via Physorg.com with h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard and Indur Goklany
The Northern Lights have petered out during the second half of this decade, becoming rarer than at any other time in more than a century, the Finnish Meteorological Institute said Tuesday.
The Northern Lights, or aurora borealis, generally follow an 11-year “solar cycle”, in which the frequency of the phenomena rises to a maximum and then tapers off into a minimum and then repeats the cycle.
“The solar minimum was officially in 2008, but this minimum has been going on and on and on,” researcher Noora Partamies told AFP.
“Only in the past half a year have we seen more activity, but we don’t really know whether we’re coming out of this minimum,” she added.
The Northern Lights, a blaze of coloured patterns in the northern skies, are triggered by solar winds crashing into the earth and being drawn to the magnetic poles, wreaking havoc on electrons in the parts of the atmosphere known as the ionosphere and magnetosphere.
So a dimming of the Northern Lights is a signal that activity on the sun which causes solar winds, such as solar flares and sun sports, is also quieting down.
Full story at Physorg.com
James F. Evans says:
September 30, 2010 at 8:32 am
Why not try to “connect”all those fields:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38251461/Unified-Field
Compare the following two descriptions:
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Whenever there is a boundary in space between different plasma regimes an electric current can be generated simply by gyration of charges around field lines.”
Electric Double Layer per Wikipedia:
“In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
Sure sounds like Dr. Svalgaard and Wikipedia are describing the same physical process.
James F. Evans says:
September 30, 2010 at 8:46 am
Sure sounds like Dr. Svalgaard and Wikipedia are describing the same physical process.
If so, what is your problem about calling it by the name everybody today uses: ‘magnetic reconnection’. 🙂
But, really, one [magnetic reconnection] is a ‘process’. The other [EDL] is a ‘state’, something that forms as the result of a process. In other words, EDLs separate regions with different charges, and something needs to work to produce the separation, namely magnetic reconnection or even just a magnetic field and a moving neutral plasma.
Dr. Svalgaard presented Evans’ statement: “So-called “magnetic reconnection”, as a concept developed in the pre-space age 1940′s (1946), only considered the one physical force then observable from Earth’s surface: Magnetic fields.”
And, Dr. Svalgaard responded: “This is incorrect. All modern descriptions of magnetic reconnection deal with the total set of forces, magnetic, electric, and kinetic.”
No, the statement is correct, as it addresses the initial development of the concept (1946).
But I do agree that, today, “modern descriptions of [so-called] magnetic reconnection deal with the total set of forces, magnetic, electric, and kinetic.”
Or, as I already put it: “This electromagnetic framework requires observation & measurement of the magnetic field, electric field, charged particle location, direction, and velocity & location of charged particle acceleration (an increase in kinetic energy of the charged particles).”
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The latest in situ observations of all relevant parameters fully confirm our theoretical understanding of the universal process that is magnetic reconnection.”
How can that be when even supporters of “magnetic reconnection” acknowledge the process is not fully understood, much less fully quantified by mathematical equations?
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Double layers have nothing to do with any of this…”
The following scientific papers stand for the proposition that so-called “magnetic reconnection” is actually the Electric Double Layer process.
(Note both Double Layer papers describe the process as it happens in the aurora.)
Scientific papers presented:
Filamentary Structures in U-Shaped Double Layers, 2005
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005AGUFMSM41C1202D&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c05019
Quote from the above paper:
“Observations from the Polar and FAST satellites have revealed a host of intriguing features of the auroral accelerations processes in the upward current region (UCR). These features include: (i) large-amplitude parallel and perpendicular fluctuating as well as quasi-static electric fields in density cavities, (ii) fairly large-amplitude unipolar parallel electric fields like in a strong double layer (DL), (iii) variety of wave modes, (iv) counter-streaming of upward going ion beams and downward accelerated electrons, (v) horizontally corrugated bottom region of the potential structures (PS), in which electron and ion accelerations occur, (vi) filamentary ion beams in the corrugated PS, and (vii) both upward and downward moving narrow regions of parallel electric fields, inferred from the frequency drifts of the auroral kilometric radiations.”
Parallel electric fields in the upward current region of the aurora: Indirect and direct observations, published 2002 Physics of Plasma
http://www.space.irfu.se/exjobb/2003_erik_bergman/articles/PHP03685_ergun.pdf
Quote from the above paper:
“In this article we present electric field, magnetic field, and charged particle observations from the upward current region of the aurora focusing on the structure of electric fields at the boundary between the auroral cavity and the ionosphere…These observations suggest that the parallel electric fields at the
boundary between the auroral cavity and the ionosphere are self-consistently supported as oblique double layers.”
Now, let’s compare the above Electric Double Layers papers with the following so-called “magnetic reconnection” scientific papers:
Magnetopause reconnection impact parameters from multiple spacecraft magnetic field measurements published 30 October 2009
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040228.pdf
Quote from the above paper:
“Discrepancies between the measured components of E [electric field] and the corresponding components of v B [magnetic field] after a careful error analysis signify a nonideal electric field. We intend to show in a subsequent paper that the Cluster electric field and particle flow data for this event satisfy the criteria for a parallel electric field…
With the instantaneous coordinate system and the parallel electric field established, one can place particle moments, such as velocities, pressures, and temperatures, as well as magnetic and electric field measurements…
Sufficiently accurate ion and electron moments and electric field measurements within this coordinate system delineate ion and electron diffusion regions.”
Recent in-situ observations of magnetic reconnection in near-Earth space, published 11 October 2008
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008GL035297.pdf
Quote from the above paper:
Figure 1. “(bottom [schematic, page 2 of 7] ) : “Zoom-in on the region around the X-line, with the ion and electron diffusion regions indicated by the shading and the rectangular box, respectively. The quadrupolar Hall magnetic field is pointing in and out of the plane of the figure. The Hall electric field [perpendicular electric field] is shown by the red arrows, while the blue arrows mark the oppositely directed jets in the outflow regions. Note that entry and acceleration occur all the way along the current sheet. Figure courtesy of Marit Oieroset.”
The “X” cross section discussed in these “magnetic reconnection” papers are where electric and magnetic fields cross, just as Hannes Alfven described in his empirical laboratory work on Electric Double Layers and, is central to the acceleration of the particles in both sets of papers, Electric Double Layers and “magnetic reconnection”, respectively.
Collisionless Magnetic Field Reconnection From First Principles: What It Can and Cannot Do
http://solarmuri.ssl.berkeley.edu/~welsch/brian/FSL/2006/mozer_reconn_v4.pdf
Quote from the above paper:
“The physics of reconnection [Electric Double Layer] depends on the electric field component out of the plane of Fig. 1 at the center of the figure, which is sometimes called the tangential electric field.
If it is zero [the Electric field], the two plasmas flow around each other into or out of the plane of the figure because there is no ExB/B2 flow in the plane of the figure in this central region.
On the other hand, if the tangential electric field is non-zero, the plasmas continue flowing towards each other into the central region of the figure and magnetic field reconnection occurs as discussed below.”
Now, I’ve requested Dr.Svalgaard to distinguish the physical dynamics in the two sets of scientific papers numerous times by referring to the specific physical parameters described in the two sets of papers, but Dr. Svalgaard never has honored the request.
Why?
The reason is simple: There is nothing to distinguish between the two described processes, as they are the same process, just given different labels.
But given the Electric Double Layer is fully quantified by mathematical equations, plugging in all the physical parameters, and has been repeatedly verified in plasma laboratories and in situ (the two scientific papers presented above), as compared against “magnetic reconnection”, which isn’t even fully understood by its supporters by their own admission, the conclusion is clear as to the physical reality.
A rose is still a rose by any other name.
James F. Evans says:
September 30, 2010 at 11:52 am
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The latest in situ observations of all relevant parameters fully confirm our theoretical understanding of the universal process that is magnetic reconnection.”
How can that be when even supporters of “magnetic reconnection” acknowledge the process is not fully understood, much less fully quantified by mathematical equations?
Because there are always details that need to understood. The operative word is ‘fully’. Almost nothing is ever ‘fully’ understood.
But given the Electric Double Layer is fully quantified by mathematical equations, plugging in all the physical parameters
is it then not strange that people claim that something that you say is the same as reconnection is not understood. Could it be that modern scientists do not think the state of EDLs is the same as the process of reconnection?
Your repeated attempt at hijacking a thread with your litany of the same old papers that you do not even understand is tiresome.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2010 at 6:59 am
Such structures in interstellar space have, of course, no effect whatsoever on the inner solar system where we live.
~
Yep thanks Leif.. but some of this is beginning to sound like a disclaimer lol.
To: James Evans..
based on the description of the the radiation belts here:
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/tour/vanallen.html
There are two electron belts and one proton belt:
The proton belt is located from about 500 kilometers above Earth’s surface and extends to 13,000 km. This Inner Belt contains protons with energies greater then 10 million volts. Scientists currently think that these protons are trapped cosmic ray particles from outside the solar system, or from the Sun itself possibly during severe solar flares.
The low-energy electron belt actually overlaps the volums of space occupied by the proton belt. The electrons carry between 1 – 5 million volts of energy, on average.
The high-energy electron belt is located further out than the two overlaping inner belts, and in the above figure it is colored purple. Electrons in this Outer Belt carry between 10 to 100 million volts of energy, on average.
~~
Do we call this a triple electic layer or what?
Carla: I think you are being facetious 🙂
Dr. Svalgaard again fails to honor the request to “to distinguish the physical dynamics in the two sets of scientific papers…by referring to the specific physical parameters described in the two sets of papers…”
Dr. Svalgaard, it never gets tiresome to present facts & evidence (scientific papers on Double Layers observed & measured in the auroral dynamic — the subject of this post) and then request the interlocutor to respond to questions about those papers, and, then, upon refusal, to point out the interlocutor’s repeated past failures to respond to the same questions.
It demonstrates the weakness of the interlocutor’s opinion.
Leif, James, Carla,
A slight sidestep but climatically relevant:
With all this talk about layers and solar effects on the atmosphere especially around the poles and given that much seems not to be understood (fully or not) what is the scope for the level of solar activity having differential effects on the layers of the atmosphere and the flow of energy up through those layers so as to reverse the sign of the stratospheric temperature response to solar activity such that the stratosphere (and apparently also the mesosphere) are observed to cool when the sun is more active yet the troposphere and thermosphere are observed to warm at such times ?
As I understood it all the layers should warm or cool in tandem as solar activity increases or falls but that does not appear to happen.
I am looking for some sort of explanation as to why the jet streams appear to move equatorward when the sun is less active and poleward when the sun is more active. Clearly that phenomenon if real would be linked to the strength of the polar oscillations which is presumably governed by events in the atmosphere above the poles which is the very place where your discussed processes have maximum effect.
Only if the sign of the solar effect on the stratospheric temperatures is reversed from what is generally assumed can we explain why the jet streams would shift poleward when the sun is more active. Such a shift requires a cooling stratosphere because the jets would only move poleward in response to a decreased strength of the temperature inversion at the tropopause.
If conventional wisdom were correct then the stratosphere would warm when the sun is more active, the strength of the inversion would increase and the jets would shift equatorward at a time of more active sun.
That appears not to happen.
Why ?
James F. Evans says:
September 30, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Dr. Svalgaard again fails to honor the request to “to distinguish the physical dynamics in the two sets of scientific papers…by referring to the specific physical parameters described in the two sets of papers…”
I think we have been over this so many times already that repetition serves little purpose. Perhaps you should email Forest Mozer and ask him whether EDL and MR are the same process?
Stephen Wilde says:
September 30, 2010 at 3:30 pm
The problem is…how do relate: Gravity, magnetism, electricity?
One hour time to solve it!….or One thousand years?
When charges are at =45° and 135°, i.e. when they add as sin y + cos y ,
as +0.77 and -0.77
Its resultant is 50% gravity and 50% emission field, i.e.magnetism
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38418051/Unified-Field
When a wave propagetes there are several critical points where it slows down its motion, in what musicians call “gaps” or “intervals”, or “warps” by others; among these two in special, one, as we said, when charges are at 90° one from the other, or a Sqr.2/2 and – sqr2/2, and when both at 0°, or at +1 and 0. In the first one of these magnetism appears and in the second one, graviti-mass appears. In the present case, at 90°(45° above the X axis) that “reconnection appears” (*) , though it is closed in itself and has a transient existence and a discrete amount (a “quanta”), but then it explodes to continue its journey to the zenit (90°) where its value reaches 1 or about 1 (gravity 0.981), there it is slowed down again by generating gravity-matter, as a centripetal force, and the difference, if any, is the emission part of that matter (atmosphere, in the case of the earth), but at the same time forming the known “double layer” of charges.
In the article I have written (see above post) I only describe the phenomenon as a plane and in half a circle, though it can be obviously be analized as a three dimensional phenomenon.
(*) When I figured out all this, what impressed me the most was the appearance on magnetism, where I inmediately thought (this is real): Oh…that d* Dr.S´reconnection! 🙂
James F. Evans says:
September 30, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Carla: I think you are being facetious 🙂
~~
Comes down to time James. Yesterday was home on break, read what was up here, no time to go through everything, but tripped on this from the wiki link you had left here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
History of double layers
..A recent development in double layer experiments is the investigation of so-called stairstep double layers. It has been observed that a potential drop in a plasma column can be split up into different parts. Transitions from a single double layer into two-, three-, or greater-step double layers are strongly sensitive to the boundary conditions of the plasma (Hershkowitz, 1992).[citation needed] These experiments can give us information about the formation of the magnetospheric double layers and their possible role in creating the aurora..
Stephen Wilde says:
September 30, 2010 at 3:30 pm
~
My search for some of those answers lead me to some interesting articles. Here’s one, that will start drawing an interesting picture for you.
Tropical thunderstorms affect space weather
Two plasma bands encircle the Earth some 250 miles above the equator, seen here in a false-color composite image built up from 30 days of ultraviolet observations with NASA’s IMAGE satellite. Bright, blue-white areas are where the plasma is densest
..Data from NASA’s Imager for Magnetopause to Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) satellite show that two parallel bands of ionized particles that encircle the Earth in the tropics are altered by persistent storms over the Amazon Basin in South America, the Congo Basin in Africa, and Indonesia. The net effect of these repeated storms is to create a denser region of ionospheric plasma over these areas that glows more brightly in ultraviolet light than does the rest of the two plasma bands.
..The densest part of the ionosphere forms two bands of plasma close to the equator at a height of almost 250 miles.
..The simulation showed that the tides could affect the plasma bands indirectly by modifying a layer of the atmosphere below the bands that shape them. Below the plasma bands, a layer of the ionosphere called the E-layer becomes partially electrified during the day. This region creates the plasma bands above it when high-altitude winds blow plasma in the E-layer across the Earth’s magnetic field. Since plasma is electrically charged, its motion across the Earth’s magnetic field acts like a generator, creating an electric field. This electric field shapes the plasma above into the two bands.
Anything that would change the motion of the E-layer plasma would also change the electric fields it generates, which would then reshape the plasma bands above.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/09/14_weather.shtml
(following ref. compliments wiki)
The equatorial electrojet (EEJ) is a narrow ribbon of current flowing eastward in the day time equatorial region of the Earth’s ionosphere. The abnormally large amplitude of variations in the horizontal components measured at equatorial geomagnetic observatories, as a result of EEJ, was noticed as early as 1920 from Huancayo geomagnetic observatory. Observations by radar, rockets, satellites, and geomagnetic observatories are used to study EEJ
Causes
The worldwide solar-driven wind results in the so-called Sq (solar quiet) current system in the E region of the Earth’s ionosphere (100–130 km altitude). Resulting from this current is an electrostatic field directed east-west (dawn-dusk) in the equatorial day side of the ionosphere. At the magnetic dip equator, where the geomagnetic field is horizontal, this electric field results in an enhanced eastward current flow within ±3 degrees of the magnetic equator, known as the equatorial electrojet (EEJ)..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_electrojet
Youtube video of Equatorial electrojet.
Magnetic fields due to equatorial electrojet
Interesting and thought provoking for the layperson are the next two:
Lighting Up The Van Allen Belts
Stanford – December 6, 1999 –
Lighting Up The Van Allen Belts
..The new finding indicates that electromagnetic waves from lightning populate large regions of the radiation belts from which they precipitate electrons, which means they could potentially influence loss rates of trapped particles on a global scale.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-magnetic-99d.html
Stanford – December 6, 1999 –
~
We should be looking more closely at “DAYSIDE RECONNECTION.” They say that’s where all the fun is. The nightside reconnection ooooh pretty aurora, but the dayside..
Hope some of this helps Stephen.
Carla:
Sorry about that. Thanks for filling me in on where you were going. I have no objections to the concept of “stair-step” Electric Double Layers (I’ll have to look into that concept in more detail).
What is amazing is that Electric Double Layers can take so many different different forms, effected by electromagnetic instabilities, and energy levels and so forth.
Truly, it’s the Electric Double Layer which is the universal process in plasma dominated environments and since plasma is over 99% of the visible Universe that strongly suggests electromagnetism is the framework which needs to be applied to the study, not just of interplanetary dynamics, but also interstellar, and intergalactic.
Also, I look favorable on the idea that weather, particularly thunderstorms, being connected to larger electric circuits, which connect to the plasma belts which surround the Earth — since these are segregated into electron torus and ion torus, these plasma belts can be described as electric currents (segregated plasma flowing in one direction).
Leif –
Ref – your graph at
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Flow-Pressure.png
Ref -Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2010 at 8:20 am
“Yes: The neutral plasma is the solar wind. The magnetic field is the Earth’s. So, yes, the solar wind does it. In addition to that, the solar wind has its own magnetic field, which if oriented opposite to the Earth’s field [where they meet] serves to further improve the energy input to the Earth system.”
__________
Your graph (above, 1st ref) for solar wind pretty much reflects the aurora’s decline does it not? Is there something else that the solar wind graph does not reflect vis-a-vis aurora decline?
Pascvaks says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:33 am
Your graph (above, 1st ref) for solar wind pretty much reflects the aurora’s decline does it not?
It does.
Leif
Thanks! Guess I saw it when the seeing was good;-)
James F. Evans says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:26 am
“.. I have no objections to the concept of “stair-step” Electric Double Layers (I’ll have to look into that concept in more detail).
What is amazing is that Electric Double Layers can take so many different different forms, effected by electromagnetic instabilities, and energy levels and so forth.
Truly, it’s the Electric Double Layer which is the universal process in plasma dominated environments and since plasma is over 99% of the visible Universe that strongly suggests electromagnetism is the framework which needs to be applied to the study, not just of interplanetary dynamics, but also interstellar, and intergalactic..”
~
Thanks for the comments, James.
Back to the “knot in the ribbon at the edge of the solar system unties.”