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)
Hathaway at least has the honesty to admit he was wrong. You still have to get to that point.
I did not predict anything so I do not need to explain or even less to apologise for any aberration, it is extrapolation of the formula that gives results; after all ‘the exception prove the rule’. At the time in 2003, I didn’t even realise that someone may show particular interest in the future values.
I could certainly find a periodicity which could iron out anomaly, but that was not the point, the point was to link solar magnetic oscillation with clearly defined and accurately measured astronomical values for the two strongest sources of magnetic field within solar system.
Solar magnetic oscillations periodicity = magnetic periodicity A + magnetic periodicity (A+B).
The amplitude magnitude correlation of the solar cycles materialised itself as an unintended additional extra.
Note: I do/did not work for NASA or for that matter anyone else, no financial benefit was acquired for the work I show here. Detailed science explanations are greatly appreciated, but demeaning comments are regularly dismissed.
vukcevic says:
December 28, 2013 at 8:38 am
I did not predict anything so I do not need to explain or even less to apologise for any aberration, it is extrapolation of the formula that gives results
If the science is valid the extrapolation should work both for the future and for the past. It does not, hence is not valid.
Tiburon says:
December 27, 2013 at 6:58 pm
…My take-away – we never come back to the same place twice…and apparently, we’re definitely ‘on the way to….somewhere’…
——–
My que..
From the article above:
“”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). “”
If the earths north pole were positive would the above be reversed?
Why do we say that earth’s magnetosphere is stationary? If the Earth is rotating and orbiting its field will twist and turn and blow back from headwind. If the earths north pole were positive would the above be reversed?
Back at Tiburon, The Moody Blues, from “On the Threshold of a Dream.”
Have you heard (1), The Voyage and Have you heard (2)
And Dr. S., pretty cool space images and time lapse set to some classical/rock. Note on Jupiter spot, you can see it break and spin off the EEJ (equatorial electro jet) of Jupiter. Might see a few things.
Carla says:
December 28, 2013 at 8:55 am
If the earths north pole were positive would the above be reversed?
Yes, because the IEF is not a property of the solar wind or the sun, but rather results from interaction with the Earth.
Why do we say that earth’s magnetosphere is stationary?
Because both orbital and rotational speeds are so much smaller than that of the solar wind.
If the science is valid the extrapolation should work both for the future and for the past. It does not, hence is not valid.
Dr.S
Once you finish all the past SSN numbers corrections my formula will fit perfectly with no exceptions apparent.
Carla
This is my favourite
vukcevic says:
December 28, 2013 at 9:16 am
“If the science is valid the extrapolation should work both for the future and for the past. It does not, hence is not valid.”
Once you finish all the past SSN numbers corrections my formula will fit perfectly with no exceptions apparent.
This should alert everybody to your fraud. Or is it just http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I found this very interesting. http://electric-cosmos.org/SolarElecFlux2013.pdf
In light of new data from the Voyager spacecraft, it posits that the Heliopause is a “virtual” Cathode and the Sun is an Anode…. The whole system as a cell imbedded within the electrically charged plasma of the galaxy and thus potentially powering the sun externally.
[….Therefore the question arises why did Juergens only consider electron flow when he calculated the constituents of the total current in the solar plasma? It seems he was fixated on the electric circuit analogy wherein only electron flow is important. In the cosmos, there are no prohibitions against long distance travel of +ions. There are no signs that say, “No ions allowed beyond this point” as there are (figuratively) placed in front of cathodes in every lab discharge.
Therefore, if we make the estimate that there are as many +ions moving near and through the Sun as there are electrons (the ‘quasi-neutral’ assumption), the requisite number of electrons can be cut in half. The required number of electrons to power the Sun electrically is thus one out of every 40,000 that the Sun takes in from its environment near the heliopause.
Juergens’ Electric Sun hypothesis seems to be increasingly supported by every new bit of data NASA releases.
D.E. Scott (June 2013)]
For the full rundown on the EU hypothesis…. http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm
What about Earth’s “pre-reversal electric field,” (PRE) located at LOWER latitudes having an effect on cloud formation, high energy particles and the continuation of a fair weather global electric circuit?
Effects of the South Atlantic Anomaly
on the muon flux at sea level
C. R. A. Augusto, J. B. Dolival, C. E. Navia, and K. H. Tsui
…The magnetosphere’s dip is responsible for several processes,
such as the high conductivity of the atmospheric layers due to the precipitation
of energetic particles in this region and an zonal electric field known as the
pre-reversal electric field (PRE) with an
enhancement at evening hours. In addition the open magnetosphere, propitiate
the magnetic reconnections of the IMF lines that will take place in this site in the
day side. These factors are responsible for an unusually large particle flux present
in the SAA region, including particles with energies above the pion production
threshold. The main effect is an increase of the muon intensity (Eμ > 0.2GeV ) at
ground, in the day side, in up to ten times. We show that it is correlated with the
pre-reversal electric field, and propitiate the observation of muon enhancements
due to small solar transient events, such as corotating interaction region (CIR)
and micro-flares. Details of these results are reported in this paper.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.3166.pdf
Carla says:
December 28, 2013 at 9:46 am
What about Earth’s “pre-reversal electric field,
Yeah, what about it?
From the article
..The precipitation of energetic particles on the SAA ionizing the high layers of the atmo-
sphere and increasing their conductivity (Gledhill & Torr 1975; Paulikas 1975; Nishino et al.
2002) and propitiating the appearance of an electric field, the pre-reversal electric field
(PRE), with an enhancement at evening hours, the so called sunset enhancement. In fact,
we show in this survey that there is a correlation in the hourly variation of the atmospheric
conductivity gradient and the hourly variation of the muon intensity at ground, both present
the so called sunset enhancement. In most cases the precipitation of the high energy par-
ticles in the SAA region begins around 3 hours after the sunrise and it finishes around one
hour after the sunset, these schedules are subject to periodic variations (they move with the
seasons of the year).
The low rigidity of response of the telescopes plus the fact that in the SAA region we
have an almost open magnetosphere, and it propitiate the reconnection of the IMF lines,
producing field lines with one end at the Earth and the other in distant space,..
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.3166.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
December 28, 2013 at 9:00 am
Carla says:
December 28, 2013 at 8:55 am
If the earths north pole were positive would the above be reversed?
Yes, because the IEF is not a property of the solar wind or the sun, but rather results from interaction with the Earth.
Why do we say that earth’s magnetosphere is stationary?
Because both orbital and rotational speeds are so much smaller than that of the solar wind
——
So then does Earth’s magnetic field also have a negative inward, positive outward component?
Carla says:
December 28, 2013 at 11:20 am
So then does Earth’s magnetic field also have a negative inward, positive outward component?
Yes, inward in the North, outward in the South.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=VU8FhINYZle0xM&tbnid=JxkuSwEuF1weIM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu%2Fhbase%2Fmagnetic%2Fmagearth.html&ei=eyW_UsnUAYbgoATel4GwAQ&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNEerEVHkU-OioAR7NSANqPA1rQdsQ&ust=1388345081401651
Well I have been playing with the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA).
They are suggesting that there is an anticyclonic sub surface flow producing the corresponding increase in monopole field strength in that region, at the same time the axial dipole strength weakens.
Its (SAMA) increase in motion corresponds with the increase in motion in the magnetic north pole 1990-2000. The latter slowing down latitudinally around 2005 and started moving more longitudinally.
Something creepy about the magnetic fields in the Solar System, starting early in 1990’s till now.
Vuks hoping you have already seen this, if not check the sine wave in Figure 7.
Equivalent monopole source of the geomagnetic South Atlantic Anomaly
http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/5557/1/SAA_Monopole_Pageoph_rev3_in%20press.pdf
Angelo De Santis1,2 and Enkelejda Qamili 1,3
Some excerpts..
…The fluid motions that produce the SAA in the deep
outer core form an anticyclonic (i.e. counterclockwise) system underneath the Southern Hemisphere
(Olson and Amit, 2006), analogous to typical persistent features emerging from turbulent, possibly
chaotic flows (e.g., McWilliams, 1984). To our knowledge, SAA persistence is as long as the Great
Red Spot on Jupiter’s atmosphere, an anticyclonic vortex that has been persistent for 300-400 years
(e.g. Beebe, 1997)….
Figure 5 shows a comparison between monopole and axial dipole geomagnetic fields at Earth
surface from 1600 to 2000 (at steps of 50 years) from GUFM1 and IGRF at the centre of the
obtained “monopolar” anomaly. We notice that changes of the axial field are counterbalanced by
opposite changes of the monopole field: to the almost general decrease of the axial field
corresponds a general increase of the monopolar field over all the period of study.
Figure 6 shows the horizontal (latitude-longitude) path of the equivalent monopole for both
GUFM1 and IGRF models at 25-year steps (exception the addition of 1990 for GUFM1). An
apparent anticyclonic rotation of around 800 years of main period (half rotation in around 400
years) is evident. This kind of anticyclonic (anticlockwise) regime is typical of the Southern
Hemisphere as confirmed by previous results when analysed the corresponding generating flows at
the CMB (e.g. Olson and Amit, 2006). Horizontal and vertical bars represent estimates of the errors
of centre determination of the monopolar anomaly, decreasing from older epochs (±4o in latitude
and longitude) to most recent ones (± 2o in latitude and longitude). It is worth noting as well a
recent acceleration of the motion from 1990 to 2000: we do not know if this is just a mere
coincidence or if this acceleration can be associated to recent accelerations of other features of the
geomagnetic field, such as the geomagnetic poles (De Santis et al., 2007, 2008) and magnetic dip
poles (Newitt et al., 2002 )…
lsvalgaard says:
December 28, 2013 at 11:25 am
Carla says:
December 28, 2013 at 11:20 am
So then does Earth’s magnetic field also have a negative inward, positive outward component?
Yes, inward in the North, outward in the South.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=VU8FhINYZle0xM&tbnid=JxkuSwEuF1weIM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu%2Fhbase%2Fmagnetic%2Fmagearth.html&ei=eyW_UsnUAYbgoATel4GwAQ&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNEerEVHkU-OioAR7NSANqPA1rQdsQ&ust=1388345081401651
_______
thank you Dr. S.
Wondering how many of us here didn’t think about this>
Negative North inward
Positive South outward
Carla says:
December 28, 2013 at 11:55 am
Wondering how many of us here didn’t think about this>
Negative North inward Positive South outward
The pole in the Arctic is actually a magnetic south pole, and in Antarctica a magnetic north pole.
So, the convention is: magnetic north pole = outward = positive; magnetic south pole = inward = negative.
Carla
You are starting to talk to yourself 🙂
Thanks, yes I did see article very recently (someone linked to it), but I’ll look at it again. Solid part of the earth core is asymmetrical (it continuously melts on one side and crystallise on the opposite) and due to its differential rotation it affects the outer core circulation with anomalies shifting around.
Some years ago I produced this geomagnetic chart
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC.htm
which shows 4 centuries of variability, what I found interesting is that at 60S, 130E not far from current position of the ‘south’ (=north) magnetic pole the intensity stayed constant during that period.
See also:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC6.htm
I also proposed the idea that geo-field is driven by 3 conical termal circulation vortices
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TIF.gif
more appropriate for a sphere than the current eccentric cylinders model.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/JC.gif
Just a couple of simple observations between Earths South Atlantic Anomaly and Jupiters red spot.
Great Red Spot
The Great Red Spot (GRS) is a persistent anticyclonic storm, 22° south of Jupiter’s equator; Earth observations establish a minimum storm lifetime of, variously, 183 years to possibly 348 years.[67][68] The storm is large enough to be visible through Earth-based telescopes, first being observed by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe in 1831 as a drawing of the gap formed around it, and possibly even earlier, as a “permanent spot” was described by Gian Domenico Cassini between 1665 and 1713. The actual spot has been continually described and observed since Carr Walter Pritchett did so in 1878.[69]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter
“””…The Tupi experiment is at sea level and
is located at 22S and 43W, which is close to the SAA center 26S and 53W….”””
…”””This kind of anticyclonic (anticlockwise) regime is typical of the Southern
Hemisphere as confirmed by previous results when analysed the corresponding generating flows at
the CMB (e.g. Olson and Amit, 2006). …”””
And the relationship with their EEJ Equatorial Electro Jet and solar activity. Or if you prefer solar wind variation effect..
Movie Description
A movie of the variation of the geomagnetic field at the surface of the Earth due to the ionsopheric current systems. The equatorial intensification of the magnetic field is due to the Equatorial Electrojet (EEJ). UT = universal time. The unit is nT (nano-Tesla). The movie was generated using a geomagnetic field model (CM4) . This was presented in a meeting in Potsdam, Germany in 2006.
vukcevic says:
December 28, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Carla
You are starting to talk to yourself 🙂
…I also proposed the idea that geo-field is driven by 3 conical termal circulation vortices
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TIF.gif
more appropriate for a sphere than the current eccentric cylinders model.
———
Check out figure 3 then..
http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/5557/1/SAA_Monopole_Pageoph_rev3_in%20press.pdf
“”””To find the depth of the anomalous monopole there are several methods. For instance, we could
estimate it from the vertical derivative of the field. Figure 3 shows an example of this quantity (in
nT/km) for the epoch 1600. The thicker circle covers the SAA area of interest: it is relevant to
notice that this is the area of the world with greatest vertical gradient (>13nT/km) confirming that
the corresponding source is the shallowest one among all sources of the non-axial dipole part of the
main geomagnetic field. The very circular shape of the vertical gradient is another confirmation of a
possible monopole-like type of the
corresponding source.
A good estimator of the monopole source
depth is the distance between vertical gradient maximum and its half value (e.g. Telford et al.,
1990): a rapid calculation provides an estimate of around 2800 km.””””
Good find Carla
Equatorial electrojet has direct link to the global weather system, and few years ago I suggested to the climate change too.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
Try and tie this up.. lol .. ok
From our article above
Clouds blown by solar wind
…”””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…”””
Auroral jets connected to the Equatorial jets hmm via the Interplanetary Electric Field IEF hmm
The response of the dayside equatorial electrojet to step-like changes of IMF BZ
S. Ohtani1,*, T. Uozumi2, H. Kawano2, A. Yoshikawa2,
H. Utada3, T. Nagatsuma4, K. Yumoto2 17 JUN 2013
1] The equatorial electrojet (EEJ) is driven by zonal electric fields, which are known to be well correlated with the interplanetary electric field and therefore with the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) BZ component. In the present study, we investigate how the equatorial H magnetic component, and therefore the EEJ, responds to step-like changes of IMF BZ. The reduction of southward IMF BZ (northward turning) and that of northward IMF BZ (southward turning) are examined separately. The result shows that for the northward turnings, the EEJ immediately starts to weaken with the accuracy of the estimates of the travel times of the IMF changes. The time constant of the response is much longer, and the equatorial H component decreases continuously by 40 nT for 30 min after the northward turnings. In contrast, the response of the EEJ to the southward turnings is far less clear in both magnitude and timing, and it does not depend on whether or not IMF BZ actually becomes southward. The difference in the EEJ response to the northward and southward turnings reflects at least partially the fact that the magnetosphere-ionosphere system is more sensitive to IMF BZ when IMF is southward than northward. It is suggested that the electric field penetrates from the polar region to the dip equator through a global current system that connects the auroral electrojets and the EEJ, and the ionospheric conductance in the polar region may play an important role in the formation of such a current system.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50318/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Sure hope you watched the movie of the EEJ and saw the dip in the dip equator, cus it sure looks like one helluva wave to me..
Carla says:
December 28, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Try and tie this up.. lol .. ok
Auroral jets connected to the Equatorial jets hmm via the Interplanetary Electric Field IEF hmm
All these jets are in the ionosphere, not part of the climate or weather systems. No ‘hmm’s needed.
lsvalgaard says:
December 28, 2013 at 3:12 pm
Carla says:
December 28, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Try and tie this up.. lol .. ok
Auroral jets connected to the Equatorial jets hmm via the Interplanetary Electric Field IEF hmm
All these jets are in the ionosphere, not part of the climate or weather systems. No ‘hmm’s needed.
————————————
What drives the Equatorial Electro Jet EEJ? Why the Equatorial Electric Field EEF. What drives the EEF?
“”” ..Due to its importance, there is much interest in accurately measuring and modeling the EEF for both climatological and near real-time studies. The Swarm satellite mission ..”””
You did notice the word ‘climatological’ Dr. S.?
Swarm SCARF equatorial electric field inversion chain
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013EP%26S…65.1309A
Alken, P.; Maus, S.; Vigneron, P.; Sirol, O.; Hulot, G.
Earth, Planets and Space, Volume 65, Issue 11, p. 1309-1317.
The day-time eastward equatorial electric field (EEF) in the ionospheric E-region plays a crucial role in equatorial ionospheric dynamics. It is responsible for driving the equatorial electrojet (EEJ) current system, equatorial vertical ion drifts, and the equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA). Due to its importance, there is much interest in accurately measuring and modeling the EEF for both climatological and near real-time studies. The Swarm satellite mission offers a unique opportunity to estimate the equatorial electric field from measurements of the geomagnetic field. Due to the near-polar orbits of each satellite, the on-board magnetometers record a full profile in latitude of the ionospheric current signatures at satellite altitude. These latitudinal magnetic profiles are then modeled using a first principles approach with empirical climatological inputs specifying the state of the ionosphere. Since the EEF is the primary driver of the low-latitude ionospheric current system, the observed magnetic measurements can then be inverted for the EEF. This paper details the algorithm for recovering the EEF from Swarm geomagnetic field measurements. The equatorial electric field estimates are an official Swarm level-2 product developed within the Swarm SCARF (Satellite Constellation Application Research Facility). They will be made freely available by ESA after the commissioning phase.
DOI: 10.5047/eps.2013.09.008
Carla says:
December 28, 2013 at 4:03 pm
What drives the Equatorial Electro Jet EEJ? Why the Equatorial Electric Field EEF. What drives the EEF?
Nothing special. Dynamo action produces an electric field in the E-layer [110 km altitude, magnetic effect discovered in 1722]. Because electrical conduction is easiest along the magnetic field than across it, the conductivity and hence the current [the electrojets] is larger where the magnetic field is horizontal, that is: in a narrow strip along the magnetic equator. That is the reason for the EEJ.
Thanks Carla for continuing this discussion about electric/magnetic weather effects. Clearly we’re still learning about how it all really happens. The volume of papers on these topics is exploding, and even non-experts are noticing. As a degreed electrical engineer in circuits and systems, it’s been a fascinating intellectual journey thus far learning how much the weather and climate are modulated by the interaction of the solar wind and the GEC. I’m glad to see your fervor in seeking new ways of looking at things. Just think where we’d be today if we all took James Hansen’s and Steven Schnieder’s word on carbon dioxide weather-climate control uncritically. Look how long it’s taken to get to this point where we can be confident they were wrong.