When the supersonic solar wind hits the Earth’s magnetic field, a powerful electrical connection occurs with Earth’s field, generating millions of amperes of current that drive the dazzling auroras. These so-called Birkeland currents connect the ionosphere to the magnetosphere and channel solar wind energy to Earth’s uppermost atmosphere. Solar storms release torrential blasts of solar wind that cause much stronger currents and can overload power grids and disrupt communications and navigation.
Now for the first time, scientists are making continuous, global measurements of the Birkeland currents, opening a new window on our understanding of our home planet’s response to solar storms. Using the Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment, based on the 66 Iridium satellites orbiting the Earth, authors of a Geophysical Research Letters study have discovered that Earth’s response to onsets in forcing from the solar wind occurs in two distinct stages.
Currents first appear near noon in the polar regions and remain steady for about half an hour. Then the second stage begins, when strong currents appear near midnight and eventually join the initial currents near noon. Most of the solar wind energy is deposited in the polar atmosphere by processes initiated in the second stage. The authors note that scientists are working to understand how the delay between the first and second stages could give near-term warning of impending space weather disruptions.
More at GRL http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-112702.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You have missed out the obligatory:
“Of course, it is inconceivable that these phenomena could have any impact on global climate, so we will not conceive it.
There is no evidence that these phenomena are dangerously impacted by global warming. Yet. If you would like there to be some, please increase grant cheques and keep them coming regularly…”
“The science is settled.”
/Sarc.
Auto.
PS – do I need to replicate this post all the way down this thread?
Whatever.
I’m not going to do that – boring, counter-productive, needless and so forth.
But do, please, bear the quote in mind, to see why Bird-blenders were – maybe still are by some deluded politicos, and greedy desperate (I thought of an obscene adjective, but self-snipped!) grant-chuggers – thought to be a good idea, and why Official Natural Plant Food has been demonised. A.
It would be interesting to assess the effects on the human body of these events, in particular at high latitude and high altitude.
Gotta think that everyone who has ever spent any appreciable time at the south pole would be a prime test subject…
Right on. This is very much a field research safety issue.
Hmmm…. Maybe that would explain this…
“Antarctic base staff evacuated after Christmas brawl”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/dec/27/usa.barbaramcmahon
/sarc
There was a boat…. they spent a bit of unwanted time…
“The authors note that scientists are working to understand how the delay between the first and second stages could give near-term warning of impending space weather disruptions.” Why do I get the feeling this is going to be reason #55 for the “pause” 🙂
“Most of the solar wind energy is deposited in the polar atmosphere by processes initiated in the second stage.”
There are twin instruments attempting for the first time to fly within the two main radiation belts around the earth. I think the jury is out wrt what the currents and +ive and -ive ions do in the earth’s near space environment. The sun is a copious source of both, actually. The Van Allen Belts may be huge players in the circuit.
Besides that, there are “anti-planetward” charged particles leaving the earth’s poles, which some have said exit toward the sun. Juno should have some insight into this after observing Jupiter’s extraordinarily powerful auroras.
Data data data, you cannot make bricks without mud.
“…the supersonic solar wind…”
Wow, the solar wind is faster then sound? Who knew? Seriously though, why call it “supersonic “? Does that sound impressively fast or something?
Otherwise, this is very interesting real research. 8D
Faster than the Alfven speed which is the speed with which a magnetic perturbation can travel in the solar wind plasma. Near the Earth, that speed is about 50 km/sec and the solar wind moves at 400 km/sec, so is 8 times ‘supersonic’.
Thank you Leif. See Eric Sincere, all it takes is a little background or… just some reading.
400 km/sec is much, much more than 8 times supersonic, like about 1,170 times supersonic.
No, John,
The speed to compare with is the Alfven speed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave
Greg, Eric wasn’t skeptical of the speed of the solar wind, so I’m not sure why your comment is relevant. He was questioning why to add supersonic to the label. By the same reasoning light would be supersonic. At what point past the 50km/sec (thanks for that Leif) do you stop referring to it as supersonic? Why not hypersonic? Does it add anything to the description? Perhaps so to those working in the field, but for me it would indicate that it is not very fast if compared to “sonic” limits. 400KM/sec is pretty darn fast. Just sayin’.
D Nash, “supersonic” refers to action on the sound-carrying medium. Returning to Earth for the moment where air is the medium for sound propagation, it’s not useful to say that light is supersonic because it doesn’t impact the air. “Supersonic” means there’s a shockwave at the leading edge, like a meteor has.
The velocity of sound and the Mach number which is the ratio of velocity in a fluid to the velocity of sound in that fluid varies with fluid properties (particularly composition and absolute temperature). For air the velocity of sound is around 420 m/sec. In methane (or natural gas) the velocity of sound is around 450 m/sec.
Leif, is there a more heavily moderated discussion forum or blog where I can read you, Professor Svalgaard (as I would prefer a bit of respect)?
I would think that the “solar wind” being basically a plasma, is just a low density gas, with many of the atoms stripped of electrons, so it ought to have all of the behaviors of any fluid, including a limiting “sound wave” velocity, just like waves in water do. In this case the waves can be affected by magnetic fields, just because the “gas” is ionized.
So yes, I would say that 8X is supersonic. Wonder what the heck it sounds like.
So tell me Dr. Svalgaard in this solar wind, do the plasma atoms/ions collide randomly with each other and ergo exhibit “heat” (noun) or do their mutual repulsions, stop them colliding. Well I suppose, if you bounce off a magnetic shield, instead of a brick wall, you are still going to interchange particle energies. So I guess the solar wind plasma must have a temperature. ?? Izzat so ?
And I see that some of the responders, don’t understand that the speed of sound in a medium, depends on the properties of THAT medium, so the sea level STP speed of sound in air IS NOT the definition of sonic / supersonic boundary. And I think it is more like 345 m/s in air at STP. 1132 ft/sec seems to stick in my mind.
and Dr Svalgaard just explained the solar wind sound speed is 50 km/s, not 345 m/s.
In water mach 1 is about 4,000 ft/s
So I guess we can say, that the solar wind is a component of “heat” (noun) that the earth gets from the sun. But that is convection, and not radiation.
What I was referring to when using the speed of light as an example was the fact that “at high field or low density, the velocity of the Alfvén wave approaches the speed of light”. So the speed has a large range and the question was at which point is it no longer referred to as supersonic and to Eric’s question does it add anything to the description. By convention 5x or greater is referred to as hypersonic, not supersonic. Why not hypersonic solar winds? The answer is that it is convention, but I don’t think it conveys the true velocity very well – especially to the layman that thinks of the Mach 3 jet as the measure of supersonic. Compared to how fast the solar winds can truly travel, 400km/sec isn’t very fast. In this case does supersonic indicate slow portion of the solar winds?
@ur momisugly Greg, Greg, Greg… we meet again….. tsk, tsk…. “All it takes is {being an EXPERT in the field, as in a doctor of solar physics… give poor Sincere a break!… and Dr. Svalgaard some respect}… .”
I think someone forgot your birthday again… so!
Here’s a little cheer! Just — for — you!
“Sunny Side of the Street” — Frank Sinatra
Oh, don’t tell me to go back to nursery school to see if I can graduate this time, lololo — I was just there this morning! Had fun on the slide and the teeter-totter and…. hey, “Come Swing with Me” (Frank S.).
#(:))
Warm regards,
The Sunshine Lady
@Eric Sincere
My impression also. Yes, “supersonic” does sound impressive, as do “powerful”, “dazzling” and “torrential”. What “stupendous” numbers do those adjectives represent?
Did others missed the “8D” ?
It’s very supertransfantastic!!!
do the plasma atoms/ions collide randomly with each other and ergo exhibit “heat” (noun) or do their mutual repulsions, stop them colliding.
The solar wind is collision-less. That is: it is so tenuous that the particles do not collide. However, the particles are charged and so ‘feel’ that there are other ones nearby and hence behave as a ‘fluid’. And have a temperature too, about 50,000 degrees
Nash: At the density and field typical for the solar wind, the Alfven speed is slow, about 8-10 times slower than the solar wind itself. and 400 km/sec is a pretty good clip. The solar wind speed varies between 250 km/sec to [very rare] in excess of 2000 km/sec. What this means is simply that any magnetic change is carried away from the Sun much faster than the change can move ‘upstream’.
The reason for “supersonic” is because there are certain effects that depend on the speed relative to the local speed of sound (in this case the Alfven speed). As an analogy, if a meteor hits the atmosphere at a hypersonic velocity, the effects on it are quite different than if it hits with a subsonic velocity.
BTW, re the question below: “what does it sound like” –
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/voyager-sound.html
Currents first appear near noon? Near noon **where** exactly on the earth’s surface? And by supersonic is meant above the speed of sound in what atmosphere?
Above the speed of sound in the interstellar medium, since you ask. But it’s always moving supersonic in the heliosphere.
More likely they mean above the speed of sound in vacuum, exactly at noon of the North Pole time.
Even in intergalactic space there is a “speed of sound” as energy of various sorts propagates through the very thin medium out there. Some of the spectacular Hubble images of star forming regions like the “Pillars of Creation” show beautifully defined shock waves passing through media that are thinner than the “vacuum” between here and the sun. The word “vacuum” is used rather loosely and quite a few important bits of theory in cosmology assume a genuine vacuum (no mass at any volume) rather like we use an “ideal gas” in other chemical and physical theory.
Please define the speed of sound in a vacuum.
It is like the sound of the ’57 Seafoam Green Stratocaster in Spinal Tap.
Newly Retired Engineer,
The volume around and between the earth and the sun isn’t a vacuum. The article is about gas and particles striking the atmosphere of the earth.
There can be particles in the interplanetary space that have thermal velocities, and there can be particles that have been electrically accelerated to higher speeds. Markov shock happens.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=f75C_GN9KZwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=markov+radiative+shock+hydrodynamics&ots=-RdZp11okY&sig=tXSGFxxLXBLv_9SDN4jFhsKYg1k#v=onepage&q=markov%20radiative%20shock%20hydrodynamics&f=false
…for radiation hydrodynamics, and sparse gases.
Wait, isn’t it always noon and midnight AT the north pole?
I interpreted it to mean in the polar region, the side directly toward the sun (noon) and directly away from the sun (midnight). Of course the propagation time between those two points is seconds at the speeds they were reporting.
“exactly at noon of the North Pole time.”
These times make no sense at all to Me. When is midnight up there during the long day?
When is noon during the long night?
Newly Retired Engineer- the speed of sound is 766 mph. In a vacuum.
Noon is not a “time”, it’s the direction of the sun relative to Earth’s surface. So at the north pole on June 21 the sun is about 23 degrees above the horizon. Face the sun and you have noon (at any “time” of day because the sun is at about 23 deg above the horizon “all day”) from that direction. Turn your back to the sun and you have the midnight direction. Everywhere else on the Earth’s surface noon is the direction toward the sun from the center of the lighted hemisphere, midnight the other way.
I’m accustomed to weather forecasts like, “cloudy today, sunny tonight”.
Thanks Will Nelson but how can that fit with this ? “Currents first appear near noon in the polar regions and remain steady for about half an hour. Then the second stage begins, when strong currents appear near midnight and eventually join the initial currents near noon.” That would end up being a full year less half an hour.
The penny may have dropped.
If noon is the direction of the sun and midnight is the direction away at any time. it looks like a bright ionisation starts in the warmer gas then spreads out invisibly until the cooler gas glows bright. Then it evens out all around the circle.
The speed of sound in a vacuum, is exactly mach 1.00
What happens when the Earths magnetism diminishes to zero prior to magnetic pole reversal?
Compasses stop working.
Well…. yes and no….
The mag field goes a bit chaotic with a hoard of N and S poles popping out all over the place, then the thing re-orders and they collect into one N and one S (at whatever physical pole…). So we don’t really go to “no” mag field and “no” poles, rather to multipolar and mixed strengths.
So your compass will point at N, just the nearest N, and that may be in almost any direction and change over the months / years 😉
The idea that we smoothly drop to near zero mag field and no N or S pole is broken. It is more like you see on the Sun, with knots and wads of mag field of both N and S popping out in various places, then sinking back.
DirkH, E.M.Smith,
I think you’re both right – E.N. technically, but Dirk practically.
If your compass – that you rely on to point to (magnetic) North – points
“at N, just the nearest N, and that may be in almost any direction and change over the months / years ;-)”
– it has little or no practical use, certainly without a detailed [updated daily, or hourly, perhaps] local map of the ‘nearest North’, and stronger, but a bit more distant, Norths may reign over weaker ones.
With the N Pole – like politicians’ goalposts – galloping all over the outfield, try steering a decent course in even a half-gale, with a cross current.
Try that even now . . . . .
There doesn’t appear to be any indication that the magnetic field surrounding the earth would ever disappear. There is certainly no evidence in the fossil or sedimentary record of mass extinction during the last pole reversals on the planet. As a matter of routine, the Earth’s magnetic field has both weakened and strengthened of the course of history and continues to do so today.
The planetary magnetic field isn’t that “neat.” It doesn’t really turn on and off as far we can tell, it just drops very low (I think I remember reading that the last reversal saw field strength drop to around 5 % of normal. You can find plots of field polarity, density and dip that will illustrate ho irregular the present field is quite nicely. What is likely to happen is that rather than “drop to zero,” the field would break up into several weaker local domains for a time before re-cohering into a full planetary field once more. Then instead a nice classic “force field” around the planet, you have a collander with minor “poles” all over the planet until things settle into a new mode. There’s no regular periodicity to reversals and contrary to the wilder speculations, there is no correlation between reversals and extinctions. The Cretaceous extinction happens within a reversal period but not at the beginning or end. It is also of interest that the “preferred” orientation is the one we have now. That is likely because planetary rotation moving large liquid masses in the core tends to spin them in one direction rather than another.
All those multiple poles disappear with increasing distance from the surface and the solar wind will see only the lowest order pole, i.e. the dipole [with much reduced strength].
If or when the earth experiences a situation of “multiple poles” and/or a N/S “pole reversals”, just what effect, if any, would the aforesaid have on the “geographic” direction of the migration of those animals that current theory has attributed to said animal’s biological “GPS” (global positioning system)?
I mean like, …. like the Honey Bees, …..will said migrating animals be victims of a kinda, sorta “colony collapse disorder” whereby they can’t find their way toward where they should be going?
Anthony, I hope your family issues this weekend were resolved favorably.
Finally, the world derives a non-military benefit from Iridium. While I was at Mot we blew 10 billion on it, thinking cellular would never become sufficiently popular. Only $4 billion was equity. Should have used more of other peoples money.
The saddest part is that these satellites can sense this stuff because they are in low earth orbit. Which also means they experience ephemeral atmospheric drag, slow down, and then reenter and burn up so have to be replaced every few years.
WUWT special insight. originally the system design required 77 satellites rather than 66. It would have been named (periodic table insider joke) Dysprosium. A much more apt name than Irridium.
Most Mot execs were Irridiots for thinking Irridium could ever be commercially viable.
Why tell this tale? Because there are many apt exact analogs to global warming and climate change. Vested interests, geopolitical momentum, money to be made on the side (think satellite and launch vehicle manufacturers rather than wind turbine manufacturers…)
I just read that Al Gore was the first person to make an Iridium call. Of course I’m sure that had nothing to do later events such as Chapter 11….
The same Al G who invented the Internet, tanks, telephones, the pendulum, fireworks, the Archimedean [Algorean??] screw (no obscenities about the great Algorithm and, um, 5cr3w1n6, please), wheels, windmills [now ‘Bird Blenders’], art [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29415716 – o/t but interesting to me at least!] and fire?
Ohhhh . . . yeah – /Sarc
Auto
Wow, Rud, did you take a class about PowerPC from me? I was in the SPS team that was the first non-executives/investors to hear the demo Iridium pitch outside of your building (at least we were told that was the case). We pretty much howled with laughter at their suggestion that hoards of managers would gladly pay $14/minute for access to the network, and didn’t stop laughing when they said they felt they could get it down to a more reasonable $7/minute as the economies of scale kicked in (turns out, reducing the price just took economies of bankruptcy- what, 4 times?) in spite of the fact that tests had shown it would work terribly in any concrete jungle (I guess all the execs would be spending most of their time in Antarctica… the world might be better off if that was true!). I was told that I was the first person they (the presenters, which included a few high level execs) ever heard the Dysprosium comment from, as they had made the decision to scale back to 66 satellites not long before our meeting. The engineering discussions in the class I taught later about the 603 and 604 were amazingly valuable for me later on, though, as I wasn’t very well acquainted with the challenges of space weather on CPU caches at that time. Seriously great engineering. Horrible management. Describes an awful lot about Mot (RIP), for the most part. Describes an awful lot of large companies, as well, though.
In this paper
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/01/07/13/75/PDF/LOD-bidecadal-variability.pdf
there are details of a lesser known link between solar magnetic forces and geo-dynamics
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Fig3.gif
Fig. 3 Solar magnetic field evolution:
a) positive orientated magnetic field (B>0, red), negative orientated magnetic field (B<0, blue),
helio-latitude (left hand scale),
b) geomagnetic LOD (red, right hand scale)
Attaching a sign to the Sunspot Number is invalid, and should in any case not go from minimum to minimum but follow the polar fields and go from maximum to maximum. You ‘analysis’ is no good.
That looks like polarity and latitude to me Leif.
lsvalgaard October 7, 2014 at 1:59 pm
and should in any case not go from minimum to minimum but follow the polar fields and go from maximum to maximum. You ‘analysis’ is no good.
It appears you didn’t bother to read the paper:
Quote from the paper:
“The Earth’s rotation acceleration is concurrent with decay of the even and continues during rise of the odd cycles. The rotation deceleration is concurrent with decay of the odd and continues during rise of the even cycles in other words change in the rate of the Earth’s rotation follows the magnetic (Hale) cycle.
thus it is from maximum of even cycle to maximum of odd cycle and ‘vice versa’.
Dr. S.
I assume you are referring to Fig.2.
Quote from the paper:
Even and odd cycles’ numbers are positive scalars, but here for the purpose of clarity are plotted on the y-axis in the opposite directions.
All sunspot numbers are shown as either positive scalars or zero, thus your assertion is inaccurate.
All data used are easily accessible and give an opportunity to anyone to reproduce my results with very little effort, expanding the knowledge horizons by doing so.
You state about the solar toroidal field: “Analysis shows that the LOD variability follows
change in the solar magnetic field orientation”. The toroidal field [sunspots] are mostly closed and do not get out into the solar wind and to the Earth. What we see at Earth is the poloidal field which does not follow the Hale cycle. Don’t presume that I’m wrong on the fundamentals. I have pointed this out to you many times before, but you are resistant to learning.
That is an incorrect extrapolation of what is said there. The toroidal field is mentioned in context of the sunspot generation, and nowhere I said or implied that itself drives changes in rate of rotation. ‘Discussion’ section makes that more than clear, to anyone bothered to read.
Try as hard as you may to negate the existence of the concurrent changes in the rate of the Earth’s rotation with the solar magnetic cycle, it is a fact, and it is here to stay.
Sir, I wish you a good day.
The experiment was done at the beginning of solar cycle 24 in 2010 when solar-wind was lower, wouldn’t the pick up in solar activity skew the results of the R1 and R2 currents?
Possible Notch Filter mechanism anyone?
So why can they accept that there are Birkeland currents flying around near the earth, but they can’t accept that the same currents fly around the whole universe, driving the formation of every structure.
Because the Birkeland currents are generated locally by the interaction between the neutral [but conducting] solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field. “The same currents” do not “fly around the whole universe”. There are many examples of Birkeland currents wherever a neutral conductor [as the solar wind] meets a magnetic field, e.g. at Jupiter and Saturn and in localized [and disjointed] pockets all over the universe.
I found these interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_4u1mGcRCg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Do you see the solar system working like this??
Are space quakes responsible for auroras ? http://www.xearththeory.com/spacequakes-plasma-bombs/
Amazing stuff.
I have often wondered how much the induced currents through the earth effect the climate.
Every current induces a magnetic field and every field will induce a current through a conducting medium.
Standard notation is heat equals square of the current multiplied by the resistance, at these amperages that is major heat by our industrial standards.
So are these extraterrestrial effects keeping the planets core hot?
No, the currents are much too weak, and anyway don’t penetrate into the core
And yet there are currents in the earth’s core.
Those currents are generated locally within the core, but the same process: moving a conductor in a magnetic field.
John , you may get what you need from here. http://www.everythingselectric.com/forum/index.php?topic=245.0
The IPCC has ruled them out as having any effect in warming the atmosphere. (it didn’t fit the mantra) The core? Perhaps there are other explanations. But it could help elevate the temps at the core but whether it is significant or not is another question. Way to many unknowns. Quartz under pressure produces electricity. Just saying. There is a lot of quartz out there
The nice graphic’s description states “24 February 2014” however the graphic itself is labels as 24 February 2010.
……. silence…… so…. where’s the correction? Or, in the alternative, the explanation…….. on the bottom of Page 51??
Nice spot, Mr. Lento.
It takes an engineer….
… and THAT’s why we made to the Moon (and back)!
#(:))
Can we put a big induction coil up there and tap all that electricity?
Leif,
Vuk appears to be trying to demonstrate a correlation between
(i) sunspot cycle polarity, and
(ii) multi-decadal variations in length of day (LOD)
Confusingly, however, Vuk refers to the variations in Earth’s rotation speed as “geomagnetic LOD.” Perhaps that is why you replied, confusingly:
“The toroidal field [sunspots] are mostly closed and do not get out into the solar wind and to the Earth. What we see at Earth is the poloidal field which does not follow the Hale cycle.”
But what we do measure on Earth are changes in rotation speed. That’s the part I’m interested in, because those changes in length of day appear to be the best tool we have for predicting circulation patterns (meridional or zonal) and temperature trends (warming or cooling) in advance:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e03.htm
Poloidal or toroidal field is irrelevant: does the relationship in Vuk’s figure 3 hold, or not?
Vuk’s ‘mechanism’ and rationale for what he is doing is based on the toroidal field, which is not what we observe at Earth, so it is very likely that any apparent relationship is purely spurious. And you have the physics backwards: the LOD is a function of the circulation, not the other way around.
No he does not ! The toroidal field is mentioned in context of the sunspot generation, and nowhere I said or implied that itself drives changes in rate of rotation.
Changes in LOD are the result of celestial mechanics (aside from earth and the moon, principally the interplay of Jupiter, Venus and the Sun), which correlates well with the timing of major shifts in the PDO on sub-decadal timescales. It is also likely the ultimate driver of El Nino events, which appear to result from periods of rapid more minor fluctuation that perhaps cause transient circulation stalling.
To see that requires crudely removing the lunar and terrestrial cycle from the LOD time series by simple differentiation and reintegration rather than smoothing in order to preserve the fidelity of the remaining signal. I will correct the rather too jokey spreadsheet I recently sent you in haste and try to make it clearer.
Excuse me? LOD is a function of the circulation of what?
Leif is spot on. Think of the action of an ice skater as they slow or speed up their spin. What happens when the arms spread out? What happens when the arms tighten up?
There are two sets of data, one derived from astronomical data LOD astro and geomagnetic data LODgm.
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2014 at 6:50 pm
“Vuk’s ‘mechanism’ and rationale for what he is doing is based on the toroidal field, which is not what we observe at Earth, so it is very likely that any apparent relationship is purely spurious. And you have the physics backwards: the LOD is a function of the circulation, not the other way around.”
You must mean we do not “observe happening at Earth” or “experience here at Earth” as we can “observe” much at Earth which is not happening here and we do not experience it here. The language useage lost me there for a minute but I believe I now get your point.
I mean that we send up spacecraft that close to the Earth measure the magnetic field in the solar wind. That magnetic field is NOT the ‘toroidal’ field that exists on the Sun, but is dominated by the poloidal field [with an admixture of field from CMEs]. The magnetic field from sunspots is mostly closed [i.e returns to the surface and does not get out in the solar wind],
Leif:
Vuk appears to have demonstrated a graphical link between the Hale Cycle and the rotation of the Earth, which looks plausible enough on initial inspection. This link may coincidental rather than causal, but how are we to know? Thus your immediate dismissal of any causal correlation does not strike me as being in the spirit of the scientific method. One would have thought a more reasoned scientific response might start with:
“Yes, thank you. On the surface there does indeed appear to be a causal correlation between Hale Cycles and the rotation of the Earth, however on closer inspection we find that the rotation of the Earth is actually influenced by …………… (further explanation) ………. etc: etc: etc:
Surely, science is about exploring the possibilities, rather than dismissing them.
And in the spirit of exploration, perhaps you could you give us a brief overview of the variations in Dark Matter density within the plane of the Solar System, during the full Hale cycle – and the effect that this Dark Matter density fluctuation has on the rotation (‘LOD’) of the Earth.
Many thanks
Ralph
Nice explanation. I wish all of your responses were as helpful and informative as this last one.
[Oops, sorry Ralph, misplaced the Reply. Intended for Leif. Below]
Vuk has proposed only one mechanism (discussion section) and it as::
At the current state of knowledge, the most realistic alternative is the indirect solar effect,
a possible mechanism could be postulated as:
Solar activity – ocean & atmospheric temperatures – oceanic and atmospheric circulation – angular momentum exchange – Earth’s rate of rotation (LOD).
Crux of the matter to be denied as vigorously as possible is:
Solar activity affects the climate parameters!
For such a chain to be plausible, the correlation should depend on the first link as that is what drives the rest, and solar activity has an 11-yr period, not a 22-yr period.
Leif,
Vuk may be guilty of misnaming some of the entities involved here. But it seems to me that he is trying to match the solar magnetic field effects of the 22 year Hale reversal patterns to geomagnetic phenomena.
You said: “What we see at Earth is the poloidal field which does not follow the Hale cycle.”
But your colleague Ed Cliver has written this paper entitled “The 22-year cycle of geomagnetic and solar wind activity”.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/96JA02037/abstract
I think this may be related to what Vuk is describing.
The Cliver paper is almost 20 years old, and we have learned much in the meantime. There is a 22-year cycle in geomagnetic activity, but it is very weak and not related to the Hale cycle at all. Vuk’s ‘paper’ is muddled in the extreme and trying to do wiggle matching with detrended and filtered and otherwise manipulated data without a shred of plausible cause does not qualify as science. His idea of ‘geodynamics’ related to solar activity is just nonsense. Creating a 22-year cycle by inverting every other solar cycle is a classical sleight of hand with no physical basis, etc. His over-confidence in his own ability is a typical example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
All of this we have discussed many times before, but Vuk never misses a change to hijack a thread with his OT unfounded speculations.
Not exactly doc. Solar activity ara magnetic quasi oscillatory events with the 22 year period, with polarity changing every 11 years. Fact that people count spots without noting what they represent may or may not be of importance. Each solar hemisphere has its distinct 22 year sunspot magnetic cycle. Global land and ocean temperature periodograms have strong presence of 22 year cycle.
I am pleased to see that you finally came to the crux of the mater.
My next article will demonstrate causal or coincidental link between the AMO, the major natural variability index and the 22 year solar magnetic cycle.
Each solar hemisphere has its distinct 22 year sunspot magnetic cycle
Which when added together [which is what affects the Earth] disappears and leaves only the 11-yr cycle.
It is good to see that you have given up on the ‘geodynamic’ idea and will try to show directly the purported influence of solar activity, i.e. the first link in your chain. That is where the problem is.
You use of phrases like ‘not exactly…’ is another instance of the D-K effect.
Leif said:
“Attaching a sign to the Sunspot Number is invalid…You[r] ‘analysis’ is no good.”
A bit harsh, IMO, especially in light of research of others who have also interpreted sunspot counts as a kind of bipolar signal…
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/ASR_22.pdf
… and so Usokin et al. have found plausible (if not convincing) evidence for a ‘relic’ 22-year cycle, distinct from the Hale signal.
However, I am guessing that proving this relic signal has any geophysical impact is another matter and likely a very difficult task.
(That won’t stop Vuk)
The relic solar field crops up now and then, but there is no good evidence for it, and in any case it is not good science to assign a sign to the sunspot number as that introduces a spurious 22-year cycle. Make a long list of random numbers between 0 and 1 [say one per year], assign a positive sign to the first 11 numbers, then multiply the next 11 random numbers by -1, the next 11 by +1, the next 11 by -1, and so on, and you will find a strong 22-yr cycle. This Figure illustrates the trick:
http://www.leif.org/research/Spurious-Vuk6.png
The center plot shows [top] random data [blue dots] and the same data with every other subset of 11 points sign-reversed [and connected with red curve]. The two flanking Figures show the FFT spectra for the original random data [left, blue] and the sign-reversed series [right, red]. Note the strong 22-yr peak.
Nice explanation. I wish all of your responses were as helpful and informative as this last one.
Open flux on each side of the HCS does, one side is of same polarity as the Earths field the other opposite, they swap polarity every 22 years. This is case at the earths orbit and throughout the heliosphere. Your attempts to blind with science and divert attention from solar-climate relatioship may work for some but eventuly is doomed to failure. If I was so wrong on each point you attempted to discredit, you would just ignore it. Ad hominem (D&K) it is an attempt to humiliate opponent, it may work elsewhere but not here.
How far did you get with the flattening sunspot record, THE project to eliminate solar influence on climate?
Open flux on each side of the HCS does, one side is of same polarity as the Earths field the other opposite, they swap polarity every 22 years.
Apart from it being every 11 years, the polarity does not change when the Hale cycle does [at minimum], but rather at maximum when the polar fields reverse [not the toroidal fields you refer to].
If I was so wrong on each point you attempted to discredit, you would just ignore it.
Pseudo-science has to be opposed whenever it rears its ugly head.
Ad hominem (D&K) it is an attempt to humiliate opponent, it may work elsewhere but not here.
And its practitioners should be exposed. In my professional opinion, your hijacking missives degrade and weaken WUWT.
How far did you get with the flattening sunspot record, THE project to eliminate solar influence on climate?
It is in good hands. A major review paper was just published: http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf see in particular Figures 28 and 63; “by the mid 18th century, solar activity had already returned to levels equivalent to those observed in recent solar cycles in the 20th century”, but the solar influence on climate is not eliminated: there should be a [hard to observe over the noise] solar cycle effect of the order of 0.1 degrees.
Sorry to be a pedant but I think ‘borne’ (as in pp of bear) should be ‘born’ (as in to give birth to).
MikeA
The Laschamp Event and Earth’s Wandering Magnetic Field
Retired NASA astronaut Phil Chapman writes:
Australians should go out and look at the moon right now!
Off topic, but I believe is related, is this little gem from the UK Wet Office:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29525154, announced on the BBC News last night.
Is this a sign of changes of attitude within? Is NASA et al showing similar signs of change in the Virginian Colonies? (We should never have let you go 😉 ). They have always denied any significant effects of Solar activity upon climate, but now they seem to want to specialise in the Sun & its activity. I shall keep a watchful eye on the Wet office over the coming weeks & months! I always though that if change did take place, it would be very slow & backside covering in its manifestation.
Ben Santer has given the cue: it is “external” effects which are suppressing the “true” signal of AGW. He listed the sun, volcanic activity, and ? as “external” effects. By Santer’s view, these external effects are not RealClimate and so have no bearing on the issue. And so the pea tumbles along under the moving shell. BBC is toeing the new line and you will find them there with Santer and his cohorts in the last ditch.
Be careful invoking the name which should not be mentioned. Dr. [he-who-must-not-be-named] might come looking for you in a dork alley or at a convention.
I detect a AGW exit strategy forming.
I believe it more likely a last ditch strategy. We are dealing with die-hards.
Santer’s claim of “at least” 17 years to detect the true signal (AGW) puts them in a position to maintain their stance indefinitely. As Richard Courtney observed, it is a political statement, that is, a manifesto. It is not science (unlessit is more junk sscience)
Here in SE MN we have near perfect viewing conditions for the lunar eclipse. A beautiful Blood Moon. If you are under overcast skies it’s available here
http://www.accuweather.com/en/features/trend/lunar_eclipse_blood_moon_viewing_conditions/35085103
Here in mid-Michigan, the moon is still just above the horizon, but setting in the western sky.
Got several shots of the partial phase of the eclipse but fear they are more artistic in nature than astronomically revealing due to too much aperture at the camera. But good practice for the coming solar eclipse.
Congratulations, it was cloudy in South Florida.
Upcoming:
New Moon; October 23 ’14 at 21:57 UT (17:57 EDT).
A Partial Solar Eclipse will occur before sunset at 18:46 EDT, October 23 ’14. The ecipse starts from 22:28 UT (17:28 EDT), the eclipse maximum will be at 22:44 UT (17:44 EDT) sunset will be at 18:46 EDT.
See Partial Solar Eclipse of October 23, 2014 at NASA – GSFC, Fred Espenak.
From South Florida this will be a very slight partial eclipse; magnitude: 0.123 (fraction of the Sun’s diameter occulted by the Moon).
Warning:
Never observe the Sun directly, or with optical instruments, without using the essential special filters, because it would result in permanent damage to your sight.
Do not use a solar filter mounted in the eyepiece of a telescope; This type of filter is dangerous! (it might break with the heat of the Sun)
Use only the solar filters of a larger diameter, to mount in the objective.
To observe the Sun directly, without the help of optical instruments, use an arc-welding filter, #12 to #14. The #12, lighter, is used to watch it after sunrise or before sunset, the #14 for closer to midday, the #13 in intermediate situations.
Thanks to all for giving your attention to the article I wrote. This is posted from 40,000 feet so I will be off line for some time. Vuk.