From NASA JPL: Solar flares – they’re big and they’re fast. They can knock out a satellite or create a beautiful aurora. And the jury is still out on what causes these explosions.
Flares, and the related coronal mass ejection, shoot energy, radiation, and magnetic fields out into space that can harm satellites or humans in space. Current observations aren’t precise enough to determine whether the eruptions are driven by energy surging through the sun’s surface, or by the sudden release of energy that has slowly accumulated in the atmosphere.
This aurora over Valkeakoski, Finland on September 15, 2000 resulted from the September 12 coronal mass ejection featured in the video above. › Download video Credit: Tom Eklund
Now, a new way of looking at old data has changed all that, but the results have created more mystery: There isn’t enough energy passing through the surface during the eruption to drive the explosion.
“In some sense, the idea that energy from below triggers the eruption is the easiest explanation – like a geyser,” says Peter Schuck, a physicist who studies space weather at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “But if the idea doesn’t agree with what’s observed, then it’s wrong. End of story.”
Schuck’s research indicates that, instead, the trigger occurs in the sun’s atmosphere. “Our result shows that observations are more consistent with a slow accumulation of energy in the atmosphere,” Schuck said, “and then a sudden explosion triggered from above, more like lightning.”
Schuck studies coronal mass ejections, or CMEs, and solar flares at the place where theory and observation overlap. His latest work on CMEs appeared in the Astrophysical Journal on May 1. Schuck constructed a way to test CME and flare observations in order to limit which group of hypotheses fit the data, even when there’s not enough evidence to conclusively pick a single theory.
In the case of CMEs, the data is limited to distant movies captured by spacecraft such as the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). These movies show that CMEs begin as a gigantic arch, some 50 times larger than Earth, with each of its feet planted on the sun’s surface, or “photosphere.”
Two broad camps of theories have been developed to explain these so-called coronal loops. “The energy is built up by either a twisting motion below the surface or the release of magnetic energy in the solar atmosphere,” says Haimin Wang, a physicist at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, whose work focuses on the characteristics of the photosphere before and during solar ejections.
Either way, the energy originally comes from the surface. The question is simply whether it surges through directly before the appearance of the coronal loop or oozes up slowly over time, storing up in the atmosphere until released in a massive explosion of light, plasma, magnetic fields and high energy particles.
Distinguishing between the two options based solely on a distant movie isn’t easy. Imagine trying to figure out what powers a car when all you’ve got to go on is a movie of a highway. Worse, that movie isn’t from above, so you might easily determine the direction and speed of those cars, but from head-on or a side view where you’re not even sure of the angle.
If, however, you can infer the speed of the car, you could at the very least figure out how much energy it has and, in turn, rule out any power source that didn’t jibe with what you saw.
Schuck has done exactly that. “I developed a way to infer magnetic field motion, and therefore energy amounts, from the velocities we observe in the photosphere,” he says.
Imagine the cars again. If the cars were coming directly toward you, you could measure the wavelength of the headlights and by determining how strongly they’d been shifted by the Doppler effect (that same wave-changing effect that causes sirens to sound higher as they come toward you and lower as they move away) you could measure the car’s speed.
Schuck used similar, head-on Doppler measurements to find the velocity of solar material on the surface of the sun. This material moves perpendicular to the magnetic field at the base of the coronal loop — the crux of what Schuck is trying to understand. He can convert those initial velocities of the sun’s surface into information about the motion and energy of the magnetic field. This analysis may not spit out an exact number for the energy, but it does give a precise, accurate range of energy possibilities.
And so, for the first time, one can look at images of the sun and set firm limits on the maximum energy at a given spot – at least if the material was moving directly towards the camera to provide an accurate Doppler measurement.
The next step applies the analysis to an actual coronal mass ejection. Schuck looked at the data from a CME on September 12, 2000. This was an M-class ejection — meaning it was fairly intense, but one step below the strongest X-class — that moved directly towards Earth. Conveniently, this was also a well-studied flare, so other scientists had already examined SOHO images to measure the path, speed, and energy of the CME. This information, in turn, implies how much energy would have come through the photosphere at the start of the process had it indeed initiated from below.
The results were dramatic. The SOHO images showed the photosphere moving at speeds 10,000 times less slowly than would have been expected if it were directly triggering the eruption. “The velocity you’d need to see on the photosphere would be a thousand kilometers per second,” says Shuck. “Not only are these speeds easily detected but they would be greater than the standard measurement range of the instrument. You’d see really weird stuff in the data readouts.”
There is always the slim chance that somehow the instruments didn’t catch the extreme motion, but given how large the velocities would have had to be, Schuck thinks this is unlikely.
This still leaves a variety of theories on just how the energy is stored and what triggers its release in the atmosphere. Distinguishing between those theories will require more detailed data—something scientists hope NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, launched in February 2010 will be able to provide.
Unlike previous missions, SDO will be able to directly measure the energy in the photosphere – as opposed to Schuck’s present method of inferring that energy from velocity measurements — and it will do so with 20 times the resolution of the data on which Schuck based his current work. Such information will help narrow down what triggers a CME or solar flare even more precisely.
“Now we just need some really big CMEs to work with,” says Schuck.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
vukcevic says:
November 24, 2010 at 12:23 am
Your graph shows Dst index back to 1905, I would appreciate a link for the data download .
http://www.leif.org/research/dst-love.txt
in this format: year, month, day, UT hour, Dst
A few values are missing and are listed as 999.00
The derivation (by J. J. Love) is described here:
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202007%20SH54B-03.pdf
Just wanted to add to the chorus. Leif’s willingness to teach is astounding and very much appreciated by this reader.
Carla says:
November 24, 2010 at 6:47 am
tallbloke says:
November 24, 2010 at 12:09 am
Maybe it’s just modern terminology and you two aren’t as far apart as you seem to think? Magnetism and electricity are two sides of the same coin.
The denial of magnetic reconnection goes much deeper:
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/electriccosmos.html
Now, transient electric double layers can form as a result of reconnection and can help in accelerating particles. This happens in the aurorae, for example. But the layers are consequences rather than causes and that is the fundamental difference. The problem with treating EDLs as a cause has to do with ‘sustaining’ the double layer. With what keeps it going. This is discussed e.g. here http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html#flares
Dr. Svalgaard
That is absolutely perfect. Thank you very much.
The problem with the term “reconnection” is that it does not indicate what is really happening. You can argue for magnetic field lines “reconnecting” but thats not what is really happening. The magnetic field follows the flow of electric current in the flux tubes. Reconnection only happens in flux tubes. It is a touching of the filaments that make up the flux tubes. This is from an experimental viewpoint. Notice in the paper referenced by Dr. Svalgaard there is no observational structure attached to the event. Mostly theoretical.
The first thing to understand is the ubiquity of flux tubes in space and the solar surface.
And then to understand that all reconnections take place in these flux tubes.
The reconnection that CLUSTER measures takes place in Flux Transfer events which is a fancy name for the reconnection that takes place in the flux tubes that connect the earth with the sun.
This paper may help understand what happens. You need to have a current flow through the plasma to form the flux tubes. The when the current becomes too great in the flux tubes, attractive forces take over, the filaments touch, current changes direction and a reconnection happens.
Three-dimensional current systems generated by plasmas colliding
in a background magnetoplasma.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers/POP-colliding-plasmas.pdf
Here is the image galley at The Large Plasma Device at UCLA.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/pages/gallery.html
brant says:
November 24, 2010 at 9:43 am
The magnetic field follows the flow of electric current in the flux tubes. Reconnection only happens in flux tubes.
No, this is the usual electric universe nonsense. The currents are a consequence of the magnetic field reconnection.
Notice in the paper referenced by Dr. Svalgaard there is no observational structure attached to the event.
Apart from the vagueness of this statement, may I point out this from the paper:
A. Dedicated laboratory experiments on reconnection
1. Early reconnection experiments
2. Plasma merging experiments
a. Todai spheromak-3/4 facility
b. Swarthmore Spheromak Experiment facility
3. Controlled driven reconnection experiments
a. MRX facility
b. Versatile Toroidal Facility
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “There is no reference to Electric Double Layers, as is fitting in view of our modern understanding.”
No surprise.
So-called “magnetic reconnection” was developed in response to ground observations of CME’s, and, in the pre-space age of 1946, only magnetic fields could be observed from ground observatories.
The early “magnetic reconnection” papers all focussed on magnetic fields, but the magnetic field is only one force among many which also includes electric fields, charged particle density, location, velocity, direction, and points of acceleration.
As a result, these early papers never quantified the process and many disagreements existed among the scientists studying the process.
Other scientists applied an electromagnetic framework from the beginning of their analysis & interpretation (which had already been developed in the laboratory), these scientists applied the Electric Double Layer model, which has been qualitatively & quantitatively resolved.
And, this electromagnetic analysis & interpretation has been validated by in situ satellite probes.
Of course, Yamada, et al., doesn’t discuss Electric Double Layers or compare & contrast the two processes because if they did, it would be readily apparent the processes are one and the same process, with, albeit, different names.
It’s simple: The “magnetic reconnection” camp can’t admit the Electric Double Layer analysis & interpretation was right all along because then the game would be over.
Clearly, an electromagnetic framework of analysis & interpretation is required to develop a model for the process in question: Formation & propagation of coronal mass ejections (CME’s).
tallbloke wrote: “Maybe it’s just modern terminology and you two aren’t as far apart as you seem to think? Magnetism and electricity are two sides of the same coin.”
Yes, exactly!
The process in question is one and the same.
Carla responded to tallbloke’s statement: “Yeah, exactly Tall Blokes
Electric double layers to some extent exist all over space and time to some degree, in various sizes and strengths.
Reconnection is also universal, as is gravitational forces and waves..
What happened got off the tracks..”
Carla, you have the first part right, but the second part is wrong in so far as it suggests there is a seperate process of “reconnection”… there isn’t. Changing magnetic fields are a result of changing charged particle flows and the interaction and positive self-reinforcing feedback relationships of the associated magnetic fields, electric force of charged particles, and the resultant electric fields and electric currents expressed in the Electric Double Layer analysis & interpretation.
All of the above is accounted for in the electromagnetic framework.
Carla wrote: “What happened got off the tracks..”
Easy, astronomical group think couldn’t admit early “magnetic reconnection” ideas were fundamentally inadequate, so it morphed into the Electric Double Layer analysis & interpretation without the integrity of acknowledging the pre-existing Electric Double Layer model.
Why would astronomical physicists do that?
Because astronomical physicists are fundametally hostile to the electromagnetic analysis & interpretation of astronomical phenomena.
But in situ satellite probes are rebuking this astronomical group think.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “How do you introduce electromagnetic energy into a process?”
Simple: One way is to increase the charged particle density flowing into the Electric Double Layer. With an increase of charged particle density a stronger magnetic field is introduced into the system along with an increase in charged particles.
Twice now already Dr. Svalgaard has ignored this easy proposition for confirming Hannes Alfven’s exploding double layer hypothesis:
“The power of plasma physics is that laboratory experiments can quantify the process of exploding double layers in high resolution (which has already been done).
With the advent of the SDO, the formation of CME’s can be quantified in high resolution.
Then compare & contrast the physical dynamics of exploding double layers as observed & measured in the laboratory and the formation of CME’s as observed & measured in the solar environment.
Once CME’s are resolved, then the comparison between the two processes should be simple enough.”
When the interlocutor ignores such a statement (especially when they ignore it more than once) that should queue the reader to question the interlocutor. The interlocutor doesn’t have a meaningful objection or wants to avoid the import of the statement because it damages their position in the argument. Often, other items are then interjected, rapid fire, into the discussion as a distraction from the statement the interlocutor has no answer for and wants readers to ignore.
As a side note, many astrophysical ideas are now being questioned and out-right contradicted by modern in situ statellite probes because, like so-called “magnetic reconnection”, the ideas were a priori assumptions based on theory, often mathematical abstractions, which are being contradicted by empirical observation & measurements from space.
One example:
“Understanding of solar wind structure might be wrong
Los Alamos scientist suggests new approach to measuring flow from the sun”
“LOS ALAMOS, New Mexico, September 9, 2010—A scientist examining the solar wind suggests that our understanding of its structure may need significant reassessment. The plasma particles flowing from the Sun and blasting past the Earth might be configured more as a network of tubes than a river-like stream, according to Joseph Borovsky of Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Space Science and Applications group.”
“In a paper in this week’s Physical Review Letters, “Contribution of Strong Discontinuities to the Power Spectrum of the Solar Wind,” (Physical Review Letters 105, 111102 [2010]), Borovsky challenges the concept that the solar wind is of fairly uniform structure, and therefore, our entire interpretation of spacecraft data may not be correct.”
Borovsky identifies a “network of tubes” in the solar wind, also commonly referred to as “magnetic flux tubes”, also referred to as Birkeland currents. If Borovsky is correct, and much more scientific investigation needs to be done to either confirm or falsify Borovsky’s conclusions, then even interplanetary space is cellular in nature, thus being another confirmation of Hannes Alfven’s observation that space is cellular in nature, reflecting the electromagnetic properties of plasma.
More from the Los Alamos National Laboratory press release:
“Borovosky argues that the discontinuities are part of a structure to the solar wind that looks like spaghetti, with the discontinuities being the boundaries between adjacent noodles (magnetic tubes). In this concept, the wind plasma is structured rather than being homogeneous. He suggests that the spaghetti structure of the solar-wind plasma reflects the “magnetic carpet” on the surface of the Sun, with the spaghetti in the wind being loose strands of the magnetic carpet.”
http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/understanding_of_solar_wind_structure_might_be_wrong_newsrelease.html
Maybe, Dr. Svalgaard could be so good as to provide Borovsky’s peer-reviewed scientific paper?
Times are a changing, and 1970’s analysis & interpretation, over-reliant on magnetic field observations & measurements, needs to be a historical footnote, to the modern full-spectrum electromagnetic observations & measurements which are being made by today’s in situ satellite probes.
The Electric Double Layer is the foundational building block of the electromagnetic anaysis & interpretation.
And, as a corollary, exploding double layers as a mechanism for CME formation & propagation is a valid analytical hypothesis which needs to be scientifically investigated.
Those that insist such scientific investigation can be ignored reveal their basic ani-science attitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
brant says:
November 24, 2010 at 9:43 am
The magnetic field follows the flow of electric current in the flux tubes. Reconnection only happens in flux tubes.
From the paper you cite:
“The collision of the lpps results in an early magnetic reconnection event Fig. 4. This creates a short-lived induced electric field parallel to the background magnetic field and drives a large field aligned current”
Again: the currents are consequences of reconnection, not causes.
James F. Evans says:
November 24, 2010 at 10:01 am
And, as a corollary, exploding double layers as a mechanism for CME formation & propagation is a valid analytical hypothesis which needs to be scientifically investigated.
You haven’t learned anything from these discussions. Scientists today do not consider it a valid hypothesis.
James F. Evans says:
November 24, 2010 at 10:01 am
The Electric Double Layer is the foundational building block of the electromagnetic analysis & interpretation.
Nobody today believes that. To illustrate where you are coming from, tell us what powers the Sun.
Dr. Svalgaard, that is some data file, the excess values/month, akin to the file for number of days the AA index is above 60, would be far easier to handle.
The timing of brant’s comment couldn’t have been better.
Put together brant’s comment and Borovsky’s peer-reviewed scientific paper and you have a discussion of “magnetic flux tubes”. Obviously, “magnetic flux tubes”, Birkeland currents, have structure, a specific structure based on electromagnetic dynamics present in plasma envirnoments.
These magnetic flux tubes are being scientifically resolved, and what is found are magnetic fields, electric fields, charged particle densities, location, velocity, direction and points of acceleration.
As Irving Langmuir, 1932 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, noted as a result of laboratory experiments, plasma, free electrons & ions, is self-organizing. As opposed to plasma staying homogeneous — the common notion in today’s astro-physics — Langmuir found that plasma organized into heterogeneous bodies of plasma with distinct physical characteristics. And, these bodies of plasma resist “shorting” or “cancelling out” by a self-organization which tends to insulate bodies of plasma with different physical characteristics.
The Electric Double Layer process is the basic structure by which different bodies of plasma insulate from each other, and interact with each other, when they come into contact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Langmuir
“In 1953 Langmuir coined the term “pathological science”, describing research conducted with accordance to the scientific method, but tainted by unconscious bias or subjective effects.”
Sadly, but quite correctly, Langmuir identified the crisis in today’s astronomical physics.
James F. Evans says:
November 24, 2010 at 11:36 am
Obviously, “magnetic flux tubes”, Birkeland currents, have structure, a specific structure based on electromagnetic dynamics present in plasma environments.
Flux tubes are not Birkeland currents.
Sadly, but quite correctly, Langmuir identified the crisis in today’s astronomical physics.
Or rather that in the EU cult. There is no crisis in astronomy, rather we are witnessing a Golden Age.
plasma, free electrons & ions, is self-organizing. As opposed to plasma staying homogeneous — the common notion in today’s astro-physics
You do not even know what the ‘common notion’ is. If you could care [a forlorn hope, I know] to actually read or even look at the review paper I cite, you would find this section:
“VIII. MAGNETIC SELF-ORGANIZATION AND RECONNECTION
In the previous sections, the physics of magnetic reconnection in the vicinity of the neutral sheet or the diffusion regions has been discussed in detail. Plasma dynamics in these narrow diffusion regions are extremely important in determining the rate at which magnetic fields reconnect and magnetic energy is released. In most cases, however, the cause of magnetic reconnection does not originate in these spatially localized regions. Rather, magnetic reconnection takes place because there is a need for magnetic field to release its excessive energy stored on global scales. When an external force is applied to the plasma, the magnetic configuration gradually changes to a new equilibrium while plasma parameters slowly adjust. When this new state becomes unstable, the plasma reorganizes itself rapidly to a new MHD equilibrium state, through forming current sheets, driving magnetic reconnection, and changing magnetic topology. The excess magnetic energy is converted to plasma kinetic energy, and the plasma magnetically relaxes or self-organizes to a lower magnetic energy state. This global view of magnetic reconnection phenomena, including its causes, dynamics, and consequences, applies to almost all cases covered by this review, i.e., laboratory fusion plasmas, magnetospheric plasmas, solar plasmas, and some of the more distant astrophysical plasmas.”
vukcevic says:
November 24, 2010 at 11:11 am
Dr. Svalgaard, that is some data file, the excess values/month, akin to the file for number of days the AA index is above 60, would be far easier to handle.
Well, you read though the file [of course you have to write a small ten-line program to that] and extract what you want. But what is it you want? “Number of days”? per month, per year, all together [thus a single number]? I have already shown a Figure with the average negative values per year of Dst and with the average positive values. The two have to be kept separate as they are due to different physics: http://www.leif.org/research/Dst-Positive-Negative-1905-now.png
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “You haven’t learned anything from these discussions.”
On the contrary, I appreciate the socratic method you bring to the discussion as it is critical for refining ideas, and you provide a classic case study in “pathological science”, which sadly reflects much of astronomy today.
Evans wrote: “The Electric Double Layer is the foundational building block of the electromagnetic analysis & interpretation.”
Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Nobody today believes that.”
Tell that to all the scientists who contributed their time, effort, and peer-reviewed scientific papers in building the Electric Double Layer analysis & interpretation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
There are 56 footnotes at the end of the above Wikipedia entry for plasma double layers, obviously, not all 56 footnotes are for seperate scientists, but neither is the Wikipedia entry an exhausitve list of scientists who have contributed to the Electric Double Layer paradigm.
Dr. Svalgaard asked: “To illustrate where you are coming from, tell us what powers the Sun.”
I don’t know, and as others have pointed out, here, on this comment thread, there are significant problems and anomalies with the “nuclear furnace” Sun model, not withstanding your protests to the contrary.
And, who knows, just like present historians now marvel that scientific dogma was so stuck on an Earth-centered model before Nicolai Copernicus presented his Sun-centered model of the solar system (which others then demonstrated was correct like Galileo), futrue historians may marvel that 20th century astronomy was so stuck on a “nuclear furnace” model of the Sun.
“The Earth-centered Universe of Aristotle and Ptolemy held sway on Western thinking for almost 2000 years. Then, in the 16th century a new idea was proposed by the Polish astronomer Nicolai Copernicus (1473-1543).”
Time will tell, and as this post demonstrates, there are numerous questions about the physcial dynamics of the Sun which are yet to be satisfactorily answered.
The jury is still out — as is proper in issues of scientific discovery.
Dr. Svalgaard, if Alfven’s hypothesis of exploding double layers is clearly invalid as you assert, then it should be relatively easy to investigate Alfven’s hypothesis and come to a conclusion one way or the other.
Those who would invalidate a hypothesis without ever investigating the scientific merits of the hypothesis are the inheritors of the mind-set that refused to consider the Copernicus hypothesis.
Dr. Svalgaard, your 1970’s over-reliant on magnetic fields approach to astro-physics is antiquated and fails to incorporate today’s full-spectrum electromagnetic, plasma physics, approach to astro-physics.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Flux tubes are not Birkeland currents.”
Birkeland currents refers to a specific structure which causes the aurora, but further investigation likely will reveal that magnetic flux tubes have the same structure as Birkeland currents, yes, a different location, but similar structural dynamics, never the less.
In so far as the passage you quoted from the paper, it’s self-serving hand waving offered for the sole purpose of justifying the failed “magnetic reconnection” idea. Yamada, et al., of course, fail to acknowledge this self-organizing dynamic of plasma systems was noted by Langmuir decades ago.
What the quoted passage does confirm is that the paper is determined not to recongnize the full-spectrum electromagnetic analysis & interpretation:
So-called “magnetic reconnection” is now, nothing but a dodge to avoid the electromagnatic analysis & interpretation.
Thanks. Done it. Using only negative values Abs(Dst)>100 (in this case hourly), will be looking into a cumulative effect on annual basis.
Gentlemen, this could become a very productive thread if we can refrain from rudeness. Why argue over the precedance of cause and effect in a system which is clearly self amplifying? If we simply adopt a convention of never referring to ‘magnetic’ or ‘electric’ phenomena, but instead always refer to ‘electromagnetic’ phenomena, then we can overcome this low hurdle and discuss the more interesting issue of whether the chicken or the egg came first.
By the way Leif, your Dst negative values, when inverted, bear more than a passing resemblance to the sunspot record:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/dst-ssn.jpg
tallbloke says:
November 24, 2010 at 1:24 pm
always refer to ‘electromagnetic’ phenomena, then we can overcome this low hurdle and discuss the more interesting issue of whether the chicken or the egg came first.
Except that ‘electromagnetic’ is usually used for photons and not for anything involving charged particles [except by people who do not know any better]. The issue is fundamental, because it is the magnetic field that rules the universe [after gravity]. This is because electric fields depends on the observer, but magnetic fields to not. The violent denial of magnetic reconnection is a consequence of the cult-like belief in an ‘electric’ universe.
By the way Leif, your Dst negative values, when inverted, bear more than a passing resemblance to the sunspot record: http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/dst-ssn.jpg
There is a good reason for this. As you can see from http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf
and http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
these quantities are related thus: -Dst = 11 +1.57*sqrt(SSN)
The physics is this:
The negative part of Dst is determined by how much southward heliospheric magnetic field there is and that is in turn determined by how much magnetic flux on the surface of the Sun there is, which in turn is determined by how many spots there are.
vukcevic says:
November 24, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Thanks. Done it. Using only negative values Abs(Dst)>100 (in this case hourly), will be looking into a cumulative effect on annual basis.
There is no cumulative effects [unless you simply mean the yearly average] from year to year. The ring current [which is the cause of negative Dst] dies away in a few days.
And intriguingly enough, when Love’s Dst positive values are inverted, the curve bears an interesting resemblance to Leif’s solar wind reconstruction.
Fancy that. Anyone want to share a Nobel prize?
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/solar-wind-dst-pos.jpg
tallbloke says:
November 24, 2010 at 1:55 pm
And intriguingly enough, when Love’s Dst positive values are inverted, the curve bears an interesting resemblance to Leif’s solar wind reconstruction.
Fancy that. Anyone want to share a Nobel prize?
And there is an equally good physical reason for that. The positive values of Dst come from the compression of the magnetosphere due to the increased flow pressure when a CME hits. The flow pressure increases when the density increases [and that, in turn, varies inversely with solar wind speed – low speed wind is denser], so no wonder the curves look alike [some of the time]. They must and they do, as we have known for a while. You see, when we understand somethings, they make sense.
Thanks for the explanation Leif.
The Sun’s variation affects the earth so directly!
I wonder what other gems lurk in the data just needing to be looked at the right way up.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 24, 2010 at 1:49 pm
There is no cumulative effects [unless you simply mean the yearly average] from year to year. The ring current [which is the cause of negative Dst] dies away in a few days.
I thought we’d just established that the waxing and waning of the solar cycle was the cause of negative Dst.
You said:
The negative part of Dst is determined by how much southward heliospheric magnetic field there is and that is in turn determined by how much magnetic flux on the surface of the Sun there is, which in turn is determined by how many spots there are.
And I’ve already determined that there is a cumulative effect equivalent to the number of spots on the ocean heat content.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/
tallbloke says:
November 24, 2010 at 3:16 pm
I thought we’d just established that the waxing and waning of the solar cycle was the cause of negative Dst. […]
And I’ve already determined that there is a cumulative effect equivalent to the number of spots on the ocean heat content.
The ring current [negative Dst] dies away after a few days and your effect is just numerology.
vukcevic says:
November 24, 2010 at 3:23 pm
You may not agree but there is possibility of cumulative ring currents negative pulses during intense and super storms (Dst 0.5%/annum) in the near equatorial regions
Nonsense, as the ring current dies away after a few days.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “This is because electric fields depends on the observer, but magnetic fields to not.”
False.
Electric fields are the result of an ordered array of charged particles, each of which has an ‘electric force’, this is not dependent on the observer.
I’ve presented this comparison of Electric Double Layer scientific papers and “magnetic reconnection” papers before (at least four different times), but each and every time I’ve presented these papers and requested Dr. Svalgaard to distinguish the two sets of papers, by analyzing the physical perameters discussed in both sets of papers, Dr. Svalgaard has ignored the request.
The following scientific papers stand for the proposition that so-called “magnetic reconnection” is actually the Electric Double Layer process.
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.”
Let’s now 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 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.”
When a reader compares the two sets of scientific papers and then compares the specific physical elements observed & measured, magnetic fields, electric fields & charged particles’ location, motion, direction, and velocity (currents) & charged particles’ location of acceleration, it becomes clear what mainstream astrophysics has labeled “magnetic reconnection” is actually an Electric Double Layer. Obviously, this requires an electromagnetic (charged particles, free electrons & ions) framework of analysis & interpretation as presented in the Electric Double Layer process as stated by Hannes Alfven.
Perhaps, Dr. Svalgaard will finally attempt to make the physical distinctions between the two papers, but I’m not holding my breath.
But just to help Dr. Svalgaard out, here is a document:
Double Layers in Astrophysics
Edited by
Alton C. Williams and Tauna W. Moorehead
NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama
Proceedings of a workshop sponsored by
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Washington, D.C., and the Universities Space Research
Association, Washington, D.C., and held at
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Alabama
March 17-19, 1986
I. DOUBLE LAYERS IN THE LABORATORY
Formation Mechanisms of Laboratory Double Layers (Chung Chan)
Some Dynamical Properties of Very Strong Double Layers in a Triple
Plasma Device (T. Carpenter and S. Torvfn)
Pumping Potential Wells (N. Hershkowitz, C. Forest, E. Y. Wang,
and T. Intrator)
A Laboratory Investigation of Potential Double Layers (Philip Leung)
Experimental Observation of Ion-Acoustic Double Layers in Laboratory
Plasma (Y. C. Saxena)
II. THEORY AND SIMULATION OF DOUBLE LAYERS
A New Hydrodynamic Analysis of Double Layers (Heinrich Hora)
Ion Phase-Space Vortices and Their Relation to Small Amplitude Double
Layers (Hans L. P6cseli)
Effect of Double Layers on Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Coupling
(Robert L. Lysak and Mary K. Hudson)
Current Driven Weak Double Layers (G6rard Chanteur)
Electric Fields and Double Layers in Plasmas (Nagendra Singh,
H. Thiemann, and R. W. Schunk)
Electron Acceleration in Stochastic Double Layers (William Lotko)
Anomalous Transport in Discrete Arcs and Simulation of Double Layers in a
Model Auroral Circuit (Robert A. Smith)
Weak Double Layers in the Auroral Ionosphere (M. K. Hudson,
T. L. Crystal, W. Lotko, and C. Barnes)
Particle Simulation of Auroral Double Layers (Bruce L. Smith
and Hideo Okuda)
III. SPACE APPLICATIONS
Conditions for Double Layers in the Earth’s Magnetosphere and Perhaps
in Other Astrophysical Objects (L. R. Lyons)
Some Aspects of Double Layer Formation in a Plasma Constrained by
a Magnetic Mirror (W. Lennartsson)
Electric Potential Distributions at the Interface Between Plasmasheet
Clouds (D. S. Evans, M. Roth, and J. Lemaire)
Double Layers Above the Aurora (M. Temerin and F. S. Mozer)
Beamed Emisssion from Gamma-Ray Burst Sources (R. Epstein)
Double Layers and Plasma-Wave Resistivity in Extragalactic Jets: Cavity
Formation and Radio-Wave Emission (Joseph E. Borovsky)
Accretion onto Neutron Stars with the Presence of a Double Layer
(A. C. Williams, M. C. Weisskopf, R. F. Eisner, W. Darbro,
and P. G. Sutherland)
The Formation of a Double Layer Leading to the Critical Velocity
Phenomenon (A. C. Williams)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880_1987013880.pdf
Evans wrote: “The Electric Double Layer is the foundational building block of the electromagnetic analysis & interpretation.”
Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Nobody today believes that.”
Tell that to all the scientists (including the ones named above) who contributed their time, effort, and peer-reviewed scientific papers in building the Electric Double Layer analysis & interpretation.
It’s one thing to disagree with another scientist’s considered opinion, it’s another thing entirely to claim there are no scientists who subscribe to such an opinion.
(One is left to ask, why would Dr. Svalgaard claim something that is so easily demonstrated to be false?)