UPDATE: Leif Svalgaard provides us a magnetic movie (SDO HMI) which I’ve also converted and added below. It’s a real treat too.
This is truly an impressive animation from the folks at the Solar Dynamics Observatory. I’ve converted it to YouTube so more people can watch it. It shows the 5 day time lapse formation of massive sunspot group 1158 from nothing. What’s neat is how the perspective is maintained. I’ve never seen anything quite like this. Less than a week ago, sunspot 1158 didn’t exist. Now it is wider than the planet Jupiter and unleashing the strongest solar flares since December 13th, 2006, including an X-class solar flare that we covered here first on WUWT. Video below.
Solar Magnetics Movie
The HMI (Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager) on the SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory) caught massive sunspot group 1158 in the process of forming from nothing. It is quite an impressive animation. Animation courtesy of Dr. Phil Scherrer at Stanford via Dr. Leif Svalgaard who writes:
“What to note is how the magnetic field ‘bubbled’ up in a very mixed state [black=negative, white=positive polarity]. Then the two polarities separate and move to areas of like polarity: white to white and black to black, in the process assembling sunspots. Watch also how the incessant convection ‘eats’ away at the boundaries of large, mature spots [late in the clip].”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I still need to catch up a several of the previous posts, but back to the recent X class flare, what are your thoughts on this article, which states that;
“The storm was so weak because the flare’s magnetic field happened to be aligned parallel to the Earth’s. When the sun sends a mass of hot plasma hurtling toward the planet in a coronal mass ejection, the plasma is imprinted with its own magnetic field separate from the sun’s. Astronomers can’t predict the direction of the plasma’s magnetic field until the burst hits Earth.
If the plasma’s magnetic field is parallel to the Earth’s, the incoming charged particles are effectively blocked from entering Earth’s magnetosphere. An identical flare with a perpendicular magnetic field would have triggered a much stronger storm.”?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/weak-solar-storm/#more-52010
Just The Facts says:
February 23, 2011 at 1:40 pm
“The storm was so weak because the flare’s magnetic field happened to be aligned parallel to the Earth’s.”
That is the way mother Nature works. I, in fact, predicted just that just after the flare and long before its field was observed by ACE, and that prediction came out beautifully [as it should have, as this is not contentious]:
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 16, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Time to make some prediction: since the magnetic field in 1158 points roughly northwards [white is out, black is into the Sun], the CME should be born with a leading edge that has northwards field. That should mean that initially the geomagnetic storm will not be very strong. Whether it later strengthens depend on how much the southward field on the ‘backside’ of the magnetic cloud is compressed. So, I predict a moderate storm only.
Just The Facts says:
February 23, 2011 at 1:40 pm
“The storm was so weak because the flare’s magnetic field happened to be aligned parallel to the Earth’s.”
That is the way mother Nature works, as explained in this paper
http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says: February 22, 2011 at 10:26 pm
“there probably isn’t very much temperature change that needs to be explained.
So, no reason to desperately look for an explanation of something that may not need be explained.”
No desperation, just rigour.
“With that said, I’d be willing to bet my left arm that the sun influences Earth’s climate in ways that we have yet to discover and understand.”
you might end up like the Black Knight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
Now that’s funny. But only time and research will tell who’s right. Given the openendedness of my position, I’ll put a constraint on it and say that discovery/credible demonstration of an as yet unknown/unproven solar influence on Earth’s climate will occur within your lifetime. If I am wrong, I will admit as such in an epitaph, though not remove my own arm. Now remember, exercise and a healthy diet, as I might need some time on this… 🙂
Just The Facts says:
February 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm
No desperation, just rigour.
The links you provided don’t have much of that commodity, but perhaps your bar is much lower than mine.
Given the openendedness of my position
Science is always open by definition, and your relentless peddling of low-quality papers does not bode well for a resolution if those are the standard bearers of your position. Better be a tad less open and a tad more critical.
Just The Facts says:
February 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm
say that discovery/credible demonstration of an as yet unknown/unproven solar influence on Earth’s climate will occur within your lifetime.
I have already read hundreds of papers [stretching back centuries] claiming precisely that, so fully expect such demonstrations to continue indefinitely.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 22, 2011 at 8:38 pm
“”If we want to be very technical about it we have to take the weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field into account. This makes the Earth more ‘sensitive’ to the solar wind and thus results in an artificial [small] increase in geomagnetic activity [for a given solar wind].”
Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 3:36 pm
“The storm was so weak because the flare’s magnetic field happened to be aligned parallel to the Earth’s.”
“That is the way mother Nature works, as explained in this paper
http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
Very interesting and ridiculously complex. The combination of these variables must makes it quite challenging to isolate and assess the potential influences of historical CME impacts on Earth. Correct? How far back do we have data on the direction of the magnetic fields of Earthbound CMEs? At what points during transit was the direction of field measured?
In your paper that you state that;
“Due to everpresent fluctuations of the interplanetary magnetic field – considerably enhanced after passage through the bow-shock – favorable conditions for connection 32 occur often enough within a three-hour interval at so many places on the magnetopause as to give the impression that reconnect ion and hence geomagnetic activity occur for all orientations of the interplanetary magnetic field and varying in efficiency smoothly from a maximum for anti-parallel fields to a non-vanishing minimum for parallel fields.”
Are these fluctuations in the “direction” of the interplanetary magnetic field? Could a CME leave the sun misaligned with Earth’s magnetic field, but fluctuate during transit and passage through the bow-shock as to be aligned upon arrival?
Do you agree with this summary of alignment/connection?
“When Bz is south, that is, opposite Earth’s magnetic field, the two fields link up,” explains Christopher Russell, a Professor of Geophysics and Space Physics at UCLA. “You can then follow a field line from Earth directly into the solar wind” — or from the solar wind to Earth. South-pointing Bz’s open a door through which energy from the solar wind can reach Earth’s atmosphere!”
Do we have reliable records of when this phenomenon, i.e. alignment/connection has occurred previously?
Can you explain this statement from your paper further?
“A plasma particle that has an initial guiding center velocity, carrying it across a boundary between magnetic fields of different direction, will continue its motion when the two fields have a parallel component but will be reflected back when the magnetic fields on either side of the boundary have an anti-parallel component. In loose terms we may say that the solar wind plasma can penetrate deeper into the geomagnetic field at places where the field direction is the same as the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field embedded in the solar wind because it takes longer for the plasma to realize that something is wrong.”
i.e. is the plasma’s “realization” mechanism one of the following?
“1) The plasma is completely diamagnetic and excludes the field from its interior by flowing around the field region, or 2) The plasma remains non-diamagnetic as it encounters the magnetic field and crosses it by means of an electric polarization and corresponding.”
Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 12:05 pm
A simple plot shows this clearly simply by inspection: http://www.leif.org/research/Aa-and-Temps.png
The green curve is aa shifted 7 years.
Are you kidding? Are you trying to refute the validity of these references using the highly suspect GISS dataset?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif
I have more confidence in my local bank’s temperature record than I do in GISS’… Perhaps a leap forward to the satellite age and start using the UAH temperature record?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_2011.gif
Furthermore, your comparison is irrelevant to Bucha’s finding that:
“We are able to establish the key fact that there exist statistically significant relations between the increasing global temperature and geomagnetic activity in the month of October and December”
and Baumgaertner, Seppälä, Jöckel and Clilver’s finding that:
“Our simulations suggest a link between geomagnetic activity, ozone loss, stratospheric cooling, the NAM, and surface temperature variability.”
You seem to be arguing the lack of correlation and/or causality of the last century or centuries temperature changes to solar activity, whereas, I, and both of these references argue for influences on Earth’s climate, and particularly on Earth’s polar vortices, due to solar variability.
Here’s another one, “The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex” by Charles D. Camp and Ka-Kit Tung:
“The polar temperature is positively correlated with the SC, with a statistically significant zonal mean warming of approximately 4.6 K in the 10–50-hPa layer in the mean and 7.2 K from peak to peak. This magnitude of the warming in winter is too large to be explainable by UV radiation alone. The evidence seems to suggest that the polar warming in NH late winter during SC-max is due to the occurrence of sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), as noted previously by other authors. This hypothesis is circumstantially substantiated here by the similarity between the meridional pattern and timing of the warming and cooling observed during the SC-max and the known pattern and timing of SSWs, which has the form of large warming over the pole and small cooling over the midlatitudes during mid- and late winter. The eQBO is also known to precondition the polar vortex for the onset of SSWs, and it has been pointed out by previous authors that SSWs can occur during eQBO at all stages of the solar cycle.”
So, perhaps we can put this to bed now and not waste any more time on this.
No, this one just had a cup of coffee…
Just The Facts says:
February 23, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Very interesting and ridiculously complex.
Nature is complex. It took us ~150 years to figure this out. Every complicated question has a simple answer which is wrong. There is no way around the complexity [if you want to understand – otherwise you just take it on faith].
The combination of these variables must makes it quite challenging to isolate and assess the potential influences of historical CME impacts on Earth. Correct?
Not really, as we can invert the process and assess the variables from the size and evolution of observed CMEs. E.g. see Figures 7 and 8 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JA013232.pdf
How far back do we have data on the direction of the magnetic fields of Earthbound CMEs? At what points during transit was the direction of field measured?
since 1963. The field was measured ‘at the Earth’.
Are these fluctuations in the “direction” of the interplanetary magnetic field?
Mostly, yes.
Could a CME leave the sun misaligned with Earth’s magnetic field, but fluctuate during transit and passage through the bow-shock as to be aligned upon arrival?
Not unless it is disturbed by another CME running into it [or it runs into one ahead]. This happens but not often.
Do you agree with this summary of alignment/connection?
“When Bz is south, that is, opposite Earth’s magnetic field, the two fields link up,” […] “You can then follow a field line from Earth directly into the solar wind” — or from the solar wind to Earth. South-pointing Bz’s open a door through which energy from the solar wind can reach Earth’s atmosphere!”
Mostly, but there is more to it. The fields also link up at other orientations [e.g. East/West; this is called the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect], but not so efficiently.
Do we have reliable records of when this phenomenon, i.e. alignment/connection has occurred previously?
I’m not sure what you mean. This occurs every few hours all the time and has been followed since 1963 by spacecraft and since the 1840s by proxies.
Can you explain this statement from your paper further? …
“crosses it by means of an electric polarization and corresponding….”
There is still debate about the ‘micro-physics’ and we have made progress since 1977. The physics of this reconnection process was poorly known in 1977 [and only general – but still largely correct – hand-waving arguments could be made]. Today we know a lot more: http://www.leif.org/EOS/yamada10rmp.pdf
[another complex paper].
Just The Facts says:
February 23, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Are you kidding? Are you trying to refute the validity of these references using the highly suspect GISS dataset? […] Perhaps a leap forward to the satellite age and start using the UAH temperature record?
Did Landscheidt use UAH?
Furthermore, your comparison is irrelevant to Bucha’s finding that:
“We are able to establish the key fact that there exist statistically significant relations between the increasing global temperature and geomagnetic activity in the month of October and December”
Were these data taken on the 23rd or the 24th of those months?
The trends in temperatures are highly correlated so it doesn’t really matter which one your use. If it does, you are just cherry-picking data that fits. ”
You seem to be arguing the lack of correlation and/or causality of the last century or centuries temperature changes to solar activity, whereas, I, and both of these references argue for influences on Earth’s climate, and particularly on Earth’s polar vortices, due to solar variability.
specifically it was geomagnetic activity [and not solar activity, e.g. UV] we were discussing. Did you study this paper carefully:
“Recent papers have looked at this in a rigorous manner: e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Yiou-565-2010.pdf From their conclusion:
“we applied those procedures to temperature and geomagnetic activity time series. […] a rigorous test between both variables shows that no significant correlation exists between them””
Here’s another one
There are hundreds out there. Enough for every taste. As far as I am concerned, they all fail. Let me remind you: “But what is it you are trying to do? Are you interested in learning about these things or are you just peddling your personal views. You can ask for my opinion and I’ll give it freely, but I don’t want to argue about it. Take it or leave it.”
Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 6:39 pm
The links you provided don’t have much of that commodity, but perhaps your bar is much lower than mine.
Now you are tossing food, and the Vortex related references I’ve cited above have yet to be refuted.
Science is always open by definition, and your relentless peddling of low-quality papers does not bode well for a resolution if those are the standard bearers of your position. Better be a tad less open and a tad more critical.
Again food. The word I used was “openendedness” not “openmindedness”, and the only “low-quality papers” I’ve cited (my bike is downstairs right now, no peddling going on here) were Landscheidt’s and, El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib’s, which I caveated with the statement, “For geomagnetism, let’s start with some of the weaker references”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/watch-sunspot-group-1158-form-from-nothing/#comment-605212
and I only teed them up so you could put a fork in them for posterity’s sake.
I will be offline for the next 24 hours, so please take your time and see if you can put a fork in the solar influences on vortices front.
Just The Facts says:
February 23, 2011 at 8:21 pm
the Vortex related references I’ve cited above have yet to be refuted.
As I said, your bar is much lower than mine. The shoe is on the other foot: the papers have yet to be substantiated. Most scientists don’t bother wasting time on refuting weak papers.
and I only teed them up so you could put a fork in them for posterity’s sake.
I don’t see the merit of this. It only shows that you are not conducting a serious discussion.
you can put a fork in the solar influences on vortices front.
“But what is it you are trying to do? Are you interested in learning about these things or are you just peddling your personal views. You can ask for my opinion and I’ll give it freely, but I don’t want to argue about it. Take it or leave it.”
Just The Facts says:
February 23, 2011 at 8:21 pm
and I only teed them up so you could put a fork in them for posterity’s sake.
“I don’t see the merit of this. It only shows that you are not conducting a serious discussion.”
The blogosphere has a word for a person behaving like that: ‘a troll’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 7:58 pm
“Do we have reliable records of when this phenomenon, i.e. alignment/connection has occurred previously?”
I’m not sure what you mean. This occurs every few hours all the time and has been followed since 1963 by spacecraft and since the 1840s by proxies.
Particular to CME impacts on Earth, i.e. do we have reliable records as to which ones were aligned upon impact?
Just The Facts says:
February 23, 2011 at 8:21 pm
“Science is always open by definition”
Again food. The word I used was “openendedness” not “openmindedness”
Who said anything about “openmindedness”. Let me spell it out for you [I really didn’t think had to]: Science is always “openended”, because we don’t know where we’ll end up. Scientists are generally not “openminded”, but are very conservative. It takes a VERY good argument [you know “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”] or evidence to overturn a generally accepted paradigm. It happens from time to time, we call that progress.
Just The Facts says:
February 23, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Particular to CME impacts on Earth, i.e. do we have reliable records as to which ones were aligned upon impact?
Since 1963 we have direct measurements. But is is really simpler than that: a geomagnetic storm has three phases. An initial phase that is caused by the compression of the magnetosphere by the dynamic pressure of the CME. This has nothing [or little] to do with the direction of the field. Then during the hours that follow, energy is fed into the magnetosphere and the ring current builds up. This is called the main phase. If the alignment is wrong the main phase will be stunted of even missing. If the alignment is perfect, you get a very large and clear main phase. Things being messy, you can get intermediate effects when the direction is not steady. You can see that here: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2011,01,27
On the 14th the CME started out with southwards field [negative Bz] and storm began, but the just before midnight the field turned northwards and the storm was quashed and fizzled out.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 23, 2011 at 9:07 pm
An initial phase that is caused by the compression of the magnetosphere by the dynamic pressure of the CME. This has nothing [or little] to do with the direction of the field. Then during the hours that follow, energy is fed into the magnetosphere and the ring current builds up. This is called the main phase. If the alignment is wrong the main phase will be stunted or even missing. If the alignment is perfect, you get a very large and clear main phase.
Back in 1962 it was known that some storms developed while other fizzled: e.g.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/JZ068i001p00125.pdf
As Akasofu and Chapman noted in their conclusion “The variety of development of the storms seems to suggest some intrinsic differences between the solar stream far beyond what we would expect from a mere difference between their pressures. The nature of their intrinsic differences is at present unknown.”
Joe Dungey had suggested that the magnetosphere was ‘open’ and that magnetic field lines could reconnect [if their direction were right] and in that in that way energy could be fed into the magnetosphere. This was not generally accepted [remember: scientists are very conservative and just don’t jump on every bandwagon they see]. Especially not by Chapman. It was only after Arnoldy [for solar wind Bz] and I [for By] showed that both Bz and By had measurable effects that the idea of a favorable direction took hold [but then acceptance was quick]. In fact, Akasofu was the referee on my first paper on this and rejected it flat out. He has later apologized, of course, but such was the state of the art back then, and such was the lack [which is proper] of openmindedness.
So, the solution to the problem is the direction of the field in the CME.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 8:30 pm
“the Vortex related references I’ve cited above have yet to be refuted.”
“As I said, your bar is much lower than mine. The shoe is on the other foot: the papers have yet to be substantiated. Most scientists don’t bother wasting time on refuting weak papers.”
The bar reference doesn’t make sense, if I had a lower bar for refutation I would consider more papers to be refuted, not less. Furthermore, I am simply pointing out that the possibility there is some solar influence on polar vortices exists and has some support in the literature. Thus some enterprising scientists might want to research this area further as there may be an opportunity for significant discovery and to prove Leif wrong.
“and I only teed them up so you could put a fork in them for posterity’s sake.”
“I don’t see the merit of this.”
Of course there’s merit, I am eliminating potential variables from the conversation and my list.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 8:33 pm
“The blogosphere has a word for a person behaving like that: ‘a troll’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)“
I am not really sure what to make of this. It’s kinda like me calling you a dumbass. So off that it is both confusing and somewhat comical. The first thing that I thought of when I read your comment was this:
Don’t watch too much or it will suck out your brain… Anyways, congratulations on calling troll on me, it seems like only a matter of time before you’ll offer another proof of Godwin’s Law… 🙂
Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Now that was all really good stuff.
“An initial phase that is caused by the compression of the magnetosphere by the dynamic pressure of the CME.”
Per this paper, “An empirical relationship between coronal mass ejection initial speed and solar wind dynamic pressure” by Cho, Bong, Moon, Dryer, Lee and Kim;
“Interplanetary shocks that precede coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are mainly responsible for sudden impulses, which are characterized by a simple step-like increase in the horizontal H component. Such a magnetic field change has been explained as a compression of the magnetosphere by the passage of a sudden increase in the solar wind dynamic pressure. Strong compression of the dayside magnetopause could cause geosynchronous satellites to be exposed to solar wind environments where large fluctuations of the interplanetary magnetic field and highly energetic particles are present. In this study, we chose 26 event pairs consisting of a type II burst/CME occurring in conjunction with a sudden commencement/sudden impulse (SC/SI) whose solar wind, and Earth magnetic field data are available. We then investigated relationships among three physical properties (kinetic energy, directional parameter, and speed) of near-Sun CMEs, solar wind dynamic pressure, and SC/SI amplitude. As a result, we found that (1) the CME speed is more highly correlated with SC/SI amplitude than its kinetic energy and direction parameter; (2) by adopting the empirical relationship between solar wind dynamic pressure and amplitude of symmetric H (a steplike increase in the horizontal H component at low latitude), we could derive an empirical formula for the relationship between solar wind dynamic pressure near the Earth and the CME speed; (3) the CME speed has a linear relationship with the difference of magnetopause locations derived by using the model of Shue et al. (1998) at the subsolar point before and after the shock arrivals; (4) a fast CME greater than 1600 km s−1 could be a driver of the magnetopause crossing of a spacecraft at geosynchronous orbit. Our results show that the CME speed is an important parameter for early prediction of geosynchronous magnetopause crossing.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JA015139.shtml
Does this seem reasonably accurate? Do you agree with their conclusions?
In terms of the force of the dynamic pressure, this CME observation from July 15, 2000 seems to indicate that 43 nPa;
“On the 15th (DOY 197), there is a declining speed until a large forward shock arrives near 1437 UT. This shock is clearly identified by the abrupt and strong speed increase from about 600 km/s to over 900 km/s. This shock has a strong density and stronger temperature enhancement. The dynamic pressure reaches about 43 nPa (wow). At 1600 UT there is a further increase in the speed (eventually to about 1043 km/s), while the density and temperature have declined markedly. Unfortunately, there is a tracking gap after 2000 UT.”
43 nPa is perceived to be pretty high to someone at MIT and that the sensors tend to bug out when something moderate happens.
ftp://space.mit.edu/pub/plasma/imp/www/july_15_2000.html
Here’s a plot from the day:
ftp://space.mit.edu/pub/plasma/imp/www/cme_pdf/2000.197.dayplot.pdf
This Dynamic Pressure gauge seems to indicated that dynamic pressure can get up to around 100 nPa;
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SWN/sw_dials.gif
This paper reported that during “coronal mass ejection (CME) events during the period 07–12 November 2004” “The CMEs, though started with a weak front end (370 kms -1 and 3.3 nPa), attained velocities up to 800 mks -1 , pressure up to 60 nPa and IMF components up to +- 50nT.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-4S98V3S-3&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1655509116&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=778a2284489a47d63054e46a23f2fb3b&searchtype=a
Do you have any good references on dynamic pressure, especially about height and length of the peaks?
In terms of inbound energy waves, starting with 100 nPa (nano Pascals) of force does not seem promising, but I’ll check to see what’s out there.
“Then during the hours that follow, energy is fed into the magnetosphere and the ring current builds up.”
Do you have any good references on the mechanisms and the amounts of energy that is fed in under various combinations of Solar Wind – CME strengths and field directions – alignments? I will study this tomorrow.
Which reminds me, here is POES Northern Auroral Activity
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html
POES Southern Auroral Activity;
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapS.html
and POES Energetic Particles.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/tiger/index.html
I am planning to build a WUWT Geomagnetism Reference Page this weekend. If you have any suggested current charts, graphs or animations for inclusion, please let me know.
Just The Facts says:
February 24, 2011 at 10:44 pm
The bar reference doesn’t make sense, if I had a lower bar for refutation I would consider more papers to be refuted, not less.
It is not the number that is important but the quality. Instead of suggesting crappy papers, pick what you consider to be the absolute best, strongest, most compelling one and let us discuss that one.
Just The Facts says:
February 24, 2011 at 10:50 pm
It’s kinda like me calling you a dumbass.
You just cannot let it go, it seems. Haven’t you insulted enough [and anonymously to boot]? The troll-characterization is accurate. Read the Wiki link I provided and ponder it, and perhaps you can improve your conduct accordingly.
“But what is it you are trying to do? Are you interested in learning about these things or are you just peddling your personal views. You can ask for my opinion and I’ll give it freely, but I don’t want to argue about it. Take it or leave it.”
Just The Facts says:
February 24, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Now that was all really good stuff.
All my stuff is good stuff.
“Our results show that the CME speed is an important parameter for early prediction of geosynchronous magnetopause crossing.”
Does this seem reasonably accurate? Do you agree with their conclusions?
Yes, but this is old hat. Chapman and Ferraro explained all that back in the 1930s.
Do you have any good references on dynamic pressure, especially about height and length of the peaks?
The dynamic pressure P is calculated from the speed V and the density n: P = 2E(-6) nV^2 nPa. So for V = 1600 km/s, n = 100 /cm3, you have P = 512 nPa. for the more typical values V=400, n=5, P is 1.6 nPa. Thus a wide range is possible.
You can get plots and listings here: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html
The length of the peaks is always short [minutes to a few hours].
In terms of inbound energy waves, starting with 100 nPa (nano Pascals) of force does not seem promising, but I’ll check to see what’s out there.
The ‘energy waves’ is not how things work. The shock wave presses against the [very] strong magnetic field of the Earth, which is more than enough to keep the shock at bay. There are no energy transfer to the Earth in this process due to the pressure as such. Now, a compressed magnetosphere leads to other effects [currents] that in turn transfers energy and precipitates particles. I wrote some notes on this for ‘Climate Audit’: http://www.leif.org/research/geoact.htm
Do you have any good references on the mechanisms and the amounts of energy that is fed in under various combinations of Solar Wind – CME strengths and field directions – alignments? I will study this tomorrow.
The ridiculously complex paper of mine is one of the best. An even earlier one [1973] has an appendix on calculation of energy: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
There are, of course, lots of modern papers on the same subject. I’m sure you can find many without my help
Which reminds me, here is POES Northern Auroral Activity
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html
The POES power input can be calculated quite accurately from my geomagnetic IHV index: http://www.leif.org/research/POES%20Power%20and%20IHV.pdf so is actually available way back into the 19th century. There is also this: http://www.solen.info/solar/poes/poes.html
Just The Facts says:
February 24, 2011 at 10:44 pm
“As I said, your bar is much lower than mine.”
The bar reference doesn’t make sense
I don’t say things that don’t make sense. If you do not understand them at first, reflect on them to achieve enlightenment.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Just The Facts says: February 24, 2011 at 10:58 pm
“Then during the hours that follow, energy is fed into the magnetosphere and the ring current builds up.”
Do you have any good references on the mechanisms and the amounts of energy that is fed in under various combinations of Solar Wind – CME strengths and field directions – alignments? I will study this tomorrow.
What do you think about the accuracy of this summary?
“These measurements are made continually as the satellite passes over the polar aurora regions twice each orbit. Since 1978, observations from almost 300,000 transits over the auroral regions have been gathered under a variety of auroral activity conditions ranging from very quiet to extremely active. Power flux observations accumulated during a single transit over the polar region (which requires about 25 minutes as the satellite moves along its orbit) are used to estimate the total power input by auroral particles to a single polar region. This estimate, which is corrected to take into account how the satellite passes over a statistical auroral oval, is a measure of the level of auroral activity, much as Kp or Ap are measures of magnetic activity. A particle power input of less than 10 gigawatts (10,000,000,000 watts) to a single polar region, either in the North or the South, represents a very low level of auroral activity. A power input of more than 100 gigawatts represents a very high level of Auroral activity. Estimated power inputs as high as 500 gigawatts have been recorded into a single auroral region.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/BackgroundInfo.html
Just The Facts says:
February 25, 2011 at 6:38 am
Do you have any good references on the mechanisms and the amounts of energy that is fed in under various combinations of Solar Wind – CME strengths and field directions – alignments? I will study this tomorrow.
Asked and answered.
What do you think about the accuracy of this summary?
“These measurements are made continually as the satellite passes over the polar aurora regions twice each orbit.”
just fine.
Just The Facts says:
February 23, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 12:05 pm
“A simple plot shows this clearly simply by inspection: http://www.leif.org/research/Aa-and-Temps.png
The green curve is aa shifted 7 years.”
Are you kidding? Are you trying to refute the validity of these references using the highly suspect GISS dataset? […] Perhaps a leap forward to the satellite age and start using the UAH temperature record?
Adding UAH [and RSS for good measure] doesn’t make any difference:
http://www.leif.org/research/Aa-and-Temps.png