Giant Veil of "Cold Plasma" Discovered High Above Earth

From National Geographic:

Clouds of charged particles stretch a quarter the way to the moon, experts say.

Clouds of “cold plasma” reach from the top of Earth’s atmosphere to at least a quarter the distance to the moon, according to new data from a cluster of European satellites.

Earth generates cold plasma—slow-moving charged particles—at the edge of space, where sunlight strips electrons from gas atoms, leaving only their positively charged cores, or nuclei.

(Find out how cold plasma might also help explain why Mars is missing its atmosphere.)

Researchers had suspected these hard-to-detect particles might influence incoming space weather, such as this week’s solar flare and resulting geomagnetic storm. That’s because solar storms barrage Earth with similar but high-speed charged particles.

Still, no one could be certain what the effects of cold plasma might be without a handle on its true abundance around our planet.

“It’s like the weather forecast on TV. It’s very complicated to make a reasonable forecast without the basic variables,” said space scientist Mats André, of the Swedish Institute of Space Physics.

“Discovering this cold plasma is like saying, Oh gosh, there are oceans here that affect our weather,” he said.

Read More

Also, per a January 7, 2009 National Geographic article. ”Warm Plasma Cloak” Discovered Enveloping Earth”,

“The magnetosphere—the shield of ions and electrons that envelops Earth—extends far beyond the atmosphere, defending the planet from the harmful solar wind.

Charles “Rick” Chappell, a physicist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, led a research team that assembled information dating back decades to describe the new magnetosphere layer.

Some of the first hints of the cloak first showed up in data from research satellites in the early 1970s. The cloak was finally confirmed by NASA’s Polar satellite, which ended a 12-year run in April 2008.

The cloak’s discovery creates a theoretical home for particles that didn’t fit with any of the other understood parts of the Earth’s magnetosphere, Chappell said.”

Read More

Hat tip to WUWT regular Carla

0 0 vote
Article Rating
57 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Douglas DC
January 27, 2012 7:22 pm

The more we know the less….

January 27, 2012 7:37 pm

Mars is missing its atmosphere for two reasons.
1. The Hellas basin impact.
2. The mean free velocity for nitrogen, Oxygen, methane, and hydrogen is higher than the escape velocity of the planet. That is also why what is left is mostly CO2 as the molecules are 1.4 times heavier than N2.
I really wish that people would quit looking for other reasons for something that has been explained decades ago.

eyesonu
January 27, 2012 8:21 pm

@ Just the facts
Thank you again. Now I’ll be up all night adding to my ‘vast wealth of useless knowledge’.
Inquiring minds need to know.

January 27, 2012 8:41 pm

A bit of a mis-statement here, I think.

where sunlight strips electrons from gas atoms, leaving only their positively charged cores, or nuclei.

Even one stripped electron, leaving all the rest, makes a positive ion. It doesn’t have to be nake nuclei!!

Acorn1 - San Diego
January 27, 2012 8:49 pm

Thanks – JustTheFacts. This really helps.
But somethingnthat would Really help would be an explaination of “Hellas”…
Nicht wahr?

G. E. Pease
January 27, 2012 9:16 pm

This might answer your question:
http://dreamersperch.blogspot.com/2012/01/hellas-basin-on-mars-smart-cookie-award.html
It suggests that perhaps the impact that created Mars’ Hellas Basin destroyed the magnetic field of Mars.

January 27, 2012 9:16 pm

Dennis Ray Wingo says:
January 27, 2012 at 7:37 pm
I really wish that people would quit looking for other reasons for something that has been explained decades ago.
Amen !
http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf

eyesonu
January 27, 2012 9:24 pm

@ Just the Facts
Quick question. I’m looking at the NASA link provided by you. I assume this NASA illistration wolud be a cross section and if looking from a 90 degree or ‘z’ axis the plasmasphere would be a donut.
Also is the Earth’s magnetic field the primary / determining factor locating around the equator. If the Earth magnetic poles were rotated 90 degrees would the orientation be the same with regards to the Earth’s magnetic poles. I guess I asking if the solar winds or the Earth’s magnetic field determines the orientation.
Probably not an answer at this point in time but if you have a correct theory please let me know or how to find it. This is cosmic!

Andrew
January 27, 2012 9:46 pm

Douglas DC says:
January 27, 2012 at 7:22 pm
The more we know the less….
Did Socrates say that, or was it Don Henley?

pochas
January 27, 2012 9:56 pm

Two questions for Dennis or JustThe Facts
1) Are these plasma clouds electrically neutral? I had thought that it is impossible to have a charged plasma in space, although they can conduct massive currents.
2) Does “south-type” mean same polarity as earth or opposite polarity? I was assuming it means that a compass near the sun would point south.

ggm
January 27, 2012 10:29 pm

So the Earth is surrounded by plasma which is an electric conductor. Now add the Sun’s rotating magnetic field. What happens when a magnetic field rotates around or through an electric conductor ?? Now I`m not proposing electric universe rubbish, but I dont understand why science is in such denial that there must be massive current generated and trasported through our solar system. Unless of course people want to claim that when a magentic rotates through an electric conductor (ie a generator) that it does not induce a current ??

allanJ
January 28, 2012 12:12 am

What is the relationship of all this to the Kennelly-Heaviside Layer that was identified almost a hundred years ago?

John Wright
January 28, 2012 12:23 am

Dennis Ray Wingo: “I really wish that people would quit looking for other reasons for something that has been explained decades ago”.
Leif Svalgaard: “Amen!”
I have to say that I find your grouse rather dismaying. Is not the defending of a consensus what we have come to so despise among certain climate scientists? Should not all scientific theories, even those considered as basic laws, (and especially the long-held “immutable” ones) be questioned from time to time, particularly in the light of fresh research and data or even just an approach from a fresh angle? Is that not what Popper’s falsifiability is all about, or have I as a layman misunderstood it?
If the established theories and laws hold good, so much the better.

January 28, 2012 12:53 am

John Wright says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:23 am
Should not all scientific theories, even those considered as basic laws, (and especially the long-held “immutable” ones) be questioned from time to time, particularly in the light of fresh research and data or even just an approach from a fresh angle?
Yes, they should and are all the time. What is reported here is confirmation of long-established knowledge.

David
January 28, 2012 1:56 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:53 am
John Wright says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:23 am
Should not all scientific theories, even those considered as basic laws, (and especially the long-held “immutable” ones) be questioned from time to time, particularly in the light of fresh research and data or even just an approach from a fresh angle?
Yes, they should and are all the time. What is reported here is confirmation of long-established knowledge———————————————————————————————
Hum? here is what the article said Leif, including what it said about Mars losing its atmosphere. While the headline may be over dramatic, was all of the following already well known?
“four spacecraft which zip around Earth in an elliptical orbit—found evidence of positively charged, slow-moving (hence “cold”) plasma particles as far as 60,000 miles (100,000 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.
That’s about a quarter of the way to the moon, and a region where few researchers suspected any cold plasma lurked
The results imply cold matter constitutes between 50 and 70 percent of all charged particles in Earth’s magnetic field! That’s quite a jump from zero percent.
The sudden abundance of cold plasma means a few things. Space weather forecasts stand to improve, as cold plasma particles probably interact with incoming hot matter from solar storms—and that dynamic is missing from computer models. Another effect is that the Earth is bleeding off roughly 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of atmospheric gas every second.
When you look at planets with thin atmospheres like Mars (which has just 1 percent the atmospheric pressure of Earth), scientists like André begin to wonder what role the “blood loss” of cold plasma plays in killing atmospheres.
There are all kinds of ways to get rid of a planet’s atmosphere—big asteroid impacts, loss of a dynamo, and so on,” André said. “Well, this is certainly one of them when you apply it over billions of years of time. I don’t know how important it is, but this is on my short list.”

DirkH
January 28, 2012 2:09 am

ggm says:
January 27, 2012 at 10:29 pm
“Now I`m not proposing electric universe rubbish, but I dont understand why science is in such denial that there must be massive current generated and trasported through our solar system.”
Because astrophysicists are not electrical engineers.

John Marshall
January 28, 2012 2:43 am

Very interesting and another item to add to the long list of influences on climate and another one ignored by the climate models.

R.S.Brown
January 28, 2012 2:58 am

Dennis Ray Wingo says:
January 27, 2012 at 7:37 pm

Mars is missing its atmosphere for two reasons…
I really wish that people would quit looking for other reasons for something that has been explained decades ago.”

The subject in Dennis’s post was the atmosphere of Mars, not
Earth’s atmosphere, as a subsequent commenter innocently (?) misinterpreted it.
John Wright says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:23 am

Dennis Ray Wingo: “I really wish that people would quit looking for other reasons for something that has been explained decades ago”.
Leif Svalgaard: “Amen!”

John Wright then opines at January 28, 2012 at 12:23 am
“I have to say that I find your grouse rather dismaying. Is not the defending of a consensus what we have come to so despise among
certain climate scientists? ”
John,
You’re right. Climate scientists such as Phil Jones and Mike Mann bolster their
positions by quoting from and citing their own studies, or rely on studies by others
who just happen approve of their particular and peculiar brand of research.
They have been quick to mark what they think is their territory and defend
it as best as they can. They denigrade non-supporters as “deniers”.
So too do we have some solar scientists who are fond of quoting themselves
and brand their non-believers in their field or the ones tangenital to it to be
less than intelligent.
Personally, I figure folks who have to resort to quoting themselves first are
selling something that isn’t really confirmed by the facts as they are coming in.

GabrielHBay
January 28, 2012 3:03 am

Leif says:
John Wright says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:23 am
Should not all scientific theories, even those considered as basic laws, (and especially the long-held “immutable” ones) be questioned from time to time, particularly in the light of fresh research and data or even just an approach from a fresh angle?
Yes, they should and are all the time. What is reported here is confirmation of long-established knowledge.
—————————————————————————-
So now we know.. this particulat bit of science is settled. What a relief…. /sarc

adolfogiurfa
January 28, 2012 5:45 am

DirkH says:
January 28, 2012 at 2:09 am
That´s a problem, indeed. But if every “modern” gadget, from toasters, pc´s to iPhones or Blackberries, we use today is powered by electricity, would´t it be advisable to teach kids, from the primary school the principles of electricity? That would make a real change in the future.

adolfogiurfa
January 28, 2012 5:48 am

That´s the Earth´s Corona!!. When will our humble earth evolve to be a decent Sun?

SC-SlyWolf
January 28, 2012 5:51 am

“Leif Svalgaard says:
January 27, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
January 27, 2012 at 7:37 pm
I really wish that people would quit looking for other reasons for something that has been explained decades ago.
Amen !”
Are you saying ‘The science is settled. Nothing to debate.’ ?

January 28, 2012 6:38 am

ggm says on January 27, 2012 at 10:29 pm
So the Earth is surrounded by plasma which is an electric conductor. Now add the Sun’s rotating magnetic field. What happens when a magnetic field rotates around or through an electric conductor ?? Now I`m not proposing electric universe rubbish, but I dont understand why science is in such denial that there must be massive current generated and trasported through our solar system. Unless of course people want to claim that when a magentic rotates through an electric conductor (ie a generator) that it does not induce a current ??

One would have thought some of this was discovered, proven or disproven commencing with Apollo 11 in 1969.
It would not take much more than observing a compass needle’s deflection or the results of an on-board Magnetometer on one of the Moon Missions conducted in the previous century …
Has anyone here ever taken a simple coil consisting of 2 or 3 loops of wire a three of four feet (a meter) in diameter and move it first across then in-line with the earth’s magnetic field with said loop of wire connected to a sensitive millivoltmeter for observation of the EMF created?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Apollo program support personnel?
.

ggm
January 28, 2012 7:05 am

Jim wrote :
“Has anyone here ever taken a simple coil consisting of 2 or 3 loops of wire a three of four feet (a meter) in diameter and move it first across then in-line with the earth’s magnetic field with said loop of wire connected to a sensitive millivoltmeter for observation of the EMF created?”
The strength and speed of spin the sun magnetic field would be tiny on that scale (I assume??). The voltage might be so low that they would undetectable (I assume?). But on the scale of the planet, the massive plasma surrounding us (conductor) should have a massive energies generated (again, I assume) by a plantary sized magetic field.
Or not ?

Carla
January 28, 2012 7:15 am

The CLUSTER group is giving us detection, possible mapping, an understanding of its implication on spaceweather as well as earth weather. And much more..discovery of strong electric fields in unexepected places..which the EU is already running with..
This excerpt is from,
Elusive matter found to be abundant far above Earth
January 24, 2012
(PhysOrg.com)
For decades, space physicists have struggled to accurately detect low-energy ions and determine how much of the material is leaving our atmosphere. The satellite André works on, one of four European Space Agency CLUSTER spacecraft, is equipped with a detector with thin wire arms that measures the electric field between them as the satellite rotates. But, when the scientists gathered data from their detectors, two mysterious trends appeared. Strong electric fields turned up in unexpected regions of space. And as the spacecraft rotated, measurements of the electric field didn’t fluctuate in the smoothly changing manner that André expected.
“To a scientist, it looked pretty ugly,” André said. “We tried to figure out what was wrong with the instrument. Then we realized there’s nothing wrong with the instrument.” Unexpectedly, they found that cold plasma was altering the structure of electrical fields around the satellite. Once they understood that, they could use their field measurements to reveal the presence of the once-hidden ions..
.As scientists use the new measurement method to map cold plasma around Earth, they could discover more about how hot and cold plasmas interact during space storms and other events, deepening researchers’ understanding of space weather, André said..
..And closer to home, if scientists could develop more accurate space weather forecasts, they could save satellites from being blinded or destroyed, and better warn space station astronauts and airlines of danger from high-energy radiation. While low-energy ions are not responsible for the damage caused by space weather, they do influence that weather. André compared the swaths of ions to, say, a low-pressure area in our familiar, down-to-Earth weather — as opposed to a harmful storm. It is a key player, even if it doesn’t cause the damage itself. “You may want to know where the low-pressure area is, to predict a storm,” André noted..
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-elusive-abundant-earth.html
Dr S., that you would already have known about this is .. lol
Try this,
ANISOTROPY OF TEV COSMIC RAYS AND THE OUTER HELIOSPHERIC BOUNDARIES
P. Desiati
IceCube Research Center and Astronomy Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
A. Lazarian
Astronomy Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Draft version November 15, 2011
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3075.pdf
See figures 2-3. Compare to what you know about the IBEX Ribbon. Are we seeing a dent in the heliosphere, caused by a higher concentration of southern hemispheric TeV cosmic rays, causing excess southern helisopheric pressures? Or am I imagining this?

Dr. P. J. Baum
January 28, 2012 7:17 am

Why did you change the term “Warm Plasma” which National Geographic used to “Cold Plasma”?

adolfogiurfa
January 28, 2012 7:41 am

Moving charges in space=forbidden issue. We owe everything to moving charges: From the working of our own bodies to our mobile phones. The negation of the role of electromagnetism in the universe it is only explainable as agnosticism, as the fear of gnosis.

Carla
January 28, 2012 7:47 am

There were comments in the above article referring to the demise of the Martian atmosphere. We always seem to remark about the many craters, holes in Mars surface. I live in Wisconsin and there are alot of holes here and round this planet as well. But not what I wanted to share.
Recently two Mars missions and a comet named Lovejoy. Brought to my attentions again our slavic Russian brothers..
Their possible theory of the demise of the atmosphere on Mars, a past descreening of the helisophere up to 2 AU. Hmm one of those dense molecular clouds passing thru..
In yet another article, we are discovering Ices (plural) in them there dense molecular clouds.
But our Russian friends in the space dealo may be on to something. I would think partly motivated by some mass die offs in Siberian regions in Earths recent past.
Dense Interstellar Clouds and Ionization of the Atmosphere and Soil of Mars
A. K. Pavlova, V. M. Ostryakovb, and G. I. Vasilyeva
a A.F. Ioffe PhysicalTechnical Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
b St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Received April 13, 2010
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m6060341g1605552/fulltext.pdf
WPR is reading the The Tiger, based in on a man eating siberian tiger, in Russia. Interesting perspective, in understanding the instincts of this animal..an much more..

G. Karst
January 28, 2012 8:36 am

I have a little trouble with the terms “cold” and “slow moving”. Relative to what? The solar wind, the earth’s TOA, each other, the speed of light, vibration, superman…??
Also, by what mechanism can two orbiting clouds, one of protons (H+ ions) and electrons (e-) keep this spacial difference through time. How does earth’s electromagnetic and gravitational perturbations not affect this stratification?
Seems to me there is still some splaining to do. GK

Olen
January 28, 2012 9:22 am

Whether it is called cold or hot knowing everything to know about space as far out as possible is useful.
Real scientific research is never a waste and the information will always find a useful purpose even if it is not known up front and especially if it is not intended to serve a political agenda.

Carla
January 28, 2012 10:14 am

They’re talking about some mighty wide swaths in terms of 1/3 lunar distance here. These are not some small minute finding here..
Some high percentages found of “cold plasma” heliosphere encounters in that Russian article..
I wish the maths would copy and paste..
Dense Interstellar Clouds and Ionization of the Atmosphere and Soil of Mars
A. K. Pavlova, V. M. Ostryakovb, and G. I. Vasilyeva
a A.F. Ioffe PhysicalTechnical Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
b St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Received April 13, 2010
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m6060341g1605552/fulltext.pdf
pg. 3
“””CR CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR
CLOUDS
Dense extended interstellar gas clouds are very common all over our galaxy. Nowadays up to 40% of
the total of interstellar mass is believed to be concen trated in clouds as dense as up to 100–1000 cm–3 or more. The solar system has in its lifetime encountered more than 100 times with such clouds tens of parsecs in size and with gas density nH ≥ 100 cm–3 or more
(Talbot et al., 1977).
… … …
In the most recent decades still more compact structures from 100 to several thou
sands a.u. in size and as dense as 103 cm–3 or more have been found. Such structures are very common even in regions with the comparatively low density of nH ≥
1–10 cm–3 (Frail et al., 1991; 1994).
Thuas, collisions between the solar system and dense clouds resulting in a substantial intensification of CR fluxes on Mars’s orbit occur frequently..”””
The implication of these smaller scale structures on heliospheric pressures and solar cylces slowing down.. lions and tigers? and bears oh know!!

eyesonu
January 28, 2012 10:28 am

@ Leif Svalgaard; January 27, 2012 at 9:16 pm
http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
==================
Great information. I was not aware of the apparently continuous and dynamic effects from solar wind. Very good read if one can grasp the concept. From 1973 no less. This should be pulled off the shelf and reviewed in the concept of climate / weather impacts.
I read this a couple of times and there is a vast wealth of information in that PDF. I will try to make an intelligent comment regarding some points in it later this weekend. Sector Structure Effects and Concluding Remarks are weighing heavily on me now but I need to think about how I can express possible applications and possible effects / theories.

Carla
January 28, 2012 10:54 am

ooops ..not 1/3 but 1/4 lunar distance..
“”Clouds of “cold plasma” reach from the top of Earth’s atmosphere to at least a quarter the distance to the moon, according to new data from a cluster of European satellites.””

jimbojinx
January 28, 2012 10:54 am

Do these hot and cold plasmas interfere with incoming Galactic Cosmic Rays ? If they do, they could have an influence on climate per Svaalgard.

bacullen
January 28, 2012 10:57 am

I’ve seen estimates of the Earth’s atmospheric pressure being on the order of 250 bar ca. 4 billion yrs ago based on the present loss rate and composition. Mars was also estimated to be in the same range at that time.
OT – So, in the Carboniferous, ca. 240 million yrs ago, larger insects evolved due to the higher atmospheric pressure, est. 1.5 – 1.8 bar, allowing greater diffusion distance of O2 into their bodies.
BC

eyesonu
January 28, 2012 11:31 am

@ Just The Facts: January 27, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Me > I guess I asking if the solar winds or the Earth’s magnetic field determines the orientation.
JTF > I am not sure I understand. Do you mean orientation in this sense? …….
=================
Thanks for your reply.
I got my answer through a little more research and review of Leif Svalgaard’s link. My initial question (though not physically possible as I can now see) would have been if the Earth magnetic pole were rotated the toward the sun. I could go on to explain what my interest in this was but it is now irrevelant.

Joachim Seifert
January 28, 2012 12:07 pm

I tried to make an entry into the “climate variables reference page.”…..
pointing out atmosphere losses into space which have to be
subtracted from GHG/atmosphere global warming balance calculations……
…… in this post you can see, that atmospheric and vapour molecules get
ejected, drawn up into space, being decomposed then und END UP LOST
IN SPACE, to be subtracted in atmospheric analyses……
… the WUWT reference page fully ignores this plasma post…..they rather
masticate the old Wikipedia diet, controlled by AGW-personell as overview
editors, as we already know..
…….preventing anything new to think about…..
….. even over my additional entry proposals concerning the Earth’s orbit…
JS

Steve in SC
January 28, 2012 3:23 pm

Wonder if the rivers veils and cloaks of cold plasma are related to the dark matter the astronomers keep mumbling about?
I see you Sly Wolf.

Joachim Seifert
Reply to  Just The Facts
January 30, 2012 2:16 pm

…..fine, that the windmills turn…..slow but steady….one only
worries about being somehow lost in the huge pile of possible
sources and there is no qualification of relevance: High, medium, low…..
Helter skelter suggestions……
…..there were people suggesting Camel dung… but no calculations given. for it…..
I myself would quote only those, where transparent calculations (from….. to) of the
range of proposed effects are given…….and all
the rest should go into the section “unquantified hypotheses” …..
Thus, dividing the register into a 1. calculated/range estimated vs. a 2. pure hypothetical
part….. I think, an entry into 1. is of higher quality (right or wrong is another matter, just has
to be calculated to follow) than all the guesswork rubble …..
Think it over and take your time…..
the truth will emerge when the time is ripe for it….. and we can only help a little….
JS

evilincandescentbulb
January 28, 2012 6:39 pm

So now it’s the plasma, stupid? And, 80,000 years from what it will be is–e.g., it’s the solar dust, stupid. But, we’ll all be dead. We are all no more than fleas perched on a turd floating in a huge toilet bowl waiting for the next flush.

Roger Knights
January 28, 2012 7:11 pm

Maybe this will explain some of the unexplained stuff about the northern lights. (Akasofu’s book on the topic said that there were still holes in the model used to explain them.)

eyesonu
January 28, 2012 8:06 pm

@ Just the Facts or Leif Svalgaard
Let’s come down to Earth and overlook the cold plasma for a minute. Would it be possible that in the Earth’s northern artic region for an air column / volume (call it ‘A’) to receive a charge over a given area and the air surrounding / adjoining it (call it ‘B’) being a different or neutral charge, to cause the adjoining air mass (‘B’) to migrate to that initial column of air (‘A’) therefore increasing its overall density and/or even its overall height? Talking theory only, would the air move from region ‘B’ to ‘A’ if the charge at ‘A’ was maintained and ‘B’ was different and therefore lost / changed its charge upon mixing with ‘A’?
This would assume that some force maintained that the initial air mass (‘A’) kept its initial charge and strength. Talking theory here.

January 29, 2012 1:49 am

eyesonu says:
January 28, 2012 at 8:06 pm
…….
I think it is simpler than that, see
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
scroll down to the ‘Stratosphere Influences Winter Weather’
and see how air mass (presumably electrically charged) follows magnetic lines of force.
See also NASA’s video link with the title as above.

Dr. P. J. Baum
January 29, 2012 7:14 am

Thanks for the other National Geographic reference.
Now there is mention of Hot, Warm, and Cold plasmas. Hot plasmas seem to be fairly well defined and some mention of cold plasmas is here:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Types_of_plasma#Warm_plasma
but the warm type looks ambiguous. The terms refer to the thermal component of the distributions but the directed kinetic energy of these types remains unclear.

eyesonu
January 29, 2012 3:58 pm

M.A.Vukcevic says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:49 am
==============
Thank you for the response and the link. Seems that you were ahead of me on that one.
I have read Leif Svalgaard’s paper / link several times now. There is something there that I’m not quite sure how to express. It would have to be organized into a long paper that I don’t have the time to invest. I may just note some of my observations from Svalgaard’s and yours that have caught my attention and hope that someone else with greater knowledge than myself has given it serious thoughtor at least look at it.
One particular point that was present in your and Svalgaard’s is the concentrated magnetic field split over the northern artic region. This is a point (not only physical) that has my attention. Is there a coincidence that the locationof both positions are over land? Long time since physics and electrical theory on my part so I’m reluctant to use the proper terminology for caution of using the wrong ‘word’ even though I’ve got the concept. I don’t want to create confusion in mislabeling charges, magnetic fluxes, plasma, induced gravitational fields, etc.
I believe there is something very important here with regards to climate / weather but I’ve never seen the results of where it was thoroughly researched.
Check back over the next couple of days as I go to sleep and wake up on this. There is something kicking around in my brain and I’m not sure how to write it down.
If you haven’t read Leif Svalgaard’s paper, please do so. The link is in his first post on this thread.

eyesonu
January 29, 2012 6:30 pm

@ M.A.Vukcevic
In regards to my earlier questions regarding any possibility of an air mass located over one or both increased vertical magnetic field strength locations. Ref: (eyesonu says: January 28, 2012 at 8:06 pm).
Has anyone looked into any correlation of possible surface / lower atmospheric pressure differences between the higher magnetic field strength points (positive charged ?) as noted in your and Leif Svalgaard’s papers vs possible higher or lower atmospheric pressures at similar latitude and elevations between these two locations? This was one of the first things that caught my eye upon reviewing Svalgaard. Would H2O / ocean bodies have a direct effect/cause of the location of the two points of increased magnetic field strength being on land? During a strong solar wind / eruption does the magnetic field of either of the two focal points increase or decrease significantly? Ahhh, so many questions.
Thanks, hopefully I can get this astrophysics cap off my head.LOL

January 30, 2012 6:46 pm

ggm says on January 28, 2012 at 7:05 am:
[_]Jim wrote :
“Has anyone here ever taken a simple coil consisting of 2 or 3 loops of wire a three of four feet (a meter) in diameter and move it first across then in-line with the earth’s magnetic field with said loop of wire connected to a sensitive millivoltmeter for observation of the EMF created?”
The strength and speed of spin the sun magnetic field would be tiny on that scale (I assume??). The voltage might be so low that they would undetectable (I assume?).

What? We have not managed to build amplifiers yet?
/sarc
(‘Amplifiers’ of all types have enabled all sorts of mankind’s various ‘activities’, including space missions and moon walks … have you not heard?)
.

January 30, 2012 6:50 pm

ggm, for further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_magnetometer
“The most sensitive magnetometer instruments are mounted on long booms, deployed away from the craft (e.g., the Voyagers, Cassini). Many contaminant fields then decrease strongly with distance, while background fields appear unchanged. ”
.

Johnnythelowery
January 31, 2012 7:26 am

My inquisition I trot out is looking for the culprit in the flow rate of the Parana in S. America which tracks Sun spots but only statistically. As there is no mechanism because the Sun is constant (Lief), Sun Spots or no Sun spots. So, looking for what makes the Parana different, it just so happens that NASA’s Hubble kept getting into Barney Rubble over the Parana area of S. America which they’ve dubbed ‘The Bermuda Triangle’ of Space but call it the South Atlantic Anomoly. IT even affected the Space Shuttle nav aids. Because under that part of South America is the weakest part of the earth’s magnetic field. WHere the shield extends into space the weakest; where low flying spacecraft get pelted with molecules they don’t see any where else on earth. A chink in the earth’s magnetic armour. This documentary shows this problem the SAA posed to Hubble operations and efforts made to determine the staligraphic topography of the earth’s Molten Iron core (they look like Giant trees). It’s good audio and in HD! by your friends (now) in Salford.

Joachim Seifert
Reply to  Just The Facts
February 2, 2012 9:34 am

JTF,
sounds all good to me……I hope the list will be positioned in a major accessible place
on the home page….. the audience has grown and will do so even more……
……One major concern: The weakest section is the Earth’s orbital section…..why:
the Milankovitch stuff has as shortest cycle 19,000 years and all others are much longer….
therefore, there is No relevance for Us on centennial and even millenium time scale…one
can throw this into the unimportant stuff for OUR times…..obviously…..
secondly, we never get a real comparison of ice core data to Milankovitch data, showing,
when those cycles (the 19 kY, the21 kY, the 41 kY…) started and ended….there exist
only graphs with coarse waves without exact matching to paleodata ….
[The reason for this coarse Milankovitch stuff is to justify for AGW that they have LOOKED
into the orbit but found NO CAUSE for climate change on “millenium time scale” in it.
“Therefore, ALL climate change today has atmospherical cause…”] – AGW lies……
The only 2 significant works on the Earth’s orbit and the astronomic effects of the orbit
is those of (1) Scafetta, 2011, with his comparison to GCMs and then (2) my booklet
(15 $US,) ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4 on Amazon.de (in German)….
Here we have 2 analyses, showing in Scafetta: The 3-body-gravitation effect (gravitation
of the 3. body, i.e Jupiter+Saturn onto the Earth orbit) and in booklet (2) the effect of the real orbit trajectory (comprising Earth’s “libration”, osculation, ligation-shaped trajectory)…. on the climate, with transparent calculations provided…..
Interesting, by the way, I submitted an official error complaint about AR4 on the ORBIT
Question …… the error complaint TSU replied: “We acknowledge, there exist astronomical processes as given in 1. and 2. indeed, but we do NOT WANT to investigate them……”
[because they are afraid, the real truth might appear] …..
……..AGW made an internal agreement in 2006
(in the final AR4-wg1-chapter 2 meeting), that they maintain the ORBIT as CONSTANT
(“INVARIANT”) in order not to give the orbit an influence on climate, only to give a
vague glacial Milankovitch connection……
….. Time has come for this approach to end…. and ALL VARIABLES have to be
(reason for your list) considered and not collusioned as being “INVARIANT”…..
Thanks again, JS

%d bloggers like this: