This should be interesting. At least they aren’t putting Dikpati on the panel. The scene from the movie “The Wizard of Oz” where after the residents of Emerald City see strange writings in the sky and shout “the Wizard will explain it!” come to mind.
MEDIA ADVISORY: M11-043
NASA RESCHEDULES TELECONFERENCE TO EXPLAIN MISSING SUNSPOTS
WASHINGTON — NASA has rescheduled a media teleconference for 2 p.m.
EST on Wednesday, March 2, to discuss the first computer model that
explains the recent period of decreased solar activity during the
sun’s 11-year cycle. The recent solar minimum, a period characterized
by a lower frequency of sunspots and solar storms, ended in 2008 and
was the deepest observed in almost 100 years.The teleconference panelists are:
— Richard Fisher, director, Heliophysics Division, Science Mission
Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington
— Dibyendu Nandi, assistant professor, Indian Institute of Science
Education and Research, Kolkata, India
— Andres Munoz-Jaramillo, visiting research fellow,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
— Delores Knipp, visiting scientist, University of Colorado at
Boulder
Supporting information for the briefing will be posted at:
Audio of the teleconference will be streamed live on the Web at:
===============================================
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
ferd berple says:
March 4, 2011 at 9:42 am
I had always assumed that the ionosphere was locally created each day as the atmosphere rotated with the earth and was carried into the sunlight, as we are taught in the books.
And you are basically correct. Although the F-layer(s) stick around [with reduced ionization] during the night. The solar wind does inject some additional energy in the polar regions, but that is not what maintains the ionosphere.
Maybe the science isn’t as settled as we think it is?
When it comes to the ionosphere it is pretty much well-understood.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 4, 2011 at 9:03 am
The ionosphere is not created by the solar wind
You are distorting again, as usual. I never said it was created by solar wind
I said:
“Volume of the ionosphere depends on:
1. Intensity of solar activity – ions, protons and electrons”
So try to keep it truthful.
Further more I went by what you teach at Stanford:
“Ionosphere- It’s structure is strongly influenced by the solar wind, which is in
turn governed by the level of Solar activity. It is continually blasted by particles and
energy from the Sun.”
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/StudentWork/SophieMurray.pdf
or many American universities: you can google the phrase:
“The structure of the ionosphere is strongly influenced by the charged particle wind from the Sun (solar wind), which is in turn governed by the level of Solar activity”.
vukcevic says:
March 4, 2011 at 11:11 am
You are distorting again, as usual. I never said it was created by solar wind
You said:
vukcevic says:
March 4, 2011 at 8:10 am
“Volume of the ionosphere depends on:
1. Intensity of solar activity – ions, protons and electrons
2. Intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field – retaining the above particles.”
The ions, protons and electrons are the solar wind. And the volume of the ionosphere does not depend on the solar wind, but on solar extreme and far ultraviolet, educate yourself a bit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere
“The structure of the ionosphere is strongly influenced by the charged particle wind from the Sun (solar wind), which is in turn governed by the level of Solar activity”.
while not untrue is misleading as the solar particle perturbations [PCA and strong geomagnetic storms] are short lived and rare.
“2. Intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field – retaining the above particles.”
is blatantly false [and that was the main point]. Gravity holds the atmosphere in place. Remove the Earth’s gravity and it would be as airless as the Moon. Near the geomagnetic equator the so-called Fountain effect results from the ionosphere [created by UV] moving across horizontal magnetic field lines generating a Lorentz force that pushes some of the ions generated in the E-layer up into the F-layer. The magnetic field effectively trying to expel – rather than retain – the ions. Luckily gravity ensures that the ionosphere does not disappear into outer space.
So, don’t pontificate on things you do not understand. And as they say: ‘when in a hole, stop digging’.
BTW, remove Earth’s gravity and the Van Allen belts would still be there.
vukcevic says:
March 4, 2011 at 11:11 am
Further more I went by what you teach at Stanford:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/StudentWork/SophieMurray.pdf
If you had cared to read [and understand] the whole text, you would have learned:
“1.2.1 The Ionosphere
Solar radiation strikes the atmosphere with a power density of 1370 W/m2
This intense level of radiation is spread over a broad spectrum ranging from radio frequencies to IR, and visible light to X-rays. Solar radiation at UV and shorter is considered to be ionising. This is because photons of energy at these particular frequencies are able to dislodge an electron from a neutral gas atom or molecule during a collision. So the solar radiation is incident on the gas atom, and part of this radiation is absorbed by the atom. A free electron and positively charged ion are produced. Cosmic rays and solar wind particles also play a role in this process but their effect is minor compared with that due to the sun’s electromagnetic radiation [Kelley & Heelis 1989].
As the altitude decreases from high up in the Earth’s atmosphere the ionisation process increases because more gas atoms are present. However, recombination then also begins to occur. Here if a free electron moves near enough to a positive ion, it is captured by it. So at lower altitudes where the gas density is greater, more and more recombination takes place. The point of balance between these two processes determines the degree of “ionisation” present at any given time [Kelley & Heelis 1989].
As the altitude decreases further, the numbers of atoms and molecules of gas increase further, so there is more opportunity for absorption of energy from a photon of UV solar radiation. At lower altitudes the intensity of this radiation is smaller because some of it was absorbed at the higher levels. Thus a point is reached where lower radiation, greater gas density and greater recombination rates balance out. The ionisation rate then begins to decrease with decreasing altitude. This leads to the
formation of ionisation peaks or layers [Kelley & Heelis 1989]. These are called
Heaviside layers. As seen in figure 5, the composition of the atmosphere changes with height, so
the ion production rate also changes and this leads to the formation of these several
distinct ionisation peaks, the D, E, F1, and F2 layers.
Figure 5: Variation of plasma density vs. altitude for daytime and nighttime
1.2.2 The Ionospheric Layers
D Layer
The D layer is the innermost layer, 50-90 km above the surface of the Earth. Negative ions prevail here, and electrons are produced by the ionisation of oxygen and nitrogen by soft X-rays, of wavelength less than 1nm [Phillips 1992], which are strongly enhanced during period of solar activity, e.g. solar flares. Ionisation is also due to Lyman series-alpha hydrogen radiation at a wavelength of 121.5 nm, ionising a nitric oxide molecule, NO [Phillips 1992]. Cosmic rays from outside the solar system
can also produce significant ionisation in the D layer.
E Layer
The E layer is the middle layer, 90-120 km above the surface of the Earth. Positive molecular ions are in the majority, mainly O2+ and NO+, Ionisation is due to soft X-ray (1-10 nm) and far ultraviolet (UV) solar radiation ionisation of molecular oxygen [Phillips 1992].
F Layer
The F layer, also known as the Appleton layer, is 120 km to 400 km above the surface of the Earth. Here extreme UV (10-100 nm) solar radiation ionises atomic oxygen, O. The F layer combines into one layer at night, and in the presence of sunlight (during daytime), it divides into two layers, the F1 and F2. “
Yes Dr. Svalgaard, I did read most of it, and I do not dispute it, but I have learned one valuable lesson from you, and that is to cherry peek what suits the argument, but I do not go as far as you do, to distort and misrepresent your statements as you do those of mine. And I speak to everyone with respect, a lesson not everyone wishing to learn.
Btw. my polar field formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
is far superior solution to your 1/1000 theory. I noticed you are now shying away from the Schatten’s percolation dynamo theory; another one for the shredder?
vukcevic says:
March 4, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Yes Dr. Svalgaard, I did read most of it, and I do not dispute it, but I have learned one valuable lesson from you, and that is to cherry peek what suits the argument
Quite a confession…
but I do not go as far as you do, to distort and misrepresent your statements as you do those of mine. And I speak to everyone with respect, a lesson not everyone wishing to learn.
I quote your statements verbatim as you utter them in the proper context.
Btw. my polar field formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
is far superior solution to your 1/1000 theory.
The amount of polar flux is not theory, but is an observed quantity.
I noticed you are now shying away from the Schatten’s percolation dynamo theory; another one for the shredder?
Schatten’s theory is one of the explanations of the solar cycle. It is still as good as any, perhaps better. Recent work by Brandenburg et al. discuss their work “in the context of a distributed solar dynamo where active regions and sunspots might be rather shallow phenomena” arXiv:0910.1835
As far as I know, you have no understanding or explanation of how your formula might work.
Dr S, in our discussion about powerful electrical discharges (sprites 3 – 12,000 amperes) extending from thunderclouds to outerspace, you said that the energy for this discharge and that of lightning bolts comes from static separation in thunderclouds. You forbid the suggestion that this massive of a discharge could be “complet[ing] a much larger circuit extending into interplanetary space” (The Electric Universe pg 48).
Electromotive force:
“When two electrified conductors are connected by a wire, and when electrification is transferred along the wire from one body to the other, the tendency to this transfer, which existed before the introduction of the wire, and which, when the wire is introduced, produces this transrer, is called the Electromotive Force from the one body to the other along the path marked out by the wire.” James Clerk Maxwell, An Elementary Treatise on Electricity, 1881
Observational evidence for the transfer of electromotive force from the Sun to the Earth:
THEMIS mission tracks electrical tornadoes in space
By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 23 April 2009
Vienna, Austria — Earth-bound tornadoes are puny compared to “space tornadoes,” which span a volume as large as Earth and produce electrical currents exceeding 100,000 amperes, according to new observations by a suite of five NASA space probes.
Space tornadoes span a volume of space about the size of the Earth, and funnel hot ionized gas into the ionosphere, triggering bright auroras. (Andreas Keiling/UC Berkeley)The probe cluster, called Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS), recorded the extent and power of these electrical funnels as the probes passed through them during their orbit of Earth. Ground measurements showed that the space tornadoes channel the electrical current into the ionosphere to spark bright and colorful auroras on Earth.
Zeke the Sneak says:
March 4, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Ground measurements showed that the space tornadoes channel the electrical current into the ionosphere to spark bright and colorful auroras on Earth.
The electrical currents are generated locally in the magnetosphere. E.g. http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/substorm.html
These were sensed 40,000 miles away and pointing toward the Sun. NASA says they are connected to the Sun:
Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm’s power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules. That’s equivalent to the energy of one magnitude 5.5 earthquake . Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found the answer.
“The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the sun,” said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras.”
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 4, 2011 at 5:20 am
As far as we know there is nothing in the core or the radiative interior that drives the cycles.
– – – – –
Leif,
Thanks for you reply.
Please persist in your teaching mode. : )
John
Zeke the Sneak says:
March 4, 2011 at 9:15 pm
These were sensed 40,000 miles away and pointing toward the Sun. NASA says they are connected to the Sun
No, NASA says that the magnetic field is connected to the Sun [which it is]. The solar magnetic field and the Earth’s magnetic field can reconnect if their geometry is right. The reconnected field lines are then stretched down the geomagnetic tail by the solar wind. This stores magnetic energy in the tail. The tail is unstable [flaps around] and tail field lines can reconnect and ‘snap’ back towards to earth restoring the magnetic field to what it was before. That rapidly changing magnetic field induces an electric field that accelerates whatever particles are present in the tail, resulting in the charges precipitating in the ionosphere [a la Birkeland’s discharges] exciting the atoms of the air to glow as the bright aurorae.