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.
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.”
Hat tip to WUWT regular Carla
@ur momisugly 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
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?)
.
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. ”
.
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 says: January 30, 2012 at 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…..
No worries, I have been at this for a while and am good at separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff. The variable list is also intentionally broad, as it is intended to be a consummate list. The next list is going to be much more targeted, i.e. only the variables that have a major influence on “Earth’s Temperature”.
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” …..
The vast majority of variables, including some of those that are likely primary drivers, would likely fall squarely in the “unquantified hypotheses” section. It would also be much more difficult to follow/see the big picture if the list was split into two parts.
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 …..
The Potential Variable list will serve it’s purpose, i.e. as a consummate list that we can cull down to the Important Variable list.
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….
I agree, we are just helping to expose the facts to a larger audience. When the truth is ready to make itself broadly apparent, it will likely do so with gusto…
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