Guest essay by Robert Johnson
How plasma connects the Sun to the climate
The Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) are a plasma phenomenon caused by charged particles from the solar wind entering the Earth’s upper atmosphere. Magnetic storms in the ionosphere, which have occasionally damaged satellites in orbit, are also evidence that the Earth’s upper atmosphere is electromagnetically connected to the Sun via the plasma in interplanetary space.
It’s recently been recognised that the atmosphere below the ionosphere is also a weak plasma due to the ionisation caused primarily by cosmic rays. So it’s plasma all the way down! The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun; even the air we breathe is all part of the same system.
This talk at the recent SIS meeting introduces plasma to the general reader and investigates how it enables variations in the Sun’s output to directly influence the weather systems here on Earth.
Here are the links to the text + slides on google drive; there are two size options with differing picture quality available to view and/or download. Apart from that, they’re identical.
“The variability of the Sun and the effects on Earth”. Text and slides (20Mb)
“The variability of the Sun and the effects on Earth”. Text and slides (5 Mb)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please edit to remove the repeated section!
I posted this video before, but it is so very apropos for this thread, so here it is again for your convenience.
Plasma Physics’ Answers to the New Cosmological Questions, by Dr. Donald E. Scott
presented at NASA Goddard
I found this to be an informative, fascinating, and enjoyable talk covering the history of plasma cosmology, some fundamentals of plasma physics — including some common misconceptions and errors made by experts in the field — and some potential applications to new cosmological questions.
I strongly encourage you to check it out!
(1 hour long.)
I watched you original posting, it was well done.
I might’ve even learned something, even if by accident 🙂
Well the very ionosphere itself; all those “Heavyside layers”, is a plasma. The transmission, refraction and eventually reflection of EM radiation at radio frequencies, is of course due to the ionized (plasma) of that region.
Certain frequencies tend to barrel right on through the ionosphere, but maybe deflected (refracted, by the variation in refractive index versus radio frequencies. Eventually, you get an effective refractive index for a particular radio frequency , and following Snell’s Law, you end up getting what amounts to total internal reflection beyond a certain angle from the zenith which creates a “radio horizon” around your antenna. A satellite broadcasting at such a frequency will be communicating with earth inside that radio horizon (around your position), and beyond that it will be lost. This is a peculiar case, because the refractive index will be approximately 1.00 both below the ionosphere, and extra terrestrially, so you can get TIR both from above and below.
I used to know this stuff like the back of my hand, having a Major in Radio Physics, and of course radio hams, breathe this stuff day and night.
But back to the sun.
Need I remind the WUWT audience, that our friend “Willie ” Wei Hock Soon of the Harvard Smithsonian Institute for Space Studies (I think) wrote with a co-author, a marvelous book; “The Maunder Minimum, and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection.”
So Willie was way ahead of the curve in this area.
Way to go Dr. Soon.
g
Thanks for this info, George. I will order that book.
Yes, a good talk and lots of thinking matter.
gosh these old eyes would appreciate it if the highlighted text were a less brash color. fascinating stuff
EXCELLENT SUMMARY!
I also recommend this fine text by plasma physicist Anthony Peratt at Los Alamos National Lab.
For eons I watched it listed, used, at between $1000-$1500, but I came across a copy for about $50 and snapped it up. If you stumble across a copy that’s cheap, grab it!
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plasma-Universe-Anthony-Peratt/dp/1461276667
Second edition is out now.
Surely, Max Photon, you watch for “ions” tee hee
Couldn’t get either of the two links to work properly, could view up to 3 pages? Then naadaa
“””Here are the links to the text + slides on google drive; there are two size options with differing picture quality available to view and/or download. Apart from that, they’re identical.
“The variability of the Sun and the effects on Earth”. Text and slides (20Mb)
“The variability of the Sun and the effects on Earth”. Text and slides (5 Mb) “””
This might help. The link downloads a “Google Drive” file. (this viewed with Mac OS X) shows onscreen, but will not save normally. There is a “down arrow” download symbol at the top of the page along with a “Printer” icon. Click on the down arrow and it will download a .pdf file of the complete presentation.
It’s awesome to see this subject area hit the “mainstream” 🙂
Our Changing Climate and the Variable Sun | Space News
Ben Davidson on Climate and the Variable Sun | Space News
Nope, this is the standard crap attacks you get from the “establishment” types who seem to think that you can’t have intellect with out a license, aka piece of paper on hanging on your wall. Appeal to authority, how dare anyone not in our club have a position on this subject! Omagerd!
Seriously, that expose’ is ridiculous and juvenile.
A little look at the history of many scientific breakthroughs will illustrate a rather strong correlation of success when “outsiders” venture forth into closed scientific circles.
——————————————–
Professional interest is best served by making what is easy to do seem hard; by subordinating laity to priesthood. … too vital a jobs project, contract-giver and protector of the social order to allow itself to be “re-formed.” It has political allies to guard its marches. -JTG
——————————————–
Whenever someone makes an attack video on youtube, they have a small fraction of the followers and views as the one they’re attacking. I wonder why?
“No qualifications in climate or solar physics, so it is difficult to see how he would have any special insight”.
That is a very revealing statement.
He is insulted that someone who is not officially “qualified”, could have insight!
Because why? Because people are idiots until indoctrinated?
This view seems to hold that ideas are not the product of fertile imaginations and creative sorts of intellect, but rather are a result of book learning and having travelled the some particular scholastic road?
This is one of the reasons why science so often advances by paradigm shift, rather than incremental addition of knowledge.
New ideas are rejected out of hand as having no merit, until they become so obvious that no one can credibly doubt them anymore.
“New ideas are rejected out of hand as having no merit, until they become so obvious that no one can credibly doubt them anymore.”
———————————–
Ah so, the old NIH (not invented here) problem ……….. to protect one’s turf. from the newbies.
As we have discussed so many times in the past, this whole subject is simply glittering nonsense.
Wow it took you quite some time to get here.
Are you saying we can’t reason without him ?
We got this astrophysics stuff covered, it’s just common sense 🙂
I agree. This is pretty weak stuff. ” it’s plasma all the way down” seems to carry the same weight as the turtle theory.
I lean toward thinking that plasma and electric currents in space have often been underestimated in astronomy as to their importance, but that this is being corrected.
Oh the other hand, I tend not to think that Saturn was our Sun until recently, which the EU folks maintain.
Yes. The Proto Saturn idea from the EU folks, is a bit too far out there for me as well, but their ideas on electric charge in space are much more compelling. The predictions made about comets have been the most astute and Stephen Smith’s rebuttal of the standard cosmological model (Big Bang, Black Holes, etc) is exceptional.
The modern, correct view of plasma in Cosmos can be found here
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Plasma-Physics-of-the-Local-Cosmos.pdf
lol
You could use a little humility.
I’m not even saying you aren’t on the right track. But to call your views “correct” full stop goes a little far, don’t you think?
Christoph, if you actually followed the link you would see that it points to a report of the National Research Council of the National Academies.
I did follow the link, Leif, and saw what it was. My point isn’t that you wrote it; my point is your assertion it is the “correct view of plasma in the Cosmos”.
It may be a good stab at it, but that’s quite a claim.
It is the best founded and comprehensive look we have today, backed up by extensive measurements in space and in the laboratory, so is a ‘correct’ as we can have it at this time. The EU and PU stuff are just nonsense, in the ‘not even wrong’ class. It is amazing how many people fall for this. No wonder that our politicians can exploit the scientific illiteracy among you guys for their own nefarious purposes.
Leif, do they use quaternion mathematics to describe it?
No, ordinary vectors work well.
Leif,
I read a press release on this paper
Citation: “Detecting and interpreting distortions in hierarchical organization of complex time series”, S. Drozdz, P. Oswiecimka; Physical Review E 91, 030902(R) (2015); DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.91.030902
Read more: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/multifractals_point_to_existence_of_unknown_physical_mechanism_on_the_sun-155251#ixzz3YtXhXDxV
And would like your opinion if you’ve seen it before.
I think it is simpler than that: a large number of sunspots can have larger fluctuations, while when the sun is free of spots, there is less to vary.
That’s better.
‘Correct’ means that it corresponds to the solid knowledge we have, on contrast to ‘incorrect’ which means that it is at variance with what has been established as solid knowledge.
lsvalgaard commented
So, I have a question, in most fields there are 2nd,3rd,…. order effects that have not been identified by science, the solid knowledge of science.
How does a scientist such as yourself investigate effects that science has not defined, maybe it’s rare, the Maunder Minimum, it’s hard to scrutinize something that happened a few hundred years ago, there little actual data, so there’s a lot of room to identify new science, if you could only get more/better data, isn’t this where the “crazy” ideas come in? Isn’t this the same space as where paradigm shifts come from?
Now I accept you feel this isn’t it, but isn’t that how it goes as well?
there little actual data, so there’s a lot of room to identify new science, if you could only get more/better data, isn’t this where the “crazy” ideas come in?
Crazy ideas without supporting data or at least plausible theory are just that: ‘crazy’ and do not cause paradigm shifts.
said the church to galileo- you priest worshipers are all alike. closed minds and open hands for the crumbs from the establishment. tesla said it best: mathematics will prove anything. all this bs to prove the current “cosmos” theories to keep the priests enthroned. all the nonsense about how magnetism and electricity are separate? now that AGW is flushed, many more “glittering nonsense” might be next to topple some cherished crapola from the entrenched credentialists- and by the way, the degrees an credentials of the electric universe crowd (not necessarily the Velikovsky studiers) are just as good as those in the dogma crowd. it takes courage to go up against the establishment- more evidence keeps coming up making current dogma harder and harder to explain- so wave your hands and invent dark energy and unexplainium.
Billy, the EU people seriously argue that Saturn was our primary star at the dawn of human history. I know. I just expressed my skepticism earlier today to someone at the Thunderbolts Project, probably David Talbott.
Do you really, actually believe that we were orbited Saturn, and that we somehow survived a wandering star coming in to the solar system and swapped to that instead?
Because that is what the EU people maintain.
Yes, I have seen a few references here and there to such things as the ice ages being ended by stars passing by.
It is astonishing to me that anyone could think that a passing neighbor star could warm the earth by any significant amount, and yet not disrupt the planetary orbits.
Assuming a star with the brightness of our sun came to within the orbit of Pluto, how much energy would that radiate to the earth fro way out there?
And it seems unlikely in the extreme that any but a very dim red or brown dwarf could possibly exist in the solar neighborhood and have gone unnoticed. And even one of those would be visible to infrared scans by WISE and others.
Poppycock for sure. Whatever may lurk unknown, nearby invisible stars aint on the list.
Actually, the Proto-Saturn hypothesis is simply one explanation for observed evidence of recent (in cosmological terms) violent planetary phenomena which appears to have been electrical. They do not claim it proven, merely state that it is theoretically possible.
I personally don’t see much in the idea, but they don’t need to be correct on everything to have other ideas taken more seriously.
What you’re saying is false. They very definitely claim it as fact. Watch their most recent video about it, and also read my comments and their responses.
lsvalgaard.
“As we have discussed so many times in the past, this whole subject is simply glittering nonsense.”
I was thinking the same thing.
Finally an article that addresses my observations of the “noise” I hear while enjoying my hobby. Talk to your friends that are Ham Radio Operators about the effects of sunspots, solar flares and other changes in solar magnetic fields. The Sun is a big radio transmitter. Why does the AGW Theory only consider the energy in the hump of the black body curve? WHY? The Chart showing the Sun’s Electromagnetic Spectrum is logarithmic, that means there are many more “frequencies” in the shorter wavelengths. A portion of the Suns electromagnetic radiation is radio waves. These waves hit the earth and has to do something to the atmosphere, ground and ocean waters. There are also periodic magnetic waves , particle ejections and Plasma ejections. Yes, some particles, plasma/radio waves do not penetrate the atmosphere but that means it was absorbed by the atmosphere. Same for the ground and ocean.
Basically the earth has been placed in a “Microwave” Oven (like the microwave oven in your kitchen) for a period of days. And the AGW Theory claims that this has no effect on “global warming.” Then, you need to consider and determine what happens when the number of these events on the Sun decreases. They will also have an effect on “Global Warming” or can I say “Global Cooling?” How can the AGW Theory ignore these effects? Are they too poor to own a Microwave oven? What happens to The Heat of Conversion for Oxygen, Nitrogen, water and other components of the atmosphere when converted to/from plasma, and what are it effects on the atmosphere? And these conversions to/from plasma occur all of the time. Why else would the Amateur, Broadcast, government radio signals be affected?
All of Space contains plasma and 90% of space is plasma. Plasma is the extension cord connecting the Earth to the Sun and the magnetism of the Earth channels and directs this in a way that MUST be considered to get a true understanding of the Sun’s effects upon the Earth.
And it is being considered very much, but is should be done correctly, not as the pseudo science peddled by the ‘Plasma Universe’ cult.
ad hominem
Max,
The Eclectic Universe does resemble a pseudo-scientific cult. I thought that was the case when I visited the thunderbolts forum a few years ago, where I “learned” (in a faith-based kind of way) that every phenomena under the sun (and within it) could be ascribed to a z-pinch.
I have more sympathy for Barry Eccentrics wobbly world.
I don’t disagree with the description — at a minimum the Thunderbolts folks have a SERIOUS case of confirmation bias.
But the way to deal with it is to point of the errors of their ideas. That’s really all I was getting at.
I agree with max. Why adopt the tactics and methods of the hateful warmistas?
One thing we are really good at is detecting electricity, even miniscule voltages and currents. If there were electric currents flowing to earth through plasma “extension cords”, we would probably know about it.
We did not seem very up to the minute regarding upward directed lightning phenomena, which are poorly understood and only recently even proven to exist.
And gamma rays and antimatter are detectable too, but we just found out that these are emitted by thunderstorms. I do not recall anyone giving an advanced prediction of those.
Where is the big voltmeter monitoring current flows in space located, just out of curiosity?
We may be good at measuring stuff, but we have a poor record for finding things we are not looking for.
I would bet that if anyone could go to sleep for a hundred years, they would awake to find many new and amazing things have been discovered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetically_induced_current
The work by Sam Carey, James Maxlow and others provides compelling evidence that the Earth has expanded, with matter from space (be it solar or interstellar – electrons, protons, neutrons, x-ray/gamma/other radiation) being the most likely candidate for such expansion. This concept is another case of the ‘settled science’ paradigm in play.
Sure, about 50 tons of stuff falls on the Earth every day, so obviously the Earth grows larger by that amount every day. But apart from that, the Earth is not expanding [increasing in mass].
About the sun: “We are connected”
Duh.
This is so boring. The Sun causes warming. No, it has cycles. No, it’s the plasma. But the data is that, based on the input from the sun we should be cooling. And we ain’t.
We are.
But from now on, we will not:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/ncdc-blocks-access-to-ghcn-data/
lsvalgaard,
I really want to understand here. So please, if you could park the insults for a moment I’d appreciate it.
1) As I understand it, plasma is not ‘gas’, it is ionized matter. Gas is a lower phase state. So why is high-temperature matter referred to as “ionized gas”? It’s ‘plasma’, period.
2) Moving charged particles constitute an electric current. Why is the ‘solar wind’ — which consists of moving charged particles — not called what it is: an electric current?
3) I briefly looked at Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos — (I’ll give it more time later). What is striking to me is that it seems like the Cult of the Magnetic Field, to borrow from you. When I learned about Maxwell’s Equations, electricity and magnetism were unified. Why then in the publication you provided do magnetic fields dominate as if they are the be-all end-all? Are not magnetic fields caused by time-varying electric fields? Last time I checked there are electric monopoles; there are no magnetic monopoles. Electric charge is the cause; magnetic fields are the effect. Why has this been inverted?
4) What’s with the claim that magnetic fields are “frozen” in plasmas? Does not the Crookes characteristic curve, and experimental observation, contradict this claim?
5) What are the fundamental claims of the ‘Plasma Universe cult’ that are in error?
Thanks
Max
1) if you ionize a gas you get a plasma, which is then ionized gas. Still with the characteristics of a gas as opposed to liquid and solid.
2) the solar wind is electrically neutral [as are cosmic plasmas generally]. You consists of a neutral mixture of charged particles, electrons and nuclei. But you walking down the street does not constitute an electric current.
3) electric fields are caused by changing magnetic fields. The big difference is that the electric field depends on the frame of reference, while the magnetic field does not.
4) as Alfven showed in a high-conductivity plasma and on length scales long enough, the magnetic field and the plasma are tied together.
5) too many to mention, just about everything. Perhaps the claim that the Sun is powered from the outside instead of by nuclear fusion in the core takes the prize.
Thank you for your reply.
🙂
And this is why I read WUWT. Thanks, Leif.
I was reading up on Wilson’s and Penzias’ note as they were discovering the background radiation of creation. They thought ( were told ) the the observations were from pigeon sh1t inside the antenna horn.
Yeah some know-it-all got the 2 soon-to-be Nobel Laureates to scrub [….] rather than look at the signal as data.
Typical. Know-it-alls AlWAYS let you down.
Roger Bacon, the inventor of the modern scientific method proposed 4 main obstacles to obtaining the truth in his OPUS MAJUS (1267 Anno Domini)
1) the example of weak and unreliable authority;
2) continuance of custom,
3) regard to the opinion of the unlearned, and
4) concealing one’s own ignorance, together with the exhibition of apparent wisdom
obstacle 3 seems to apply here…
“Yeah some know-it-all got the 2 soon-to-be Nobel Laureates to scrub […] rather than look at the signal as data.”
That may be the quote of the day.
You ruined the quote of the day. What a load of [….]
[Yes. .mod]
Max, you do not need to have a time varying electric field, in order to have magnetism. A static electric field can give a magnetic field.
What you DO require is to have an electric current flowing; and you can have a stable electric current flowing with a perfectly stable electric field.
BUT !! if you DO have a varying electric current, which means you have a varying magnetic field, then you also MUST have accelerating electric charges.
And accelerating electric charge, which is simply a varying electric current is all your need to get electro-magnetic radiation, which will propagate energy.
Maxwell’s equations describe the whole thing. I have no idea what exactly quantum mechanics adds to that, as I am not a quantum mechanic.
But I’m not much of a fan of the idea of there being gulf streams of plasma roaming the universe. Sure located near stars and such, but I would take Leif’s word on the scope of these notions. Where the sun ends, and everything else starts, is beyond my ken, so I just let those who play with this all day long, tell us what they think.
As for this specific paper. Well I’ll have to read it to find what’s in it.
g
George, yes, I should have asked, “Are not time-varying magnetic fields caused by time-varying electric fields?” I was trying to get at the dynamic case given that’s what’s ‘out there’ … but with my wording, you are correct. Good catch 🙂
One example of what quantum mechanics adds to Maxwell’s Equations is a better handling of double-slit experimental observations that Maxwell’s Equations couldn’t explain.
As for the ‘gulf streams of plasma roaming the universe”, remember that plasmas self-organize into cellular regions, and that there can be relative motion among such regions.
Electric Universe, Love it.
It took 1 hour and 16 minutes for the stench of rotting fish to permeate the room.
mmmmm saw it coming…. didn’t you all? I will watch and observe the miasma bring death and despair.
Oh… before I forget, It is the sun stupid.
Just love all those postings on the sun. It is by far my favorite subject. Too busy tonight to watch the presentation.
Woo Woo Woo Dr. S.
TeV solar cosmic ray shadow..
Will have to read the following from start to finish instead of just page 9 forward. lol all those pos and negs switching around oh my.
Solar Sector Structure
Hugh Hudson · Leif Svalgaard · Iain
Hannah
page 9
“””…4.1.2 Remote-sensing observations
The idea of using the cosmic-ray shadows of large structures (Clark 1957) has
developed into a method for probing the coronal magnetic field (Amenomori
et al. 1993; Amenomori et al. 2013). This observation uses TeV-energy primary
cosmic rays detected via their extensive air showers, and the first results
immediately showed a significant modification of the solar cosmic-ray shadow
depending on the presence of towards and away sectors. Since this 1993 paper,
the data have accumulated and improved to the point where more sophisticated
analyses for coronal magnetic-field structure have become possible. Figure
6, from Amenomori et al. (2013), shows the development of the cosmic-ray
shadow detection over a solar-cycle time span….”””
“””…The observations shown in Figure 6 permitted
the authors to distinguish a standard PFSS model from a more elaborate
current-sheet model Zhao and Hoeksema (1995). More elaborate data
analyses may allow us to follow the structure of the heliospheric field in the
relatively unknown domain at the distance of the standard source surface,
2.5 R, and of course it would be most interesting to be able to characterize
the development of the warp structure of the heliospheric current sheet in this
region…””””
Maybe they might find the inner region, reconnection region for Ol Sol? Ya know Ol Sol is connected to the Milky Way, well at least so far as we know thus…
magnetic fields connect all conducting bodies in the universe.
Anyone interested in this might be interested in the Electric Universe theory presented at Thunderbolts.info and elsewhere.
Thunderbolts.info is an interesting read inasmuch as it poops on the “establishment”, which is cool because the establishment never knows as much as it thinks it does. But there really should be a for entertainment purposes only disclaimer.
RH,
The way I personally think about the modeling of phenomena in any given field — that is, the science of a field — such as cosmology, is to keep in mind a ranked set of explanations. For example, take the sun. The current standard model of the sun — and remember, it’s only a model — may totally dominate, and may fit far better than any lower ranked model, such as the EU’s electric sun model. But the poorer fitting models do provide valuable functions: they present challenges, however feeble; they help expose weaknesses in the leading model; they help to remind us that the leading model is just that — a model … and Lord knows people can easily slip into thinking the leading model equals reality; they are outlets for creative thinking about problem solving, even if incorrect; they may be interesting and entertaining in their own right; …
I think something is lost when people rally around the dominant model to the total exclusion of lower ranked models, especially when it is accompanied by arrogance and disdain. I think a serious student of any subject, such as the sun, would delight in and be open to all models of the subject, just as an historian would appreciate all models from days-gone-by because of they were all stepping stones to the present, and they all represent the human mind groping and grasping and reaching for the truth, however clumsily.
So for example, while I am not an advocate of the electric sun model, I certainly hold it in high regard for its sheer creativity. And thinking about it has forced me to learn a lot more about plasma physics, solar dynamics, and so forth, that I might not have picked up otherwise.
But that’s just me.
“for entertainment purposes only disclaimer”
I honestly think that such a disclaimer is apt when these subjects come up science media:
-Black holes
-Neutron stars
-Supermassive black holes
-Multiple dimensions
-Dark matter
-Dark energy
-Cosmic inflation
-The Big Bang
-The Big Crunch
-Strange matter
-Magnetic reconnection
-The hydrogen fusion model of stars
-Gravitational waves
-The Higg’s “God” particle
https://youtu.be/WoNaVb7b-tg?t=561
You are just describing most of the scientific progress of recent decades. Your willful ignorance is akin to that of the cardinal who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope…
[trimmed!] Does that mean “Dark Energy” is actually plasma?
[Good rejoinder, but trim the language please. .mod]
I’ve got my popcorn and gatorade standing by. Let’s go…..
Aurora Australis Forecast is here: http://www.aurora-service.net/aurora-forecast/
Unfortunately not so many people will be in Antarctica to admire it. ;-(
Robert Johnson has overlooked Joule heating and ozone destruction from the solar wind in the polar regions.
Piers’ work has fundamental problems. In his EU presentation video at 24 minutes in, the claimed solar-lunar ~58yr beat period can only result from the beat of 11.07yr and 9.3yr, and 58yr is near 5 solar cycles. So on two counts it has nothing to with the 22yr solar magnetic cycle. And look-backs based upon however many solar cycles is not going to forecast the solar activity that decides how warm or cold it will be from one week to the next.
This is a wonderful article, and thanks for the links… finally a reprise from the topic of arctic,… I looked this up on wikipedia too, but I’m not sure if wikipedia is to be trusted… After all I’ve edited wikipedia quite a few times myself.
Oh where or where have all of the sunspots gone Leif? Why is the solar northern large scale magnetic field intensity flat lining? The current change in the sun is what causes a Heinrich event. The sun will be spotless by the end of this year. The solar cycle has been interrupted.
Sometimes the only way science can advance is when there is in your face evidence that falsifies the standard models. We truly live in interesting times.
The sun and stars are significantly different than the standard model. There are a couple of hundred astronomical anomalies and paradoxes that support that assertion.
What could cause millions of ‘nanoflares’ on the surface of the sun that are 10 million degrees Kevin?
Try not to guess, hint the standard stellar model is not correct. Our sun is a second generation star that formed about the old core of a supernova. What is formed when a star collapses? Hint, black holes do not exist. What forms when a massive object collapses is an active object. The correct answer is a miniature version of the mysterious object that is called a Quasar. The researchers that are proposing that the active object is a Magnetospheric Enternally Collapsing Object (MECO) are on the correct track.
The physical reason why there are millions per second 10 million degree Kelvin nanoflares on the surface of the sun is the active object in the core of the sun quickly carries energy from the core of the sun to surface of the sun.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150429094830.htm
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0602453v1.pdf
The Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object (MECO) Model of Galactic Black Hole Candidates and Active Galactic Nuclei
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/596/2/L203/pdf/17685.web.pdf
ON INTRINSIC MAGNETIC MOMENTS IN BLACK HOLE CANDIDATES
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/350/4/1391.full.pdf
On the Origin of the Universal Radio-X-Ray Luminosity Correlation In Black Hole Candidates
William Astley April 30, 2015 at 8:21 pm
I do so enjoy science by assertion, the idea that simply by making a claim without a scrap of supporting evidence one can convince a generally skeptical audience.
w.
Willis,
There are hundreds of astronomical observations that support the assertion that the sun is significantly different than the standard model. This is not however the correct forum for an in depth discussion of astronomical paradoxes and anomalies. The piles and piles of paradoxes and anomalies (in peer reviewed papers) affect fundamental cosmological issues, concerning whether the universe is eternal or started from a big bang 13.7 billion years ago. The selection of the big bang theory over the eternal theory was made roughly 40 years ago.
It is quite astonishing how many props have been created to keep the big bang theory on life support. ‘Inflation’ for example which is a millions of times faster than light expansion of the entire universe is required to explain anomaly after anomaly. Inflation expands the entire universe with no change in velocity (the velocity less expansion is required as deceleration would generate emf which is not observed). Inflation starts and stops with a magic wand. There is no mechanism. The cosmic background 3.7k radiation, is uniform on small scales to one part in 100,000 which would require a very, very, uniform distribution of matter 13.7 billion years ago. As we know there are galaxies a back of the envelope calculation indicates the CMB should vary no less than 1 part in 5000 to 7000. The mechanism less inflation is required to make that paradox go away. On very large scales there are massive cold and hot spots in the CMB. The massive cold and hot spots further more are aligned with the axis of our galaxy which does not make sense.
Of course no one has travelled into the sun or into a star. Our direct instrumentation observation of the sun is limited to around 50 years. It is not surprising therefore that the standard solar model and stellar model is not correct.
If I understand the mechanisms and what is currently happening to the sun we are going to have a chance to observe the cause of the cyclic Heinrich events which is a once in 8000 to 10,000 year event.
I might attempt a Coles notes presentation that is appropriate for this forum of how the sun Is different than the standard model if and when there is unequivocal observational evidence of an interruption to the solar cycle.
Now on the other hand, the observations and logic that support the deep core CH4 origin over the late veneer hypothesis as the source for the earth’s atmosphere and oceans is readily accessible to a general audience. I am preparing a couple of presentations of the observations and logic (from Thomas Gold’s book and new recent papers and discoveries) that supports the CH4 deep core model and will follow with a proof of Salby’s hypothesis that no less than 66% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural CO2 sources rather than anthropogenic CO2 emission.
Of course no one has travelled into the sun or into a star. Our direct instrumentation observation of the sun is limited to around 50 years. It is not surprising therefore that the standard solar model and stellar model is not correct.
Several things wrong. With spectrograph we have observed for 150 years, with magnetographs for 100 years, with telescopes 400 years, with the naked eye for millions. And we can see inside the sun, e.g. with helioseismology [the same method successfully used to find oil in the earth’s crust], or with direct observation of the neutrino flux. These methods show us that the standard model works exceedingly well.
William Astley commented
Actually I’ve thought of a “simple” mechanism, to create a singularity (if they actually exist), would require space to collapse, x,y, z becomes points with no length.
Imagine the reverse of this, at the big bang, space x,y,z since it is also a singularity, would be collapsed, and as the BB progressed would unfold, instant space.
Willis Eschenbach
April 30, 2015 at 8:53 pm
I do so enjoy science by assertion, the idea that simply by making a claim without a scrap of supporting evidence one can convince a generally skeptical audience.
Are you concerned with the science getting ahead of the evidence, or, simply concerned with being left behind?
These articles are consistent with Hawking’s Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes.
Remember that Hawking first proposed black holes in 1975, and refined his theories once they were actually discovered.
William Astley,
Thanks for including the links to the scientific papers. I am not sure I agree with you, but I think I will read those links. It will take some time, but it may be worth it to look at a different model. I can recall when we first started using those things called “hyperlinks” and some of us wondered if they would ever be of any real use. 🙂
Oh where or where have all of the sunspots gone Leif? Why is the solar northern large scale magnetic field intensity flat lining? The current change in the sun is what causes a Heinrich event. The sun will be spotless by the end of this year. The solar cycle has been interrupted.
It is quite normal that small cycles show large variations of the sunspot count; just two weeks ago, the sunspot number was over a hundred. The northern polar fields are no longer flat, the north has joined the south in increasing http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif . The Sun is behaving quite normally and the solar cycle still has another five years to go. You claim every year that the sun will be spotless a year hence, and you have been wrong every time.
I did not learn just one new thing today, I learned two new things.
1) The sun is externally powered.
2) The troposphere is composed of plasma.
I never would have suspected.
“Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Alice in Wonderland.
I am somewhat interested in the plasma / electric universe theories. But as I read this article (short) and the comments. To me no one mentioned the interaction between those plasma flows, the magnetic field and the VanAllen belts which (taking altogether) to me seem to have a fairly large impact on life as we know it. So call me stupid but that impact to me includes climate.
The more I learn it seems the less I know.
Birkeland current: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
Are generated by the magnetic field of the solar wind interacting with the magnetic field of the Earth. We have known this for decades.
>We have known this for decades.
No institutional science has out it in a box on a dusty shelf for decades while it’s fanatically pursued a gravitational “solution” for nearly everything in the universe.
Title: Braided current sheets glow softly in visible and infrared light along the Cygnus Loop of the Veil Nebula.
Indeed, everything in the end is due to gravity.
>Indeed, everything in the end is due to gravity.
And on that single card rests a proverbial house of cards.
When the foundation is solid, the house is solid.
I agree, nevertheless, I still think having the home inspected prior to purchase is a good idea.
Serious scientists spend their lives inspecting the foundation ensuring it is solid.
‘When the foundation is solid, the house is solid’
Looking at post-Katrina images, entire streets had evidence of foundations with all vestiges of houses swept away.
There is a nice book by James Kaler that details a number of ‘cosmic’ influences on the Earth:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heavens-Touch-Killer-Connected-Universe/dp/0691129460/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430455893&sr=1-2&keywords=kaler
I never felt more connected with the universe than when reading this book 🙂
This is not on climate though, it is a pop-science astronomy book.
Flux radio shows well the magnetic activity of the sun.
http://www.spaceweather.ca/auto_generated_products/solradmon_eng.png
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20CPC%20OceanicNinoIndexMonthly1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif