January solar cycle 24 numbers, a new high for one, continued slumps for others

Dr. Svalgaard, I’m not sure why you previously said that the solar wind interaction at both earth poles is the same. I looked up the Hemispheric Activity Level at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/lists/hpi/power_2013.txt, and in perusing the data, I couldn’t find any corresponding hemispheric power equality in gigawatts at any closely-spaced times for north and south hemisphere measurements. One problem with comparing both poles simultaneously is the fact that no two N and S readings are taken at the same exact time by the NOAA satellites. However, closely timed measurements as seen in the data list varied a great deal between hemispheres. Why is that? Would that not indicate that the poles respond non-symmetrically to the solar wind? The auroras “look” somewhat symmetrical, but maybe looks are deceiving there.
Additionally, specifically, what causes magnetic field “lines”? Your old friend Hannes Alfven retracted his original proposition that they are “frozen in” space, and he called that idea a mistake. Doesn’t the flow of electrons create the magnetic structures around the sun and earth? The field “lines” really don’t exist do they? Aren’t they a conceptual construction illustrating the directional motions of electrons?

lsvalgaard says:
February 4, 2014 at 9:38 pm
Sparks says:
February 4, 2014 at 9:33 pm
A magnet does not wind up its own field.
Let us hope Carla is paying attention.
however, a magnet embedded in a plasma does wind up its field: the spiral field lines in the solar wind…
That is the crucial difference between a conducting and a non-conducting environment.
___________________________
The Earth’s magnetosphere is sounding more like it is embedded in a ‘current sheet,’ based on the following. And sounds like plenty of wave action, but you say no “twisting up?” Don’t we see current sheets on the Jovians and aren’t they twisting up?
Megavolt Parallel Potentials Arising from Double-Layer Streams in the Earth’s Outer Radiation Belt
F. S. Mozer1, S. D. Bale1, J. W. Bonnell1, C. C. Chaston1, I. Roth1, and J. Wygant2
Received 22 August 2013; published 2 December 2013
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i23/e235002
Huge numbers of double layers carrying electric fields parallel to the local magnetic field line have been observed on the Van Allen probes in connection with in situ relativistic electron acceleration in the Earth’s outer radiation belt. For one case with adequate high time resolution data, 7000 double layers were observed in an interval of 1 min to produce a 230 000 V net parallel potential drop crossing the spacecraft. Lower resolution data show that this event lasted for 6 min and that more than 1 000 000 volts of net parallel potential crossed the spacecraft during this time. A double layer traverses the length of a magnetic field line in about 15 s and the orbital motion of the spacecraft perpendicular to the magnetic field was about 700 km during this 6 min interval. Thus, the instantaneous parallel potential along a single magnetic field line was the order of tens of kilovolts. Electrons on the field line might experience many such potential steps in their lifetimes to accelerate them to energies where they serve as the seed population for relativistic acceleration by coherent, large amplitude whistler mode waves. Because the double-layer speed of 3100  km/s is the order of the electron acoustic speed (and not the ion acoustic speed) of a 25 eV plasma, the double layers may result from a new electron acoustic mode. Acceleration mechanisms involving double layers may also be important in planetary radiation belts such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, in the solar corona during flares, and in astrophysical objects.

Current sheets on all Jovians and similar on Earth and Mercury
Observations of plasma sheet structure
and dynamics
Chris Arridge1,2
1. Mullard Space Science Laboratory, UCL.
2. The Centre for Planetary Sciences at UCL/Birkbeck.
Magnetospheres of the Outer Planets – Boston, USA – Tues 12 July 2011
Discussed:
– Plasma sheet global shape and position and observations of its dynamics.
– Plasma sheet thickness variability.
– Centrifugal effects on latitudinal structure.
– Reconnection, periodic plasmoid release and recurrent energisation.
– Energisation of plasma.
– Current sheet tearing.
– Current sheet oscillations and waves.
– Discrete blobs of plasma.

We might have some incites into “twisting up” and some incites into vortices from Saturn..
And how bout some spin periodicities in the magnetosphere of Saturn for exammples?
The Seasonal Variations of Saturn’s Current Sheet Tilt
Khurana, K. K.; Dougherty, M. K.; Russell, C. T.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012espc.conf..310K
European Planetary Science Congress 2012, held 23-28 September
The location of a planetary current sheet, where most of the magnetospheric plasma resides, is determined by the effects of centrifugal, solar wind and Lorentz forces on the plasma. It is well known that at any local time, Saturn’s current sheet develops a static tilt from solar wind forcing which gives it a global shape of a shallow bowl [1]. However, less appreciated is the fact that the current sheet also develops a dynamic tilt which moves the current sheet up and down at any local time during a Saturnian day [2]. Khurana et al. (2009) suggested that the dynamic tilt results from the asymmetric lift of the magnetosphere in the presence of ring current asymmetries which rotate with the planet [3]. Khurana et al. (2009) examined Cassini data from the period of 2004-2006, when the solar elevation angle was > 14 degrees. They showed that during this time, the dynamic tilt was > 10 degrees. Saturn passed through its equinox during July 2009. The solar elevation angle during 2009 was between -3.4 and 2.2 degrees. Using magnetic field observations from this period, we now show that the dynamic current sheet tilt was also extremely small (< 5 degrees). We further show that the current sheet's dynamic tilt is governed largely by the solar elevation angle. The variability of Saturn's current sheet's dynamic tilt has implications for the models of spin periodicity in Saturn's magnetosphere.
Two types of models have been proposed to explain the spin periodicities in the magnetosphere. In the magnetospheric driven models, an inner magnetospheric vortex drives cyclical convection in the magnetosphere and creates periodicities in the observed field and plasma parameters. In the ionospheric driven models, a vortex in the ionosphere imposes magnetospheric periodicities including dynamic tilt in Saturn's current sheet

Thank you for your Dr. Svalgaard. I do have an agenda: understanding what’s going on exactly, which I’m pretty sure you would appreciate. Of course I have my bias as most do. On page 6 of your given pdf, you say “Very similar result for the Southern Hemisphere (no surprise as POES Hp is calibrated so that the South has the same mean as the North).” What underlying rational was there for the South and North calibration means to be equated the same?
With so many satellites, I can only imagine what a job that is calibrating them!
I was able to find some significant N-S differences in the data (just a sampling – too many to list):
2013-01-20 07:38:22 NOAA-18 (N) 7 32.94 1.26
2013-01-20 07:50:41 METP-02 (S) 10 117.75 0.83
2013-01-20 08:01:50 NOAA-16 (N) 8 48.72 2.80
2013-01-20 08:05:59 NOAA-15 (S) 10 109.99 0.84
2013-01-21 00:34:38 NOAA-18 (N) 3 4.53 0.96
2013-01-21 00:42:25 METP-02 (S) 7 25.11 0.90
2013-01-21 22:39:58 NOAA-18 (N) 4 7.72 0.76
2013-01-21 22:40:49 METP-02 (S) 6 19.67 1.11
So maybe we’re both right sometimes!
Regarding field “lines”, yes, I did think that the magnetic fields move with the plasma, as you appear to be saying too. But, I wonder how does anyone know “… in a vacuum or a non-conductor they {field lines} do not exist in the same way [although the magnetic field is there]”? There really isn’t a true vacuum or non-conducting space in the heliosphere, is there?
Doesn’t the solar wind plasma exist everywhere in the heliosphere, just at varying densities? The use of words like “frozen” and “thawed” appear to be generally vague, considering nothing in space is actually motionless, especially plasma, which means magnetic fields are ever-variable, right? Motionless plasma being the only condition where magnetic fields would be “frozen”, were that possible. Is it?
I’ve seen it written that flares and resultant CMEs are caused by “magnetic energy” – well, if magnetic energy is proportional to plasma flow/density, and plasma is ionized hydrogen, a combination of electrons and protons, and, as you’ve said in previous blogs, that inside a plasma flow such as in the solar wind, there exists an electrical current (electrons & protons – charge in motion), then isn’t it fair and accurate to say that flares and CMEs are caused by overloaded plasma tubes bridging sunspot regions, in effect an overload of electrical current?
If so, that would mean “magnetic energy” really results from plasma caused “electrical energy”. To me, the use of the term “magnetic energy” doesn’t cover the true cause of the magnetism, the electrical currents caused by plasma flows of electrons and protons.

A change has come over the ratio of whole spot to umbra:
It has been as high as 10-1, but in late November started falling, and is now in a more ‘normal’ 4-1
That 4-1 to 6-1 is seen for about 80-90% of a Solar Cycle. SC24 has been truly a weird beast of a Solar Cycle.

However, rgbatduke,

rgbatduke says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:29 am
Of course if there is a real problem with the supply of energy, this triggers the tail chasing spiral of inflation — prices rise, the currency is inflated to match, but there is only so much to go around so prices rise again and the currency inflates a bit more etc. Welcome to the latter days of Jimmy Carter.

You might be surprised to know that natural gas was locked in at 30 cents in early 1978. Jimmy Carter deregulated it, and it went to around $2.30, an embarrassment but waaaaay cheaper than oil that traveled to $38/barrel by then as a result of the Oil Crisis (oil was $3.00/barrel before the Yom Kippur War, Oct 1973, when the Oil Crisis started). It took at least two to three years for the power plants to retool, but that broke the back of OPEC and brought energy prices down to an eventual $10/barrel. Reagan got the praise, but it was Carter who did it.
That horrific inflation (20% and above) of the late 70s and early 80s was the result of Fed Chairman Paul Volker who didn’t understand how monetary operations worked. He set a limit on borrowed reserves of $50 billion, and said the banks couldn’t have any more money. Volker didn’t understand that banks make loans which make deposits, and then two weeks later they settle up with the Fed (Volker was still thinking like a gold-standard animal, not unlike Ron Paul). So, first Volker transferred interest rate control to the New York Fed from the Washington Fed by default. The banks would add up their deposits and instead of $50 billion in reserves, they would need, say, $55 billion and the Fed was supposed to say you can’t have it (at the Fed Funds Rate, which was normal but Volker didn’t know). The loans and deposits had already been made, and the banks already had an overdraft at the Fed for the reserves because a loan/deposit creates an automatic need for reserves at the Fed; ergo an overdraft, which is an automatic loan. The banks had no option but to try to borrow from each other to cover their reserve requirement, driving up interest rates. Or go to the Fed’s discount window with its particular interest rate; however, use of the discount window would precipitate bank examiners at the bank trying to use the discount window and each bank would pass until the interest rate was attractive enough to endure the bank examiners, sometimes reaching 28% in one day. It was a mess. It took over a couple of years for Volker to understand that he didn’t know what he was doing and fix it, but the damage had been done.
As for this, I agree completely

Welcome to the probable real cause of the CAGW scandal — not greens acting alone, not climate scientists acting without motivation, but greens playing into the hands of the energy industry, which is the only group that unambiguously benefits from the measures being taken and attention being paid to energy.

Dr. Svalgaard, I question [most of the time], YOU reject [sometimes].
On Jan 31, ACE RTSW MAG from 14:00 to 20:00 UTC Bx, By, and Bz were as flatlined as I’ve ever seen, can you explain how that happens please?
If your arguments regarding the plasma and magnetics can be absolutely confirmed, I’ll be the first in line to pat you on the back for it. Our argument appears on the level of “what came first, the chicken or the egg?” Perhaps there are pre- or misconceptions on both sides, and I do appreciate your “trying”. Thickheadedness appears to vary with the solar wind and magnetics as well!
As for the use of averages, running means, and statistics: you may call me a “true believer” in that I think events cause events – things cause things to happen, and mathematical constructions don’t [not to say the laws of physics aren’t represented mathematically]. Of course the math is essential to analyze events and make predictions.
I am an audio engineer from wayback, and instantaneous power is a very important metric wrt sound. I think the same type of audio analysis applies to solar activity metrics. So with that in mind, I do think that the significantly different nearly-instantaneous POES readings are not irrelevant as compared to the averages, as you appear to suggest, and later today, I will do as you suggest, “Try to average the power for each day and then compare.” We’ll see…
I said: “The use of words like “frozen” and “thawed” appear to be generally vague.” and you said,
“They have a very precise meaning and were used by Alfven himself.” My question now is, did he use those descriptors before or after he changed his mind regarding “frozen-in” magnetic fields?
Where you say, regarding a non-conductive region: “There certainly is [and that is what started this whole ‘discussion’], namely the air you breathe: there is a 60 mile non-conducting air gap between the surface of the Earth and the ionosphere.” I have to respond with: what about lightning? What about the electric field from ground to the ionosphere and atmospheric ions?
You say, “Since the plasma is electrically neutral there are no electric currents as electrons and protons move together, [and this is important] unless they encounter a magnetic field which will deflect the electrons and protons in opposite directions, so, again, you see the supremacy of the magnetic field in generating the electric currents that are the cause of the explosive events.”
What about the plainly described heliospheric current sheet? It is from the plasma flowing [solar wind] from the sun outwards, right? Further, since the electrons and protons are deflected in opposite directions, wouldn’t there be evidence at the Earth’s poles for a higher electron concentration at one pole and then a corresponding higher proton concentration at the other pole?
What happens when electrons and protons in the solar wind move together in the magnetosphere? Do they spiral together at any time? Would this not create twisting magnetic field “lines” and outwardly appear as twisting filaments at the right wavelength(s)? Aren’t those Birkeland currents?
As well, how does your assertion that electrons and protons move together (proportionately?) square with the fact that the GOES solar wind electron flux and proton flux readings don’t track very well together most of the time?
What about the reverse of what wikipedia describes as a dynamo: a magnet (the Earth) immersed in a varying stream of charged particles (the wires)?
As for today’s solar activity: SSN 234, SFI 194, the highest values in a while; and a rarity, Bz negative now for 12 straight hours (continued linkage to Earth’s magnetic field.) That’s just food for thought – we’ll see if anything comes of that. Also looking at AIA 211/193/171, we can see the polar coronal holes are nearly symmetrical, as well as the hemispheric active regions, looking like a “balanced” sun. Is that something we’d expect after solar max?

Eric1skeptic says:
February 6, 2014 at 6:09 am
Policycritic (February 6, 2014 at 3:36 am) “That horrific inflation (20% and above) of the late 70s and early 80s was the result of Fed Chairman Paul Volker who didn’t understand how monetary operations worked…”
That is completely incorrect. Volker was sworn in as Fed Chairman in August 1979 as the price of gold was rocketing skywards:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=GOLDAMGBD228NLBM&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=1968-04-01&coed=1980-01-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Daily&fam=avg
It was Volker who put an end to “inflation” in every sense of the word.

Thanks for the chart. It proves one of my points: people still don’t understand what it means to be off the gold-standard 100% and how that affected monetary operations, and neither did Volker then, who thought that if you restricted the reserves you would control the money supply and curb inflation; he made it worse. It had nothing to do with gold because we were not pegged to it.
Here’s the history and I’ll try to be brief. As your chart shows, gold was (artificially) pegged at $35/ounce internationally until August 15, 1971. The USA went off the gold-standard domestically in 1934 (or so), but was still pegged to it internationally. [Any newly discovered store of gold would reduce the value of your currency, not increase it.] That meant all export and import payments were settled internationally in gold, and that was done, literally, with a forklift that would move gold between cages designated by country in the basement of the NY Fed (don’t know how many other district Feds did that, maybe DC, San Fran).
In 1970, Nixon discovered that Charles De Gaulle had taken every US$35.00 he could get his mitts on and exchanged it for an ounce of gold, physically taking possession, draining the US coffers for over 10 years. Americans loved French wine, French this, French that, and he was happy to sell them to us. The US dollar by that time had become the reserve currency, wresting it from the British Pound, especially after the run on gold dissolved London’s gold pool sometimes in the 60s. So on August 15, 1971, on the advice of Herb Stein and others Nixon took us off the gold standard and we, the USA, became 100% monetarily sovereign for the first time in our history, able to pay for anything denominated in US dollars both domestically and internationally. Our dollar was no longer pegged to a fixed exchange rate. It was floating, and free. [That $100 case of wine that had to be paid for in gold? From a macro POV, it cost us $0.07, the cost of printing a $100 bill.]
As your chart shows, once gold was depegged from the US$, the commodity price of gold soared. It had, and has, nothing to do with the value of the $US. It had, and has, nothing to do with inflation. Zero. And thank god, because the commodity price of gold has gone up and down like a toilet seat for the last 13 years, from ~$200/ounce to a high of ~$1900/ounce (the Hugo Chavez gold affair). Had we been on gold, we would have replicated the panics and depressions of the late 1800s and early 20th C.

Eric1skeptic says:
February 6, 2014 at 6:09 am
Once the inflation was embedded into the remnants of America’s strong 1950′s and 60′s economy, wages and prices soon spiraled upwards at double digit rates.

Wages have gone down 19% since the early 70s in the aggregate.
These myths are as destructive as the current debt ceiling crisis. The debt ceiling was imposed in 1917 to put a belt and set of suspenders on the gold supply after WWI. It should have been wiped from the books in 1971 as soon as we became 100% monetarily sovereign (but then the country was going through Watergate and journalists knew nothing, still don’t.) The debt ceiling has no logical meaning in today’s economy. Zero. Zip. Those using it today for political purposes and financial blackmail are impoverishing this country. It is criminal, and in my opinion, its practitioners should be in jail for lying to the American people, causing untold sorrow and pain to ordinary people, because some of those congressional bastards know the truth about the debt ceiling ruse and are using the deception for their own political and career purposes.

Uh, I made a mistake in how I said something. I meant to say that I believe the Universe is infinite in time and space, and that what is more absurd is saying that the Universe of everything is finite and started with a bang from nothing. Sorry for that. We’re all human and error prone, especially typing!!!