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
I just have to ask. What is the speed of sound in a near vaccum? Can I walk faster?
Observation and measurement beats all, electrical phenomena pervade the universe as the ESA Rosetta team are currently finding out. Not one comet has turned out to be a soft dirty snowball; 67P is just another bone dry misshapen rock with a surface etched in a way that suggests electrical arc machining. The Oort cloud is looking like a theory whose time is up.
Nobody claims that comets are ‘soft’. In fact, in outer space, water ice is a solid rock. The mean density of comets is about 0.5 gram/cc [half of that of ice], and the surface is shaped by impacts leaving craters and boulders. No electric machining, as there are no electric currents zipping through space, zapping everything in sight.
Does this have any implications for Svensmark’s theory of how the solar wind affects cosmic rays, thereby altering the earth’s climate?
Leif: And you have the physics backwards: the LOD is a function of the circulation, not the other way around.
======
Do you remember when you tried to explain that a figure skater can conserve angular momentum by increase her rotational speed 7 years before retracting her arms?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/25/solar-terrestrial-power-update/#comment-845232
“My bad”, you said.
Well, here you are doing it backwards again. Changes in LOD precede changes in the ACI (circulation index) and dT.
========================
When detrended, the graphs of -LOD and dT are very similar in shape, and it is clear that -LOD runs several years ahead of dT, especially in its maxima.
[…]
Based on this multidecadal periodicity of LOD, and the fact that LOD runs ahead of dT by 6 years
[…]
It is conceivable that the multi-decadal fluctuations of the earth’s rotation velocity results from the redistribution of the angular moment between the atmosphere and solid earth due to the alternation of multi-decadal epochs of “zonal” and meridional atmospheric circulation.
It was shown (Lamb 1972; Lambeck and Cazenave 1976), however, that the observable changes in speed and direction of the air mass transfer may explain seasonal and annual, but not multi-decadal LOD variations. Only 10% of the long-term LOD variation can be explained by the observable changes in atmospheric circulation.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e03.htm
========================
Vuk uses detrended LOD, so the long-term variation has been removed, so who cares in this context what causes it.
“Vuk uses detrended LOD”
The FAO don’t seem to recognize that as a problem: “When detrended, the graphs of -LOD and dT are very similar in shape” – FAO (op.cit.)
“so who cares in this context what causes it”
Not me at this point. I just want to know if the relationship holds.
= = = =
Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis’s practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist’s research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
= = = =
Vuk claims:
October 7, 2014 at 11:41 pm
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).
You cite a claim that “Only 10% of the long-term LOD variation can be explained by the observable changes in atmospheric circulation”.
What more is there to say?
Are you suggesting that Vuk should be committed as was Semmelweis?
>>Are you suggesting that Vuk should be committed
>>as was Semmelweis?
A comment beneath contempt, Leif. Are you also suggesting that Vuk should be beaten to death, as was Semmelweis, simply for trying to correlate terrestrial and solar events?
.
And you still have not given us an overview of how solar Dark Matter interacts with the Earth, and possibly modulates its LOD. And before you pour yet more derision upon this thread, from on high, I was trying to get you to utter the three magic words of true science – the three words that underpin all of scientific endeavor and separate gnosis (science) from faith. Those three magic words are: “I don’t know”.
Take a look at the following articles about Dark Matter. I think we can safely conclude that: “we don’t know”.
Plenty of Dark Matter near Solar System 09-08-2012
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/article00518.html
Survey finds no hint of dark matter near Solar System 19-04-2012
http://www.nature.com/news/survey-finds-no-hint-of-dark-matter-near-solar-system-1.10494
I think science in general needs to get its own house in order, before pouring derision upon Vuk.
Ralph
.
P.S.
Dear Vuk,
Does terrestrial LOD really have a 22-year cycle, as you claimed? A paper in Nature claimed it was a 5.9-year cycle, which does not correlate well with 22 years.
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-pair-year-oscillations-length-day.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7457/full/nature12282.html
What is the evidence for your 22-year LOD cycle? Web searches did not return anything significant.
Ralph
.
If you claim that Dark Matter modulates LOD, it is up to you to explain how and why. I make no such claim. Vul earns derision regardless of whether ‘science has its house in order’.
>>If you claim that Dark Matter modulates LOD, it is
>>up to you to explain how and why.
So perhaps could you explain exactly how Dark Matter interacts with Baryonic Matter, within the Solar System. Or are there some aspects of Solar astronomy, that we (and you) do not understand? Is such a thing possible?
And regards LOD, do you regard the apparent similar cyclical pattern between LOD and Sunspots as coincidental or spurious? Or do you disagree that there is an approximate 22-year LOD cycle at all? To be honest, I have not found a great deal of evidence in favour of it. ….. Vuk – any evidence or comments?
In short, I’m looking for reasoned explanation, not barely disguised derision.
Ralph
Dark Matter interacts though gravity, but that probably does not have anything to do with the LOD or anything else. Newton’s laws work very well in the solar system without any DM so I see no reason to worry about DM [your worry is thus just a straw man].
About the 22-yr period in sunspots: it is spurious as I showed above, caused by assigning a sign to the sunspot number, so whether or not there is a 22-yr period in LOD [I don’t think one has been established] is irrelevant to the question whether a non-existing strong 22-yr cycle in solar activity is the cause. Vuk earns derision by having a grossly inflated view of his ability and knowledge and by his hijacking and carpet bombing of solar threads with his unfounded off-topic speculations and for his inability to learn.
>>DM so I see no reason to worry about DM
>>[your worry is thus just a straw man].
A deliberate straw man, because I wanted to hear the words: “we don’t know”. But the encouragement was all in vain. Hey-ho.
Ralph
ralfellis October 9, 2014 at 9:51 am
A deliberate straw man, because I wanted to hear the words: “we don’t know”
As I said, Newton’s laws work very well in the Solar System without assuming any DM present, so DM cannot have any measurable influence, so we do know that. This is not a question of ‘we don’t know’. We do, regardless of what you want to hear.
Your criticism of Vuk’s hypothetical mechanism is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the relationship holds.
Semmelweis didn’t have a mechanism, but he was right nevertheless: the relationship between a hand washing procedure and reduced mortality held. That was my very obvious point. Semmelweis was right, and he didn’t deserve any of the ridicule that was poured on him by the “experts.” His life-saving procedure wasn’t adopted until many years later when Lister found the way to fame & glory through mechanism (something Darwin didn’t need).
Btw, that mechanism-free pattern-matching FAO model correctly predicted that the “global warming” period would end in the first few years of the century.
First of all, Vuk claims he has a mechanism; second, in what sense can a spurious relationship be said to be holding? A tribe in darkest Africa has noted that beating of drums during a solar eclipse restores the Sun.
A tribe of scientists claims that Dark Matter is spinning up the galaxies, they have a mechanism, gravity, but no one can find any Dark Matter. But their numbers support the theory.
but no one can find any Dark Matter
Oh, yes. We find it a-plenty in the Universe. We can map its distribution, determine its mass, and directly see its effect by gravitational lensing and by the size of the spatial properties of the cosmic microwave background.
Dark matter seems to have been invented, to explain effects that should have been explainable with gravity alone (and ergo, mass). So, supposably, dark matter exhibits “mass”, or at least the gravitational effects of mass. Apparently it exhibits NO OTHER physical properties.
So in my book, the observation of gravitational anomalies of any kind (weird rotation rates etc), is not proof of dark matter, since it was invented precisely to explain such gravitational anomalies.
Seems to me, that physically real entities, have to have at least two different physical properties to “exist”. You need to discover the second physical property of dark matter, in order to be able to prove it exists.
So far, I don’t believe in dark matter; nor do I, even come close to believing in “dark energy”.
So I’m in the “I dunno” camp. I’m thinking gravity maybe not as Einsteinian as everyone thinks it is. But then, what the hell do I know. I already said I don’t know.
They’ll figure it out one of these days. I’m not much into strings or multiverses either.
To me uni means one, and there is only one universe. We can’t ever see anything else but that one, so it is all there is.
lsvalgaard says: October 9, 2014 at 3:23 pm
“Oh, yes. We find it a-plenty in the Universe. We can map its distribution, determine its mass, and directly see its effect by gravitational lensing and by the size of the spatial properties of the cosmic microwave background.”
You need to understand the difference between effects and the actual substance. Those effects that you mention are attributed to a substance which is postulated but has yet to be found.
No, I don’t. We were sure of the existence of the Moon from the effects the Moon has [seeing it by reflected sunlight, tides] long before anybody held the actual substance [Moon rock] in his hand.
In particle physics, time and again predictions regarding unimaginable effects have been proven to be true. Not so much in astronomy. As a matter of fact, almost every time we actually visit another astronomical body, we find out our theories were wrong and need correction. Same for when new more sensitive equipment is put on line. Recent discovery, galaxies favor a planer distribution, not a spherical one, as has been thought all along. Another : “Resonantly Produced 7 keV Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter Models and the Properties of Milky Way Satellites”
Kevork N. Abazajian
Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 161303 (2014)
Published April 24, 2014. And it goes on and on.
My point, as always, is not that DM does not exist, but that it should always be prefaced as a “theory” not given as a fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation”
That a theory needs correction, does not mean it was wrong. Visiting the Moon did not invalidate Newton’s theory of gravity.
Citation for the preferential alignment of galaxies is from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey article in the Nov. issue of Astronomy Magazine from the July 31, issue of “Nature”.
You are confusing theory and observation. Observations are constantly improving and changing what the observed object looks like. ‘Theory’ is how the observations fit into the body of knowledge we have compiled so far. The shape of galaxies has no bearing on whether DM exists.
lsvalgaard says: October 9, 2014 at 3:59 pm
As I said, my point, as always, is not that DM does not exist, but that it should always be prefaced as a “theory” not given as a fact. Too much is stated as fact today in all facets of science when it is actually a theory.
The theory is a shorthand for the facts we have discovered and helps us organize and express our knowledge succinctly.
Jim G commented: “Too much is stated as fact today in all facets of science when it is actually a theory.”
Media is predisposed to push AGW agenda in this manner. I try not to be a ‘conspiracy theorist’ but it’s obvious AGW is about politics and not temperature.
lsvalgaard says: October 9, 2014 at 4:09 pm
“The theory is a shorthand for the facts we have discovered and helps us organize and express our knowledge succinctly.”
As long as it does not exagerate the certainty of the situation being discussed. “So far the best theory on the …………….is that………….”, would work well and should be the preferred approach with students and others of lesser knowledge, in particular, who many times are easily influenced by strong statements of fact when it is actually theory which is being discussed.
Science is always about theory. Theory is the important bit. We can teach Newton’s theory on gravitation in an hour, which summarizes billions and billions of facts [observations of the effect of gravity]. Facts are not important and are generally not individually taught, theory is [as it should be].
Every statement is science is implicitly prefixed by “so far the best…” which is redundant and cumbersome.
Even Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is still referred to as a theory as should the Theory of Dark Matter be addressed.
“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation”
A theory is a shorthand for a large number of facts, so the theory of dark matter is a shorthand for all the facts we have discovered about dark matter.
You are trying to cast doubt on the General Theory of Relativity by saying it is just a theory, the same way you are trying to cast doubt on dark matter. Both theories have been amply confirmed. So saying they are scientific theories acknowledges that they express a large body of facts.
“You are trying to cast doubt on the General Theory of Relativity by saying it is just a theory, the same way you are trying to cast doubt on dark matter.”
That is your theory of my motives. You can never really know another’s motives. There should always be some element of doubt about any scientific theory, that is why it is called a theory, not a fact.
You miss the point, namely that the theory is a summary of the facts. The observations that make us accept Dark Matter are facts. It is a fact that the rotation curve of Galaxies are flat. It is a fact that the mass of DM bends light from more distant light sources, allowing us to map the location of DM. It is a fact that the size of the ‘second bump’ of the spatial spectrum of the cosmic microwave radiation tells us the ratio of DM to Normal Matter. It is a fact that galaxy clusters exists because they contain much more mass than we can see, etc. All these facts show us the existence of something which we call Dark Matter. That name is simply a shorthand for the observed facts.
Those are all , indeed, “facts” (I would prefer the term observations) that are attributed to the theory that dark matter is their cause, unless and until a better or improved theory comes along..
Jim G October 10, 2014 at 8:25 am
Those are all , indeed, “facts” (I would prefer the term observations) that are attributed to the theory that dark matter is their cause, unless and until a better or improved theory comes along..
You have this backwards. We do not have a ‘theory’ of Dark Matter and we are not trying to attribute the facts to such a theory. We have a large number of observational facts which we collectively describe with the shorthand ‘Dark Matter’. An apt name as DM has mass [is thus matter] and is unseen [being dark].
I’m in agreement, with the notion that a “theory” is a convenient way to represent the results of a bunch of experiments that have actually been performed, instead of writing each of those experimental results down in some “compendium of all knowledge”.
And we presume, that our theory, will tell us with some degree of uncertainty, just what will be the outcome of some experiment, that we have never performed. If that turns out to our inquisitive minds to be “odd”, in some way, well we just might go out and do that experiment, just to see.
And that might cause us to tweak the knobs on our theory, if the result doesn’t quite match. So I think the theory of dark matter, to explain gravitational mass like anomalies, is fine. I’m just going to wait till they find its second property, or else figure out what is wrong with Newton/Einstein gravitation. Then I’ll drink a toast, to whomever figures it out.
Won’t be me Leif; but it could be you.
Well if dark matter exists, and is dark (we can’t see it) as Dr.S says; and if it is not “weird matter”, then one would query, why it does not agree with Max Planck, and exhibit Black body, or “thermal” EM radiation, by which we could see it.
Our current theory would seem to say, it must be at zero K or pretty darn close, or it would emit electro-magnetic radiation, and absorb it. So it would then have to be pretty weird matter in anybody’s book, to comprise most of the mass in the universe, and apparently not interact with both of the known infinite range forces, instead of only one of them; gravity, which still sucks. That’s why I’m happy to say, I don’t know.
“You have this backwards. We do not have a ‘theory’ of Dark Matter and we are not trying to attribute the facts to such a theory. We have a large number of observational facts which we collectively describe with the shorthand ‘Dark Matter’. An apt name as DM has mass [is thus matter] and is unseen [being dark].”
You can believe as you desire, I will continue to think “backwards” that it is theoretical whether DM is the cause of these observations. And remember that even the “observations” may change with the advance of technology, as they seem to do quite regularly.
Thanks to both of you scientists. That was enriching.
Leif Svalgaard October 9, 2014 at 5:27 am
About the 22-yr period in sunspots: it is spurious as I showed above, caused by assigning a sign to the sunspot number, so whether or not there is a 22-yr period in LOD [I don’t think one has been established] is irrelevant to the question whether a non-existing strong 22-yr cycle in solar activity is the cause.
_____________________________
Sorry, I don’t buy that Leif. Are you really saying that there is no average 11-year cycle in Sunspot activity? I think you will find that there is. And I think you will find that if we multiply 11 by 2, we get – errr – 22.
And are you saying that something else in the Solar System cannot react with a resonant harmonic of this 11-year cycle Sunspot? Something like a double-cycle of 22 years? I think you will find that there are many harmonics in nature.
Take Ganymede, Europa and Io, for instance, which are locked into a 1:2:4 orbital resonance. So cannot the Sun have a 2:1 resonance with the Earth’s LOD or geomagnetic LOD? Again, I find your easy dismissal of such possibilities disturbing.
Ralph
I’m saying that there is no evidence for such possibilities.
>>I’m saying that there is no evidence for such possibilities.
Turning a blind eye will always result in zero evidence.
Ralph
It’s interesting that the experiment took place around solar minimum. I couldn’t find an explanation for this in the paper.
The Birkeland Currents occur at all phases of the solar cycle, every day, in fact.
There will also be a weaker solar influence on the Birkeland Currents during solar minimum.
Hi all
In my yesterdays comment (at 9.44 am) there was an error, it should be :
they swap polarity every 11 (not 22) years.
Khwarizimi, RalfEllis,Johanus and possibly others appear to have made a fair effort to find out what is all this about and I am thankful for it.
K, R & J and anyone else interested, I have not set out to find out correlation between the LOD and the SSN, just stumbled upon it about a year or so ago, while looking into LOD vs NAO (atmospheric NH pressure index). I looked at various papers on LOD and could not find reference to the SSN correlation, hence it could be that it is something new.
I would suggest if anyone so incline d to repeat the calculation.
In discussion section I considered number of mechanism alternatives, suggesting one with a realistic prospect. What is happening, why, what is cause, what is consequence, what the effect might be on global temperatures, etc ? , the honest answer has to be ‘I do not now’, but at least it was worth looking into it and putting my finding on the record .
I am not surprised that Dr. Svalgaard tries to discredit it, it is his right to do so, but I whish he has done that by questioning accuracy of the calculations. From the start Dr. S has implied that somehow Sunspot calculations are misused.
Plainly that is totally false, only calculations are performed on the two sets of the LOD data (easily reproduced, a basic requirement of any proper scientific procedure).
No calculations are performed on any sunspot data, they are just used for a visual comparison, no negative SSN are used or presented in the paper.
The sunspot butterfly diagram is only correct way of presenting evolution of the solar magnetic field, to which the LOD changes correlate. It shows clear and unmistakable (overall and in each hemisphere) 22 year magnetic cycle. In addition we have solar polar fields (generated by bits and pieces of the decayed sunspots) with the 22 year cycle. In 1930’s Hale has once for ever defined the sunspot magnetic cycle (polar fields were not observed until 1960s),
Now Dr. S would have us believe that the 22 year magnetic sunspot cycle doesn’t exist, well he admits it exists in each hemisphere but they cancel each other out.
Let’s take a look at it. In order for cancellation to take place each hemisphere should have exact number of spots and of the same strength and that they neutralise, which sometimes do, but more often don’t. But let’s assume that is always the case, the same number and same strength and total neutralisation, two 22 year Sine waves of exact amplitude and opposite phase, cancel out to zero not to 11 year cycle as Dr. S. would have it. Mismatched amplitude or counter-phase produces 22 year and NOT 11 year Sine wave.
The 22 year sunspot cycle is essential property of the solar magnetic evolution, it generates 22 year polar field cycle, and according to solar scientists, this 22 year polar field (meridional circulation) and dynamo magnetic amplification can not and do not morph it an 11 year dimensional cycle.
To prove his point Dr. S comes with a random numbers to support non-existence of the 22 year sunspot magnetic cycle, surely a pinnacle of A to Z of (Aristotle to Zurich patent clerk) of logic and science
So if sun doesn’t have an effect on the terrestrial climate, it is the CO2 of course.
Did you know that there is as much as one, yes one CO2 molecule for every 2500 measly other atmospheric molecules, it is not just any molecule, it is the mighty Mo (atmospheric punching Tyson), sunspots are flat as pancake, same now as 100 years ago, and that same as 100 years before than.
But CO2’s Mighty Mo, it is always rising and exponentially to the boot, just like GT, it must be on double steroids, that is why CO2 is always written in ‘capitals’ and sun in ‘lower case’. Good enough proof ?.
But I digress, proof Vuk is crazy, has D&K; have you heard of ebola, I tell ya’ Vuk’s D&K is far more dangerous, that man should be locked-up…
Good day to all.
I just noticed one or two more comments since yesterday, typing on a tiny tablet keyboard and trying to post on an erratic connection is a pain, so to Dr. S’s delight I will be off for some time.
Good ridenens I here him say.
Thanks Vuk.
But don’t take it personally – its all part of the cut and thrust of science. Instead, perhaps you could explain more about the reversal of the polar field cycle — an 11-year reversal forming a 22-year cycle.
As a layman, I see this cycle as a raging bar magnet (the Sun), that flips over every 11 years. I hope that is a realistic (sort of) interpretation. See this simplistic NASA explanation:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast15feb_1
However, in contrast to the Sun the Earth has a constant magnetic field, with north in the north and south in the south (well, constant over many millennia). If the Earth’s neighbor flips its (much larger) magnetic field every 11 years, then surely the asymmetry between the Earth’s constant north pole and the Sun’s flipping-north pole forms a 22-year cycle, not an 11-year cycle. The Earth’s magnetic north pole, for instance, should experience a different influence when the Sun’s north pole is in the north, compared with when the Sun’s north pole is in the south. And that influence will change over 22 years, not 11.
It has been proven that there is indeed a magnetic coupling between Sun and Earth, through Flux Transfer Events. But surely this magnetic coupling should change in some manner, when the Sun’s polarity reverses. And so the full range of these Sun-Earth coupling influences, would be over 22 years, and not 11 years. Have observations of FTEs seen any such changes or modulation?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes
Ralph
Dear Mr. Ellis,
I, too, am a layperson, in this field… yet, for SOME reason, “As a layman, I see…” from the above that Dr. Svalgaard makes a lot of sense, using logic and solid scientific principles, while Mr. Vukcevic (Ms.?) comes off as FULL OF GAS…. like the Sun (there, Vukcevic, that should mollify you — you and the Sun are probably related, by Jove!).
And I love Vukcevic because HE MAKES ME SMILE– “doc,” indeed, lol :).
Vukcevic, stolidly determined last man standing for the Loyal Opposition — three cheers for Vuk!
Please, do not stop posting!
Janice
#(:))
Actually… I think Leif Svalgaard is more likely related to the Sun…. for he is apollyon of false science. Go, Dr. S{un}!
#(:))
No, dear Mr. Ellis, the Birkeland effect did not affect me… I’m this way 24/7/364.25, lololol.
Here, dear Janice, is a song from me to you, now put away that box of Kleenex and smile!
(Anne Murray with a Birkeland Effect hair do, woo-hooo!)
Okay!
I’m done.