From the University of California – Los Angeles
How did a third radiation belt appear in the Earth’s upper atmosphere?
Since the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts in in the Earth’s upper atmosphere in 1958, space scientists have believed that these belts consisted of two doughnut-shaped rings of highly charged particles — an inner ring of high-energy electrons and energetic positive ions, and an outer ring of high-energy electrons.
However, in February of this year, a team of scientists reported in the journal Science the surprising discovery of a previously unknown third radiation ring. This narrow ring had briefly circled the Earth between the inner and outer rings in September 2012 and then almost completely disappeared.
How did this temporary radiation belt appear and dissipate?
In new research, the radiation belt group in the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences explains the development of this third belt and its decay over a period of slightly more than four weeks. The research is available in the online edition of the journal Geophysical Research Letters and will be published in an upcoming print edition.
By performing a “quantitative treatment of the scattering of relativistic electrons by electromagnetic whistler-mode waves inside the dense plasmasphere,” the investigators were able to account for the “distinctively slow decay of the injected relativistic electron flux” and demonstrate why this unusual third radiation belt is observed only at energies above 2 mega-electron-volts.
Understanding the processes that control the formation and ultimate loss of such relativistic electrons is a primary science objective of the NASA Van Allen Probe Mission and has important practical applications, because the enormous amounts of radiation the Van Allen belts generate can pose a significant hazard to satellites and spacecraft, as well to astronauts performing activities outside a spacecraft.
The current research was funded by the NASA, which launched the twin Van Allen probes in the summer of 2012.
The lead author of the research is Richard Thorne, a UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, who was a co-author of the Feb. 28 research paper in Science. Co-authors of the new research include Wen Li, a graduate student who works in Thorne’s laboratory; Binbin Ni, a postdoctoral scholar who works in Thorne’s laboratory; Jacob Bortnik, a researcher with the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences; Daniel Baker, a professor at the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics and lead author of the February Science paper; and Vassilis Angelopoulos, a UCLA professor of Earth and space sciences.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Welcome Vuks.
Wondering if you might answer a question if you can?
What is meant by, “low geomagnetic cutoff rigidities?”
Is it like short hairs in the magnetic field within those regions?
Are they like permanently open field areas? Where high energy particles get in. (close to Greenland)?
How close is the inner Van Allen belt to Earths magnetic poles?
How close is the inner Van Allen belt to Earths equator?
Clues are in the abstract and excerpts below.
Influence of energetic Solar Proton Events on the development of cyclonic processes at extratropical latitudes
S Veretenenko1 and P Thejll2
Abstract. Effects of energetic Solar Proton Events (SPEs), with energies above 90 MeV, on the development of cyclonic processes at extratropical latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres were studied, using NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data. The study revealed that these events are accompanied by a noticeable intensification of cyclonic activity at middle latitudes, mainly over oceans. In the Northern hemisphere this effect is observed for the SPEs occurring in October-March, whereas in the Southern hemisphere it is most pronounced for the events in April-September. In the Northern hemisphere the largest cyclone deepening takes place in the North Atlantic near the south-eastern coasts of Greenland, this area being characterized by high temperature contrasts and low geomagnetic cutoff rigidities. In the Southern hemisphere most appreciable cyclone intensification was found over the Southern Ocean near the Antarctic coasts next to the South Magnetic Pole, the region is characterized by low geomagnetic cutoff rigidities and high temperature contrasts, too. The results obtained show an importance of ionization changes produced by cosmic ray variations for the mechanism of solar activity influence on the lower atmosphere circulation.
..Just on the day
of the SPE onsets pressure starts sharply decreasing near the Greenland coasts, the effect is maximum
on the next day. Air outflow from cyclones deepening near Greenland results in the formation of a
height crest (an area of pressure increase) over Europe. As the cyclone development is accompanied
by the formation of an anticyclone at the cold front in its rear, simultaneously with cyclone
intensification near Greenland an area of high pressure appears over North America…
Storm Time Meridional Wind Perturbations in the Equatorial Upper Thermosphere
R.A. Haaser1, R. Davidson2 R.A. Heelis1, G.D. Earle2, S. Venkatraman1, and J. Klenzing3
..First storm observations by C/NOFS occur about 3-5 hours after the first southward-turning of the Bz reported by ACE/Wind, in agreement with previous studies suggesting that phase fronts in the thermosphere propagate from the polar regions toward the equator with velocities of about 500 – 800 m/s…
..Most of the storms are observed in the southern magnetic latitudes, except for the [IV.] Jan 2012 storm. As expected, a majority of the observed storms, demonstrated equatorward perturbations of meridional neutral winds (including the Jan 2012 storm), propagating away from the nearest magnetic pole, on the order of about 100 m/s…
@William Howard Astley
Thank you for providing the link to the Nature article.
http://www.nature.com/news/ephemeral-third-ring-of-radiation-makes-appearance-around-earth-1.12529
sorry Carla, don’t know much that would be of any use, see if you can scrape together anything from this article.
vukcevic says:
June 22, 2013 at 12:43 pm
That’s ok Vuks.
More Van Allen belt related..According to Wiki the inner Van Allen belt is only 200km (124mi) above the South Atlantic anomaly. As our magnetic field continues to weaken in that area, belt gets closer..and the anomaly gets bigger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly
Vuks have a looky see of the images here.
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/tour/AAvan.html
In particular the 4th image that looks like a giant wood tick attached to the polar regions I’m living in the country now so wood tick would come to mind.
And Vuks an example of a “low geomagnetic cutoff rigidity,” can be found in Figure 2 of;
A review of geomagnetic cutoff rigidities for earth-orbiting spacecraft
D.F. Smart *, M.A. Shea
http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~d76205x/research/Shielding/docs/Smart_06.pdf
Yet a better definition for: “low geomagnetic cutoff rigidities”
The near-Earth particle environment
Geomagnetic cutoff effects
The ability of charged particle radiation to penetrate into the magnetosphere from outside is limited by the Earth’s magnetic field. The number of magnetic field lines a cosmic ray must cross to reach a given point within the magnetosphere approximately determines the minimum energy it must possess. To cross more magnetic field lines more energy will be required. A particle’s penetrating ability is determined uniquely by its momentum divided by its charge, a quantity called magnetic rigidity.
Particles having low magnetic rigidity (i.e. momentum per unit charge) are preferentially turned back by the field, so they are unable to penetrate beyond some depth in the magnetosphere. For each point in the magnetosphere and for each direction of approach to that point, there exists a threshold value of magnetic rigidity, called the geomagnetic cutoff. Below this value, no charged particle can reach the specified point from the specified direction. Above this cutoff value, particles arrive at the specified point from the specified direction as though the magnetic field were not present at all (Lemaître and Vallarta, 1933). Regions in the outer magnetosphere and near the poles can be reached at much lower magnetic rigidities than are required to reach points near the Earth’s equator.
http://www.spenvis.oma.be/help/background/creme/creme.html#ENV
Vuks.. one more thing. Dr. S. said you need a mechanic ism.
So when I ran across this.. well
VARIATIONS OF EXTRATROPICAL CYCLONIC ACTIVITY
IN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN HEMISPHERES
ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGETIC SOLAR PROTON EVENTS
S.V. Veretenenko1, P. Thejll2
pg. 3
..Thus, we can see that the North Atlantic area near the south-eastern coasts of Greenland is the area of
most pronounced cyclone deepening associated with energetic SPEs. Indeed, the data in Fig.3 show that this
region is characterized by a favorable structure of the tropospheric thermo-baric field. We can see a
divergence of isohypses in the middle troposphere (Fig.3a) that contributes to air outflow from a deepening
cyclone. At the same time high temperature contrasts in the Arctic frontal zone near the Greenland coasts
create favorable conditions for cold advection. It is known that cold advection contributes to the generation
and intensification of cyclonic vortices, as well it is the main reason for secondary cyclone deepening (so
called cyclone regeneration) [Vorobjev, 1991]. On the other hand, the Greenland coasts are in the area of low
geomagnetic cutoff rigidities that allow precipitation of particles with energies 90 MeV and above (Fig.3b).
Polar frontal zones in the North Atlantic and especially in the North Pacific turn out to be in the areas with
noticeably higher geomagnetic rigidities (see Fig.4), and no strong cyclone deepening associated with
studied events is observed in these regions. Thus, all the factors, both meteorological and geophysical, seem
to create the best conditions for the effects of energetic SPEs on extratropical cyclone development namely
near the Greenland coasts.
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko2_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf
Important paper. Thanks Carla.
I had a look at the proton flux (Solar Proton Events – SPEs) as a measure of solar activity, only available from the satellite data (not certain about accuracy for the first 10 years of data). The SPEs suggest that SC 24 max is over.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SPEs.htm
Vuks, I thought it important too. 90 Mev, with free precipatation access, due to low geomag cutoff rigidities, near Greenland coast. What is the gyro radius at 90 Mev. At terra electron volts, gyro radius in scale of AU.? Gotta, remember there is a larger scale at play in the system.
William Astley says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:30 pm
The observations cannot be explained by the current Van Allan belt theory.
As usual you overstate your case; we have a pretty good understanding of radiation belts. What Baker said was “Nonetheless, details about the dramatic reshaping of the outer belt and the location of the month-long middle ring cannot be explained by current theory”. This is a far cry from what you imply. The observations are important in helping us better understand the details. This is the case with any set of new data: helping us refine the current, already successful, theory.
vukcevic says:
June 21, 2013 at 2:11 am
data used and the resulting correlation from the calculation are unquestionable.
Spurious correlations by definition need not be questioned in the first place. They are simply that: spurious, end of story.
Dr.S.
I have looked at many sets of data, all result of solid observation, and found strong correlations from solar activity, tectonic records, geomagnetic fields etc, etc; do not contravene basic physics but can’t be unquestionably supported by the relevant quantative parameters as currently known.
True science tries to understand unexpected, blunt rejection is a symptom of dogmatic rather than rational approach.
Either nature is far more complex that the current state of science is prepared to give it credit for, or there is a god up there who likes to play games with the universe.
I happen to think reality is the first rather than the second.
It appears you favour the second.
vukcevic says:
June 24, 2013 at 1:02 am
I have looked at many sets of data … Either nature is far more complex than the current state of science is prepared to give it credit for
Having ‘discovered’ spurious relations myself, e.g.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/180/4082/185.short
even widely praised, e.g. here
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v276/n5686/abs/276348a0.html
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/291304a0-Ionosphere-GCRs.pdf
https://utd500.utdallas.edu/physics/faculty/tinsley/ROP%20paper.pdf
But spurious nevertheless, I know what it feels like.
The best way to proceed is to write your ideas up in a clear, concise, and understandable manner and then to submit the work to a reputable scientific journal. You are hereby encouraged to do so.
But spurious nevertheless, I know what it feels like.
Hi Dr. S.
Difference is that you are professional scientist and have consider all aspects etc, etc. I have no such concerns, sometime correct and more often wrong. I have not done exact count, but I dug out at least dozen ‘spurious correlations’, so by law of probability at least one or two could be true.
Back to your old article
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/291304a0-Ionosphere-GCRs.pdf
first page (304) top, right hand side column, top 2-3 sentences.
I think you need to reconsider your view about being wrong.
You wrote it 32 years ago, and here is another article (Carla’s link), from less than a year ago
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko2_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf
which more or less confirms your old findings.
I have to read whole of your old article, but you may not have been wrong after all.
Solar electromagnetic factors do influence weather in addition and bypassing the TSI !
vukcevic says:
June 24, 2013 at 8:40 am
by law of probability at least one or two could be true.
Quite the opposite. We once had a student that claimed to have looked at over a hundred datasets and showed us a correlation from that collection with a 95% confidence of being correct. By the ‘law of probability’ she should have found five. The more data you look at the smaller is the chance that you are correct.
I have to read whole of your old article, but you may not have been wrong after all.
There are people who still think I was correct, e.g. Tinsley, but that does not make me correct. Your particular case is spurious on its face. But, as I said, write it up and submit it to a respectable journal if you want a second opinion.
Solar electromagnetic factors …
The paper you referred to does not advocate any such.
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2013 at 7:09 am
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v276/n5686/abs/276348a0.html
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/291304a0-Ionosphere-GCRs.pdf
Spurious or not thanks for the links. Cause..some of us still need to read some of the ‘then,’ to help us understand the ‘now.’ Our global electric circuit, has strange ‘mankind’ footprints.
We have some great new models on the Van Allen belts. It is like it is breathing. And where does the 3rd belt ‘stuff’ go when the belt goes missing?
I seem to be missing some ring currents in my top down view. And what role ..they may have in all this.
I do know my radio reception has had its ups and downs lately. Mixing over other stations. Changing angles on the antenna a lot.
Had a power surge AM Sunday out here. Fried some insulation, main breaker cooked. But it did stop the surge from running into the rest of the power supply.
And Vuks, Dr. S. might be saying ahh you missed something..
Carla says:
June 24, 2013 at 7:44 pm
And Vuks, Dr. S. might be saying ahh you missed something..
He wouldn’t know.