This paper suggests a terrestrial impact on cloud cover from the interplanetary electric field (IEF) via the global electric circuit. A primer video on the GEC is below.
Clouds blown by the solar wind M Voiculescu et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045032 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045032
Abstract
In this letter we investigate possible relationships between the cloud cover (CC) and the interplanetary electric field (IEF), which is modulated by the solar wind speed and the interplanetary magnetic field. We show that CC at mid–high latitudes systematically correlates with positive IEF, which has a clear energetic input into the atmosphere, but not with negative IEF, in general agreement with predictions of the global electric circuit (GEC)-related mechanism. Thus, our results suggest that mid–high latitude clouds might be affected by the solar wind via the GEC. Since IEF responds differently to solar activity than, for instance, cosmic ray flux or solar irradiance, we also show that such a study allows distinguishing one solar-driven mechanism of cloud evolution, via the GEC, from others.
Introduction
There is high interest today in quantifying the solar contribution to climate change. Despite the progress in understanding the processes driving the Earth’s climate, quantifying the natural sources of climate variability, especially regarding solar effects, remains elusive (Solomon et al 2007, Gray et al 2010).
Although climate models are highly sophisticated and include many effects, they are not perfect and observational evidences are modest and ambiguous. Empirical evidences suggest a causal relationship between solar variability and climate, particularly in the pre-industrial epoch (Bond et al 2011), but possible mechanisms are unclear and qualitative. The balance between reflected radiation from space and Earth at different wavelengths contributes to temperature variation in a significant manner (Hartmann et al 1992), thus cloud cover play a major role in the terrestrial radiation budget. Modeling cloud contribution to climate at different spatial and temporal scales is probably the most challenging area of climate studies (Vieira and da Silva 2006). Despite increasing number of solar-cloud studies, there is no clear understanding of solar effect on cloud cover. Indirect mechanisms are proposed that would amplify the relatively small solar input and could explain solar-related variability observed at different time scales (from days to decades) in various cloud parameters, as for instance cloud cover (Udelhofen and Cess 2001, Marsh and Svensmark 2000, Voiculescu and Usoskin 2012) or cloud base height (Harrison et al 2011, Harrison and Ambaum 2013).
One indirect mechanism relates to the fact that the solar spectral irradiance varies significantly in the UV band, whose effect is limited to the stratosphere, thus a stratosphere–troposphere–ocean coupling, ‘top-down’ effect, is required (Gray et al 2010, Meehl et al 2009, Haigh et al 2010). Another mechanism relies on possible variations of atmospheric aerosol/cloud properties, affecting the transparency/absorption/reflectance of the atmosphere and, consequently, the amount of absorbed solar radiation. Two possible physical links have been proposed: one via the ion-induced/mediated nucleation by cosmic ray induced ionization (CRII) (Dickinson 1975, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen 1997, Carslaw et al 2002, Kazil and Lovejoy 2004, Yu and Turco 2001) and the other via the global electric circuit (GEC) effects on cloud/aerosol properties (Tinsley 2000, Harrison and Usoskin 2010). The former mechanism might be hardly distinguishable from noise, especially at short-term scale, as demonstrated using in situ/laboratory experiments (e.g., Carslaw 2009, Kulmala et al 2010, Enghoff et al 2011, Kirkby et al 2011) and statistical studies (e.g., Calogovic et al 2010, Dunne et al 2012). Opposing, studies of Svensmark et al (2009), Enghoff et al (2011), Svensmark et al (2013), Yu et al (2008) have shown that an impact of ionization on new particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) exists. Thus it is possible that the CRII-nucleation mechanism operates at longer time scales, but it might be spatially limited to the polar stratosphere (Mironova et al 2012). On the other hand, the GEC-related mechanism may be important (e.g., Tinsley 2000, Harrison and Usoskin 2010, Rycroft et al 2012), particularly for low-clouds and some links have been shown to exist between atmospheric electricity properties and cloud evolution/formation (Harrison et al 2013).
Since all solar drivers correlate to some extent, it may be difficult to evaluate which driver or combination of drivers is the best candidate for cloud cover modulation. An attempt to differentiate between solar irradiation (total or UV) and CRII effects on cloud cover has been made by Kristjánsson et al (2004), Voiculescu et al (2006, 2007), Erlykin et al (2010), who showed that various mechanisms might act differently at different altitudes and geographical locations. However, the GEC is affected by the solar activity in a different way, via the interplanetary electric field (IEF), so that only positive IEF plays a role, while negative IEF does not. Positive IEF corresponds to a interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) with a southward component, or negative z-component, which favors a direct energy transfer from solar wind to the magnetosphere and to ionosphere. For negative IEF (positive z-component of the IMF) the transfer is much less efficient and only a very small percentage of the solar wind energy is transferred to the magnetosphere (e.g. Dungey 1961, Papitashvili and Rich 2002, Siingh et al 2005). Thus, in contrast to other potential solar drivers which are expected to exert a monotonic influence, IEF is expected to affect clouds only when IEF is positive. This feature has a potential of separating the IEF effect from other drivers. Here we present results of correlation studies between the interplanetary electric field (IEF) and cloud cover, which might indicate the most probable mechanism that might affect cloud cover. We discuss here mainly results obtained for low cloud cover (LCC), but we also refer to middle- (MCC) and high-clouds (HCC).
Conclusion
Here we present a result of an empirical study showing that there is a weak but statistically significant relation between low cloud cover at middle–high latitudes in both Earth’s hemispheres and the interplanetary electric field, that favors a particular mechanism of indirect solar activity influence on climate: global electric circuit affecting cloud formation. We show that all characteristics of the relationship are in line with what is expected if the interplanetary electric field affects cloud cover via the global electric circuit:
(1) the low cloud cover shows a systematic correlation, at interannual time scale, with positive interplanetary electric field, at mid- and high-latitude regions in both hemispheres;
(2) there is no correlation between low cloud cover and interplanetary electric field in tropical regions;
(3) there is no correlation between low cloud cover and negative interplanetary electric field over the entire globe.
As an additional factor, cosmic ray flux may also affect cloud cover in the presence of positive interplanetary electric field. No clear effect of cosmic ray flux during periods of negative IEF was found.
Similar, but less statistically significant results were found also for middle and high cloud cover, suggesting that the primary effect is on low-clouds. The fact that the found statistical relation exists only for the periods of positive IEF and not for negative IEF disfavors other potential mechanisms of sun–cloud relations at mid–high latitudes, such as via ion-induced/mediated nucleation or UVI influence. However, the latter might work at low–mid latitudes. Although this empirical study does not give a clue for an exact physical mechanism affecting the clouds, as discussed above, it favors a particular solar driver, solar wind with the frozen-in interplanetary magnetic field, that affects the global electric current system at Earth. The result suggest that further research of solar-terrestrial influence ought to focus more also on this direction.
=============================================================
The paper is open source, see it here:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045032/article
Related: No increase of the interplanetary electric field since 1926 (Sager and Svalgaard 2004)
Related articles
- Claim: Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re: “In real science we establish ‘correctness’ by the capacity for quantitative prediction or calculation of effects.”
It’s not clear which part of 5% baryonic you’re not understanding. You’re putting salad dressing on a turd, and inviting us over for dinner.
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 4:08 pm
_______________
Oh, please- if you can’t make a valid point, at least mind our delicate sensibilities.
That would indeed be wrong to conceal a lot of bizarre beliefs and c*nspiracies under scientific language, wouldn’t it, Chris Reeve?
R. de Haan says:
December 26, 2013 at 10:00 am
“We need models to establish credibility”, that’s sick.
—————————————————————————————————
Only if you take “model” in the IPCC sense of “something that matters more than reality”
In a strict sense, every equation in science is a “model” and science consists of finding models to fit observations. Observations on their own aren’t science – they become science when we find a consistent and reliable model to explain them.
The sick part is that climate science appears to put the models ahead of the observations they’re supposed to explain, to the point where observations that don’t fit the models are “wrong”.
Leif – what causes gravity? How does it work mechanically?
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is the best explanation we have at this moment…
In real science we establish ‘correctness’ by the capacity for quantitative prediction or calculation of effects.
================
agreed. we have no mechanism to explain gravity. we don’t know how or why it affects time. we are not even sure of gravity’s propagation speed. or for that matter, if gravity is even a force. we have many beliefs but they remain beliefs.
yet we are able to make quite precise predictions about the effects of gravity. not because we understand how it works, but rather through careful observation and painstakingly accurate record keeping. so it seem altogether strange that modern science insists on a mechanism, when throughout history successful prediction almost always came long before we understood the mechanism.
In reality, in an infinite universe one can never be sure of the mechanism, the “why” behind cause and effect. each new discovery holds forth the possibility of falsifying that which we hold to be the “true cause” and ushering in an entirely new series of scientific beliefs. The Higgs Boson may be responsible for mass, but what is responsible for the Higgs Boson? Isn’t that the true source of mass? But if that is the case, doesn’t this process extend on to infinity?
lsvalgaard wrote:
“Dark Matter is an observational fact, not yet understood theoretical, but observations trump theory, don’t you think?”
???
Certain measured interactions in the cosmos are observational facts. “Dark Matter” is a theoretical explanation of those observations.
Goodness me. I have observed an unusual event and I theorise a “seasonal / festive” explanation with volatile liquid indicators.
.
OK Leif, a nap after hours of snow shoveling helped triggered this question for you: provided your explanation is correct that solar wind blows outward from the sun because it’s HOT, is it known at what minimum temperature this ability to overcome gravity occurs if there is one and if so how do we know that?
jmorpuss says:
December 26, 2013 at 3:35 pm
The fair weather electric field is driven by the sun
no, by thunderstorms.
ferdberple says:
December 26, 2013 at 5:05 pm
when throughout history successful prediction almost always came long before we understood the mechanism.
No, generally not. It takes the mechanism to make successful prediction. We can predict planetary positions, because we know how Newtonian physics works. We can predict fine deviations from that because we have General Relativity. We can predict the wiggles in the Cosmic Microwave Background because we have a good understanding of the physics of sound waves in the early Universe [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf ], etc.
one can never be sure of the mechanism, the “why” behind cause and effect.
Mechanisms are about ‘how’, not ‘why’.
But if that is the case, doesn’t this process extend on to infinity?
Of course, “it is turtles all the way down”. Nothing wrong with that.
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 6:08 pm
is it known at what minimum temperature this ability to overcome gravity occurs if there is one and if so how do we know that?
About a million degrees will do it. We know that because the escape velocity for a body at the sun is 617 km/sec and we know the temperature at which atoms move at that speed.
Leif, thank you. Another question. Right now the momentary solar wind speed as reported by spaceweather.com is 269.8 km/sec. Have these solar particles then slowed down from 617 km/sec by the time they are measured at the satellite? If they are slowing down, wouldn’t they slow down eventually to 0 km/sec? If so, does that happen at the heliosphere boundary? Since the electrons are so much “lighter” than the protons, would the escape velocity temperature be different for electrons vs protons, and would the electrons then travel farther & faster than the protons? If that were to happen, wouldn’t that create a somewhat variable yet fairly permanent charge seperation in the heliosphere?
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Leif, thank you. Another question. Right now the momentary solar wind speed as reported by spaceweather.com is 269.8 km/sec. Have these solar particles then slowed down from 617 km/sec by the time they are measured at the satellite?
If you throw a ball in the air it will slow down as it ascends until some point where its upwards speed will be zero and it begins to fall back. On the Sun, gravity decreases as you go up and at the point where the solar wind takes up, the escape speed has decreased to 250 km/sec, so that will be the minimum speed of the solar wind.
If they are slowing down, wouldn’t they slow down eventually to 0 km/sec? If so, does that happen at the heliosphere boundary?
Once the solar wind has escaped it doesn’t really slow down until it meets the interstellar medium [some 110 times the distance from the Sun to the Earth] at which point the velocity indeed will slow to 0 km/sec.
would the escape velocity temperature be different for electrons vs protons,
It will, the electron escape temperature for electrons is 1.5 million K and for protons 1.0 million K.
wouldn’t that create a somewhat variable yet fairly permanent charge separation in the heliosphere?
No, because the electrons and protons attract each other strongly so effectively move together. The electric force is very strong. As an illustration: imagine a box on the Earth containing 3 million toms of electrons and a similar box on the Sun containing protons with the same electric charge as the electrons in the box on the Earth, then the electric force between the two boxes would exceed the total gravitational force that holds the whole Earth in its orbit.
Leif, one more thought: perhaps the Van Allen belts around Earth and similar energetic plasma structures around the other planets are just more examples of Hannes Alfvens’ “double layer” that he insisted be recognized as a celestial object like stars because of their prevalence throughout space. What’s your take on that? Can the “flux tubes” NASA found linking the sun to earth be considered “double layers”?
Ok Leif, if we could fill boxes with just electrons or protons, how big would the boxes be at 3 million tons?
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Leif, one more thought: perhaps the Van Allen belts around Earth and similar energetic plasma structures around the other planets are just more examples of Hannes Alfvens’ “double layer” that he insisted be recognized as a celestial object like stars because of their prevalence throughout space. What’s your take on that? Can the “flux tubes” NASA found linking the sun to earth be considered “double layers”?
No, on both counts. But all plasma structures can contain transient double layers that help accelerate electrons across them. And the ‘flux tubes’ are just one manifestations of magnetic fields that extend from the sun throughout the solar system at all times. Any magnetic body [like the Earth] will link to that solar magnetic field essentially all the time. BTW, NASA didn’t find that, I did back in 1967.
vukcevic says
“As a sign of respect I shall for now, retreat from the further ‘contest’.”
Very gentlemanly and, if I may say, humble of you to so do.
Well, while I cannot remotely pretend to understand the subtleties of the ongoing debate you have with Professor Doctor PhD Svalgaard in these pages, I feel I learn a little from you about the subject with every posting you make.
Unlike, I must say, from the Good Doctor, whose postings make me feel completely inadequate to penetrate, on any level of lay understandings, the scientific realm wherein he has long since established his worldwide reputation.
I cannot fathom his didactic method, but perhaps it is not that, in that perhaps he does not come here to teach, but rather as …. a Gatekeeper, so-to-speak.
Given the often evidenced vicious evisceration (effective or otherwise) of those he deigns to engage in debate or whom ask what I perceive (to the degree one can parse written language for underlying intent) genuinely sincere, however naive, questions, I’m certainly not inclined to directly pose queries to him to develop my understandings.
Rather, I explore writings and sites online that seem to be ‘fair and balanced’, presenting comparative interpretations with forthright and transparent admission of bias. I suppose that would make me easy victim of those he presents as being “purveyors of….a deplorable shadowy disservice”
All that said, kudos also to PJF, who writes “Goodness me. I have observed an unusual event and I theorise a “seasonal / festive” explanation with volatile liquid indicators.”
I’m certainly no scientist, but reckon myself average in ability to detect intellectual ‘sleight-of-hand’, and the deft transmutation of observations of phenomena into (“not yet understood theoretical”!!!!!!!! :-O) fact (exemplia gratia – “Dark Matter”), did not pass my notice, either.
And since I’m in a chatty mood, I’ll add my own ‘nonsense’ and a toast to all this Festive Season, in best of spirits (to make a little play-on-words), and posit that, since our cerebrums are certainly generating electric fields (yes! measured! goodness!), it will eventually be discovered that Our Thoughts, individually and collectively, are ‘influencing the weather’, both terrestrial and extra-so {leastways in terms of what we can, in ever-expanding macro and microscopic dimensions, See…and so, with which, interact).
Of course this puts me somewhat out of the realm of ‘science-as-we-know-it’ (save, perhaps, cosmology), and definitely beyond Deism, and well into Theism (as I do so choose to ‘go there’).
Been reading earlier (online, that hotbed of pseudo-science) this evening, yet again, about the wondrous (sorry. “IMHO”, that is) E-Coli flagellum, which with stator, rotor and all 42 neatly constructed proteins uncannily analogous to an electric motor, emerged from Deep Time, by Chance.
😀
I like the EU Stuff. It appeals to my limbic love of patterns in things.
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 7:52 pm
Ok Leif, if we could fill boxes with just electrons or protons, how big would the boxes be at 3 million tons?
Since an electron has zero size [as far as we know] the electron box would also have zero size. The proton box would have a finite size, about a tea spoon full, if the protons are packed as closely as they can be.
Sorry Leif, but all this is food for thought, and the thoughts keep coming… once the electrons and protons, which travel together, reach the interstellar medium, what becomes of them?
Somehow I have a hard time visualizing a box of zero size. But anyway, if the electric force between your box of electrons and teaspoon of protons could be harnessed, couldn’t that be a basis for an interstellar space drive?
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Sorry Leif, but all this is food for thought, and the thoughts keep coming… once the electrons and protons, which travel together, reach the interstellar medium, what becomes of them?
They join the medium together with all the other electrons and protons that have escaped from the sun and other stars over billions of years. Sometimes they find each other and form a neutral Hydrogen atom, sometimes not.
Delayed congratulations on that discovery Leif! I didn’t know… I was seven years old then, and didn’t take an interest in these topics until six years ago. Thanks for answering my questions.
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Somehow I have a hard time visualizing a box of zero size. But anyway, if the electric force between your box of electrons and teaspoon of protons could be harnessed, couldn’t that be a basis for an interstellar space drive?
It would be hard to keep the stuff in their boxes [and to put them in the boxes], so I don’t think so.
Tiburon says:
December 26, 2013 at 7:54 pm
I suppose that would make me easy victim of those he presents as being “purveyors of….a deplorable shadowy disservice”
And that is precisely why that pseudo-science is so dangerous. It is important that the public at large get scientifically correct and well-founded information.
Bob Weber says:
“…couldn’t that be a basis for an interstellar space drive?”
I suggest that practically speaking, Dr Eric Lerner’s work with Focus Fusion folks might be the faster way to achieve, at least, interplanetary space drives, if not an “interstellar” drive per se.
Mars in 4 weeks, and that’s only because you have to, y’know, slow down, too. 😉
lsvalgaard says: –
“And that is precisely why that pseudo-science is so dangerous. It is important that the public at large get scientifically correct and well-founded information.”
Dr Svalgaard – I absolutely and sincerely respect your well-founded concern regards this important matter. There is an unbelievable (well, not-so as I’ve plowed through so much of it already) amount of unmitigated b.s. online. Rigorous fact checking before accepting ‘what feels good’ to the mind and ear (and personal prejudice) has become mandatory, and we (as a species?) are being asked to do this in a time period ridiculously short even with the metric of human time. How long have we had the encyclopedic internet? A couple of decades?
I perceive that the challenge is that science itself is still bound to the patterns of discovery/elucidation-of-discovery that Thomas Kuhn spoke of, so long ago now in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Were I an expert in a particular field (well, some say I am, though unfortunately to this discussion not in the ‘hard sciences’), I would be reluctant to re-evaluate a lifetime of effort and learning simply to accommodate some upstart ‘wild speculation’, and would likely have to fight off resentment on a personal level to have patience to illustrate basic facts.
But what choice would I have?
Were I to dismiss the confrontations as beneath ‘my dignity’, I would appear as elitist and ‘hide-bound’ in my thinking. “Courts” of opinion would be even more fraught with potential evil; – we’ve seen this in fields as far a-flung as Cancer Therapy and, of course CAGW.
I believe the only responsible path, if one can find the time without irreparably damaging one’s own pursuit of advances in one’s field of research, is to step-by-step lead people who are genuinely curious step-by-step through the basic assumptions, admitting when said assumptions truly are just that, but strongly defending them when the weight of evidence exceeds reasonable doubt. Given open-minded students, at minimum a certain baseline of facts can be established, and to me it is at that point that exciting interchanges can begin, and ‘from the mouths of babes’ if you will, new insights and directions can be explored, not least by those who teach.
12 years ago now, I discovered John Daly’s site Still Waiting for the Greenhouse. I was a doctrinaire lay acolyte of the Global Warming meme at that time, but following several hundred hours reading his archives, with dictionary and Wiki close at hand, my understandings of what drives weather and hence climate, expanded until I found myself alone among my peers in my now ‘denier’ opinions. They’ve all mostly ‘come around’ by now, I’m pleased to say – though I certainly don’t judge – interest in these areas is not everyone’s ‘cup of tea’.
And I see or sense a similar opportunity in certain aspects (by no means all!) of what I see in the growing EU ‘movement’ – and what appears to me to be the ability of the still-developing model to explain a host of anomalous observations that are largely dismissed as mere aberrations by the status quo in the respective fields. That always makes me Suspicious, when I see such dismissal.
I would ask you to explain certain phenomena that I’ve seen described, like CME’s that are able to arrive an AU from the chromosphere in hours, rather than days, and the absurd heat gradient at the solar surface, and bizarre geometric cloud formations at the poles of Saturn, and something extremely weird at the heliopause per Voyager, and highly redshifted objects IN FRONT of ‘less-distant’ stars, and dendritic formations in the sands of Mars, and oh-so-not-dirty-snowball comets, and the list goes on and on, long; all of which have seemingly plausible (though by no means “proven”) explanations being generated by the EU Model….
…and I would sit with rapt attention, would you be able to offer a layperson the Established View and interpretation (when available, of course – as I understand it there’s a lot of “surprise”, and “unexpected”, and “mysterious” coming out of NASA et. al. these days, as our reach of observation logarithmically expands in our present age) of these phenomena –
but
1) it is not your job, and I know you are actively pushing the boundaries of understanding within your own specialized field
and
2) I would not appreciate being ‘shut down’ as being “too ignorant of basic science” to appreciate The Truth, as, to be candid, I’ve seen you do frequently to those who question the basics you consider unassailable.
I do read everything you write and post here (your scientific work is well beyond my ken) and gain some insight, but it always seems to me when there’s something that ‘doesn’t fit’ to you, you throw it aside out of hand, or resort to (to me) arcane extrapolations impenetrable to the layperson by way of attack or explanation.
Shouldn’t, ultimately, the things we “know” be apparent to all? EVEN when they are counter-intuitive (with a bit of further explanation?) We all live in this world, and experience it together.
I know intellectually that ultimately the colour blue is not “really there”, but is rather an interplay between my human eyes and the frequency of spectral light. But largely without exception, we can all agree what ‘blue’ is, n’est ce pas? And we can at that point speculate about what it Means,….”blue”. On many levels. And we should be open to that Beautiful Blue Day in all it’s rich mystery, in ourselves and in what we perceive as ‘out’….
That gives me hope that our understanding will advance, for all.
Oh…just a small additional comment. I was a bit of a ‘smarty-pants’ among my classmates in the small prairie town of my youth. And by 11 years old I was drawn to the RAS here in Canada, drinking in all I could about the Main Sequence.
I’m pushing 60 now, and opening my mind when I look up at noon to what was, my entire life, ‘that big nuclear furnace in the sky’, and considering it possibly and rather, an Anode to the Cathode of the Heliosphere (and Beyond?) is not ‘easy’. I could ignore that possibility, ‘ignorance being bliss’ it’s been said.
But hollow or metallic hydrogen, or something else, it is not my nature to ignore uncomfortable facts (except, possibly, in my own character ;-)), and I WANT TO KNOW.
I was ‘poisoned’ by my teachers in University in the few science courses I took…the Club of Rome “Limits to Growth” was all the rage at that time, and I was such a firebrand for The Cause.
I also made personal life-decisions based on that so-called “knowledge”. But apparently we’re not yet short of Tungsten, which among many other things ‘running out’ were to be gone long before the Millennium. Who knew? We were the ‘illuminated’, and I was quite willing to social engineer other people to conform, and voted thus for years.
Argument from Authority doesn’t get too far with me, these days, and as I get even older, I’m starting (maybe) to appreciate how much a heavy dose of humility goes a long way towards understanding.
Tiburon says:
December 26, 2013 at 9:09 pm
I would ask you to explain certain phenomena that I’ve seen described, like CME’s that are able to arrive an AU from the chromosphere in hours, rather than days,…all of which have seemingly plausible (though by no means “proven”) explanations being generated by the EU Model
I would also sit with rapt attention if EU had any explanations for anything, but they do not [other than hand waving] so we are back to conventional explanations which usually suffice, e.g. CMEs arriving in hours is simply because they are fast [say 3000 km/sec]. Such speeds can be achieved by enough energy in the electric currents in the solar atmosphere. Yes, conventional astrophysics invoke currents too, the difference with EU is simply that the [real] currents are generated [induced] by changing magnetic fields and moving conducting, neutral plasma.
2) I would not appreciate being ‘shut down’ as being “too ignorant of basic science” to appreciate The Truth, as, to be candid, I’ve seen you do frequently to those who question the basics you consider unassailable.
I do not think that I ‘shut anybody down’. I always try hard to explain even complicated things [to wit my exchanges with Bob Weber], but there are folks that are hard of learning and after explaining the same thing for the umpteenth time, they get the ‘short’ and perceived harsh version.