

  67. Leif Svalgaard says: July 29, 2010 at 3:36 am
    ………………………
    With due respect, both statements are nonsense.
    – you can magnetise or demagnetise peace of iron from some distance by applying a magnetic pulse from an electric coil from some distance. Magnetic field always goes for the path of the highest permeability, and that is strait down.
    – Declinations and Inclinations are recorded all the way back to 1590, and on bases of those main intensity is calculated.
    Between 1650-1700 more than 4000 recordings were made on numerous locations, covering most of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, from Iceland to the Malacca Straits.
    Here is the map.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/DO.gif
    Don’t believe everything you read in the ‘new scientists’, talk to your friends at
    Institute fur Geophysik, Zurich
    What I am perusing is the reasons for an excellent correlation,
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
    not credibility, if true credibility will take care of itself . If my reasoning is at fault, than I am more than happy to pass the baton to someone else who may be inspired and more capable to find out what is actually going on.
    In contrast, by using nonsensical arguments you are doing disservice to your hard earned reputation.

  68. “space quakes occur every day on average, so no climate effects would be expected as also there is not enough energy in them.”
    What we have is a charged planetary body, and above that clouds forming a charged layer, and further out the upper atmosphere, etc.
    With electrical energy coming in, perhaps there is a natural capacitor effect at work here, where electricity follows a path in, builds in the capacitor, and releases.
    “In both everyday electronics and advanced plasma research the capacitor is important for its ability to rapidly store and release electrical energy. Some of the highest energy experiments in the world are performed using large rooms full of charged capacitors to produce intense discharges.”

  69. solrey says: July 28, 2010 at 8:55 am
    …………………
    Quote:
    “When a magnetic storm is underway the Earth’s atmosphere expands because of heating, and increases the atmospheric drag on satellites at altitudes below about 1000 km. The orbit of the satellite can be changed and sometimes expensive manoeuvres must be made to compensate. Other effects on satellites are caused by radiation hits which can interfere with onboard computers. The prediction of magnetic activity, as a monitor of conditions at satellite altitude, is therefore of great interest to satellite operators. This is another example of the Earth’s magnetic field being a hazard in the modern world.”

  70. A faked video by GISS. Wow. After all the fraud put out by GISS why should I think this is anything but more science fiction?

  71. I already knew GISS was in the science fiction business, but I didn’t know they made sci-fi movies too. Cool.

  72. electricity is generated by the movement of a loop of wire, or disc of copper between the poles of a magnet.”
    Then, what is it a magnet. Why is it, curiously, made from Fe, Co, Ni,.what do these elements share in common? Changing II-III valences, which make possible redox reactions and life, why….because those jumping electrons….ELECTRICITY!

  73. There was a time…in the beginning of time itself, when from One it emerged the Two, yang and ying (Dad and Mom, ya know), and wonder what happened: Electricity!
    …..and the CERN guys now want a new 5o kms.long toy for making unnatural mariages between protons! LOL!

  74. Earthquakes? Sure, there’s even a connection between the sun and earthquakes:
    “While analysing seismic activity of the Earth it is not difficult to notice the connection with solar activity. The considered line has essential negative correlation with the line of solar activity. The maximal earthquakes are observed during the minimum of solar activity or during the periods close to a minimum, and, on the contrary, in maxima of solar activity seismicity of the Earth accepts the least values.”
    http://www.planetary.brown.edu/m42/m42_67.pdf
    “Volcanic activity on the Earth is described by special annual indices available since 1500. These indices have been compared with annual sunspot numbers. Volcanic activity displays no 11-yr periodicity. Using 21-yr running averages a striking similarity between these two time series is clearly seen. Volcanic activity is generally lower in periods of prolonged maxima of solar activity and higher in periods of prolonged solar minima. There is also a similarity between the spectra of these two series in the long-period range. Main peaks are located in the same periods in both series (200-215 yr, 100-105 yr, 80-90 yr). The influence of volcanic activity on the climate is indubitable. Annual means of surface air temperature display similar long-term periodicity as the volcanic activity.”
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ESASP.535..393S
    …always the sun.

  75. vukcevic says:
    July 29, 2010 at 1:42 pm
    you can magnetise or demagnetise peace of iron from some distance by applying a magnetic pulse from an electric coil from some distance. Magnetic field always goes for the path of the highest permeability, and that is strait down.
    Not if you place a copper plate between the two. A competent engineer would know about the ‘skin depth’: An electromagnetic wave entering a conducting medium is damped and reduced in amplitude by a factor 1/e in a distance depending on the frequency and the conductivity. For the Earth and spacequakes that distance is a few hundred kilometers, a far cry from the 2900 km down to the core, so no effect.
    Declinations and Inclinations are recorded all the way back to 1590, and on bases of those main intensity is calculated.
    No, again the competent engineer would know that you cannot calculate the intensity from the two angles.
    Perhaps you should read Gubbins’ paper on this:
    Science 12 May 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5775, pp. 900 – 902
    Fall in Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Erratic
    David Gubbins,* Adrian L. Jones, Christopher C. Finlay
    Earth’s magnetic field has decayed by about 5% per century since measurements began in 1840. Directional measurements predate those of intensity by more than 250 years, and we combined the global model of directions with paleomagnetic intensity measurements to estimate the fall in strength for this earlier period (1590 to 1840 A.D.). We found that magnetic field strength was nearly constant throughout this time, in contrast to the later period. Extrapolating to the core surface showed that the fall in strength originated in patches of reverse magnetic flux in the Southern Hemisphere. These patches were detectable by directional data alone; the pre-1840 model showed little or no evidence of them, supporting the conclusion of a steady dipole up to 1840.
    May I suggest you have an attitude problem. Washing your mouth out with soap is a time-honored remedy.

  76. Leif Svalgaard says: July 29, 2010 at 8:04 pm
    ………………………………
    1. depends on its frequency. Period of a solar storm is measured in hours, not microseconds.
    ULF energy transfer in the solar wind – magnetosphere – ionosphere – solid Earth system
    Are you saying that authors (below) are fools?
    R. Kessel, F. Freund, G. Duma (1) Lab for Solar and Space Physics, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 [ramona.l.kessel@nasa.gov, 301-286-1771 fax],
    (2) Department of Physics, San Jose State University and Ecosystem Science and Technology, NASA Ames Research Center, MS 242-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000, (3) Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics, Department of Geophysics, Hohe Warte 38, A-1190 Vienna, Austria
    http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/01705/EGU06-J-01705.pdf
    2. You are talking apples and pears. You are talking ‘dipole’ , I am talking Arctic. There are two poles in the NH , at relatively low latitude (60N, 95W & 64 N, 110E).
    As an expert in the GMF you should know that any place within the Arctic circle has field which is resultant of these two. Balance between two has closely followed solar activity. In your enthusiasm to negate any reality which does not come from Leif.com, you do not bother even to read or look at any of the links (when did you look at one last time?).
    Here we are:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
    No dipole, just the Arctic! You may even learn something new if you read it.
    Your obfuscations do not do any favours to the readers.

  77. Fascinating work Vuk, can we do a feature on it on my blog?
    Leif, if the dynamologists are right, the bootstrapping of the solar dynamo is operating with electrical power from the solar nuclear furnace in the form of electron flows, which generate the magnetic field in the ‘field coils’ which through the solar rotation then induce the currents which create the heliomagnetic field.
    Is that about it?

  78. @Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    “July 27, 2010 at 11:06 pm
    I’ve wondered if a mind like Faraday’s became versed in weather and the sun would find obvious electrical relationships that would explain warming and cooling on earth, and weather events, patterns, etc.”
    Kepler forecasted warming and cooling on earth by the heliocentric positions of the planets, and it still works now!

  79. vukcevic says:
    July 30, 2010 at 12:01 am
    Are you saying that authors (below) are fools?
    As I said, the skin depth is a few hundred kilometers for frequency of hours, so does not reach the core.
    No dipole, just the Arctic! You may even learn something new if you read it.
    We know even less about the variation of the intensity in the Arctic 1590-1900. Have you forgotten that the topic was if the ‘hits’ would decrease the Earth’s field?
    Your obfuscations do not do any favours to the readers
    Time for that mouthwash, I reckon.
    tallbloke says:
    July 30, 2010 at 1:01 am
    Leif, if the dynamologists are right, the bootstrapping of the solar dynamo is operating with electrical power from the solar nuclear furnace in the form of electron flows, which generate the magnetic field in the ‘field coils’ which through the solar rotation then induce the currents which create the heliomagnetic field.
    No, not at all.
    The cloud from which the Sun formed was already permeated by a magnetic field, so the new Sun was born with a field. Differential rotation and other circulation of the neutral plasma wind up the field lines and amplify the field creating solar activity. There is no electrical ‘power’ involved as the electrons cannot flow away from the protons [electric attraction is enormous]. There are no large-scale currents as there cannot be an electric field in a plasma [it shorts immediately].

  80. Ulric Lyons says:
    July 30, 2010 at 3:59 am
    Kepler forecasted warming and cooling on earth by the heliocentric positions of the planets, and it still works now!
    I can ~just~ hear the warmist contingent whining: “Yes, but that’s ~so~ renaissance, …”
    As if a scientific truth gets to be outdated.

  81. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 30, 2010 at 5:57 am (Edit)
    The cloud from which the Sun formed was already permeated by a magnetic field, so the new Sun was born with a field.

    It’s as good a creation myth as any other I suppose.

  82. Leif Svalgaard says: July 30, 2010 at 5:57 am
    ———————————
    As I said you would learn something new if you bother to read:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
    This correlation starts 1850 and goes up to 2010.
    As number of readers have already comented in one way or the other, you are more interested in scoring points (I assume some kind of ego trip, which you do not need) rather than looking at the facts presented.
    Here it is again:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
    Ypu shoul read it and come back if you whish but with facts.

  83. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2010 at 8:26 pm
    Enneagram says:
    July 29, 2010 at 5:13 pm
    because those jumping electrons….ELECTRICITY!
    Failure of basic science education
    Synthetize some magnetite to know it intimately.

  84. vukcevic says:
    July 30, 2010 at 1:32 pm
    blah, blah
    amazing that you have temperature anomalies for the Arctic in 1850. We don’t have that today to any degree of accuracy…
    I already gave a link to the modern understanding of magnetism, no need to repeat that.
    The geomagnetic field does not influence the ocean currents in any measurable way. The Lorentz force V x B is much too small. Calculate it yourself and be convinced of that.

  85. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2010 at 8:04 pm
    Not if you place a copper plate between the two. A competent engineer would know about the ‘skin depth’: An electromagnetic wave entering a conducting medium is damped and reduced in amplitude by a factor 1/e in a distance depending on the frequency and the conductivity. For the Earth and spacequakes that distance is a few hundred kilometers, a far cry from the 2900 km down to the core, so no effect.
    So are you saying the earths surface is the conducting medium for the spacequake?
    Would a spacequake reach the earths surface thru earths magnetic poles?
    What is the frequency range of spacequakes in Hz ?
    What is the frequency range of the AC component of the earths magnetic field in Hz?

  86. Leif Svalgaard says: July 30, 2010 at 10:48 pm
    ————————————————————-
    (no need for blah –blah bit)
    There is flaw is in your reasoning.
    Energy of magnetic disturbance in the Arctic ocean depths and ‘few hundred km’ of crust turns into heat (not important) and mechanical oscillations (crucial) which reverberate throughout the globe.
    As ‘anty-planetarist in chief’ you may know that there is highly academic work by Dr. Josef Garai from Florida International University, which links magnetic reversals to astronomical cycles.
    http://www.garai-research.com/research%20statement/earth's%20magnetic%20field%20reversals/text%20magnetic%20reversals.htm
    Here is the monthly data file of temperature data, you can analyse it to your heart content.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/crutem3_hadsst2_0-360E_66-90N.txt
    Next ?

  87. Lets try again: if doesn’t work copy and paste:
    http://www.garai-research.com/research%20statement/earth's%20magnetic%20field%20reversals/text%20magnetic%20reversals.htm
    it doesn’t work copy and paste:
    http://www.garai-research.com/research%20statement/earth's%20magnetic%20field%20reversals/text%20magnetic%20reversals.htm
    [Note: Cut & paste doesn’t work. The only way I could make the link work was to go to this link:
    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19500.0
    then go to the last comment (by buffalo49) and click on the link at the bottom. ~dbs, mod.]

  88. Enneagram says:
    July 30, 2010 at 5:38 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2010 at 8:26 pm
    Enneagram says:
    July 29, 2010 at 5:13 pm
    because those jumping electrons….ELECTRICITY!
    Failure of basic science education
    Synthetize some magnetite to know it intimately.
    Whoa!! You’re not talking something ‘X-Rated,’ are you?
    ;o)

  89. jimgineer says:
    July 31, 2010 at 12:19 am
    So are you saying the earths surface is the conducting medium for the spacequake?
    No, the spacequakes take place far above the Earth, but induces electric currents in sea water, soil, and underground crust.
    Would a spacequake reach the earths surface thru earths magnetic poles?
    No, through the intervening [almost] vacuum.
    What is the frequency range of spacequakes in Hz ?
    Wide range from milliHz to kiloHz. Most power around a milliHz.
    What is the frequency range of the AC component of the earths magnetic field in Hz?
    Decades, so ~10^-12 Hz or longer.

  90. Leif, I am a retired broadcast engineer and an amateur radio operator. I am having a hard time visualizing the conductor you speak of relating to skin depth. Starting from a .001 Hz sub elf signal in space thru the atmosphere around the surface of the earth, thru the atmosphere then back out in space?
    Would a properly tuned elf radio be able receive this like lightning or meteor showers which produce “whistlers”, “tweaks”, and spherics?
    The reason I ask is I am interested in trying to receive the associated RF and I want to get the antenna right.

  91. jimgineer says:
    July 31, 2010 at 4:49 pm
    I am having a hard time visualizing the conductor you speak of relating to skin depth. Starting from a .001 Hz sub elf signal in space thru the atmosphere around the surface of the earth, thru the atmosphere then back out in space?
    I think we are talking about different things. The ‘space quake’ thing is also a misnomer. The proper term is a ‘geomagnetic substorm’. This is sudden intensification of currents above and below the surface. As such there are lots of electromagnetic waves generated that can be [and has been] received by ordinary RF equipment. Here is what one guy reports http://www.spaceweathersounds.com/sndbites.htm
    The other issues was whether these would penetrate to the Earth’s core and slow down the circulation of the circulation and thereby change the Earth’s magnetic field. That does not happen.

  92. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 31, 2010 at 5:09
    The other issues was whether these would penetrate to the Earth’s core and slow down the circulation of the core and decrease the Earth’s magnetic field. That does not happen.

  93. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 30, 2010 at 5:57 am
    “[…]There is no electrical ‘power’ involved as the electrons cannot flow away from the protons [electric attraction is enormous].”
    Can the sun’s radiation ionize atoms? Let’s see:
    http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/Sun/SolarIndicesFAQ.html
    “What is the ionosphere? The ionosphere is part of Earth’s upper atmosphere where free electrons occur in sufficient density to have an influence on the propagation of radio frequency electromagnetic waves. Its ionization depends for the most part on activity on the Sun. Its density varies according to the sunspot cycle, the season, and global locations — polar, auroral zones, mid-latitudes, and equatorial regions. Most of its ionization is produced by x-ray and ultraviolet radiation from the Sun.”
    Ok, so the sun’s radiation ionizes atoms in the ionosphere. So some of the photons should also be intense enough to ionize atoms somewhere in interplanetary space, i suppose.

  94. DirkH says:
    July 31, 2010 at 6:19 pm
    Ok, so the sun’s radiation ionizes atoms in the ionosphere. So some of the photons should also be intense enough to ionize atoms somewhere in interplanetary space, i suppose.
    Apart from the fact that these are already ionized, just producing a mixture of electrons and ions does not generate an electric current. To get a current you need to separate the two species so that you get an electric field. A magnetic field is a good separator mechanism because it deflects charges of one sign in one direction and charges of the opposite signs in the opposite direction.

  95. Leif Svalgaard says:July 31, 2010 at 5:09
    The other issues was whether these would penetrate to the Earth’s core and slow down the circulation of the core and decrease the Earth’s magnetic field. That does not happen.
    Group of scientists
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/27/spacequakes/#comment-443240
    suggests that these electro-magnetic oscillations impact on the crust and they are possibly (on occasions) earthquake triggers, in which case must be a transfer into mechanical oscillations and these propagate much further. Velocity and distance of propagation of mechanical oscillations are proportional to density which increases with depth. Mechanical disturbances would traverse the globe’s core.
    A clear demonstration of linkage is the Hudson Bay area, where there is coincidence between the Earth’s surface uplift, gravity anomaly and strongest geomagnetic field (GMFz) in the Northern hemisphere (see pages 3,4,5 and 8,9 of
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NATA.htm )

Comments are closed.