Climate responses to SATIRE and SIM-based spectral solar forcing in a 3D atmosphere-ocean coupled GCM
Abstract
We apply two reconstructed spectral solar forcing scenarios, one SIM (Spectral Irradiance Monitor) based, the other the SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction) modeled, as inputs to the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) GCMAM (Global Climate Middle Atmosphere Model) to examine climate responses on decadal to centennial time scales, focusing on quantifying the difference of climate response between the two solar forcing scenarios. We run the GCMAM for about 400 years with present day trace gas and aerosol for the two solar forcing inputs. We find that the SIM-based solar forcing induces much larger long-term response and 11-year variation in global averaged stratospheric temperature and column ozone. We find significant decreasing trends of planetary albedo for both forcing scenarios in the 400-year model runs. However the mechanisms for the decrease are very different. For SATIRE solar forcing, the decreasing trend of planetary albedo is associated with changes in cloud cover. For SIM-based solar forcing, without significant change in cloud cover on centennial and longer time scales, the apparent decreasing trend of planetary albedo is mainly due to out-of-phase variation in shortwave radiative forcing proxy (downwelling flux for wavelength >330 nm) and total solar irradiance (TSI). From the Maunder Minimum to present, global averaged annual mean surface air temperature has a response of ~0.1 °C to SATIRE solar forcing compared to ~0.04 °C to SIM-based solar forcing. For 11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C, similar to recent multi-model estimates, and comparable to the observational-based evidence. However, the global surface air temperature response to 11-year SIM-based solar forcing is insignificant and inconsistent with observation-based evidence.
How can anyone take anything named SATIRE seriously?
As always, Dr Svalgaard returns to the assertion that extremely small changes in TSI have extremely small changes in earth’s climate. He is probably right, provided the mechanism he has in mind is one of radiative warming.
What about the solar signal, whether magnetic field, plasma, microwave, UV or whatever, as a modulating signal with influence on processes that can interact with the earth’s climate via atmospheric chemistry, extraterrestrial matter such as dust or cosmic rays?
My second paragraph presumably takes the argument outside of Dr Svalgaard’s expertise but I would still welcome his opinion on this possibility.
My third point is that the anecdotal relationship, if there is such a thing, between solar activity and climate appears to relate to clusters of cycles of like levels of SSN and not the amplitude alone or a single cycle. It seems to be a cumulative or sustained or high frequency of activity (or non-activity) that is important rather than the characteristics of a single cycle.
As always, the debate about solar influences gets shut down because TSI is effectively constant or because there is no correlation with climate. Can Dr Svalgaard advise us of the consequences of a switching solar magnetic field on the earth. What changes as far as the earth is concerned?
Svalgaard advise us of the consequences of a switching solar magnetic field on the earth. What changes as far as the earth is concerned?
The energy involved is so minute except for great magnetic storms, but those are very rare, so no measurable effect above the noise.
http://www.leif.org/research/Where-Does-The-Atmosphere-Get-Its-Energy-From.png
Hi Dr. S., is the “Lightning discharge energy,” above in your graph terrestrial or ionospheric?
The You tube video below talks about the rapid discharge of electrical energy into the ionosphere analogous to lightening in the atmosphere.
FM16 Press Conference: New research on the ionosphere, our interface to space
https://youtu.be/KnXuEgWhaWw?t=8m
Hi Dr. S., is the “Lightning discharge energy,” above in your graph terrestrial or ionospheric?
Terrestrial, of course. The ‘auroral emission” and “airglow emission” are ionospheric.
Note the interesting tidbit that “infrared radiation from the full moon” delivers almost as much energy as all other sources combined with the exception of TSI and Heat Flux from the Earth’s interior.
“Note the interesting tidbit that “infrared radiation from the full moon” delivers almost as much energy as all other sources combined with the exception of TSI and Heat Flux from the Earth’s interior.”
Having heard this before some time ago on another thread on this site, I still find it more than a little startling.
Counterintuitive to say the least.
The general impression is that everything that could matter is well known and quantified…and yet we still cannot say what caused the large natural variations in the historical records, or why the models have not gotten the past few decades right.
Any complicated non-linear system has internal, chaotic natural variations that are hard to model. Ocean circulation is one example of input to the model that we don’t have a good handle on. It is not ‘left out’, just ‘not well known’ in the past. The same used to be the case for the solar input. Luckily, this is now improving [if we can get the climate people to use our improved values].
The past few decades have seen a sharp decline in solar activity, yet, temperatures have soared. Not very good for solar enthusiasts, who have to invent various excuses …[lags, integrals, notches, you name it…]
That’s okay Leif. The AGW CO2 model authors list excuses too.
The figure for lunar tides is off by over two orders of magnitude.
The energy loss from lunar tides can be estimated by the rate of lunar recession, which is about 3.8 cm/year. An approximate equation for energy loss is
dE/dt := -0.5*mass_moon*omega_Moon*omega_Earth*R*dR/dt
To make things easy, I will use solar days instead of sidereal days. This works out to approximately
dE/dt := -0.5 * 7.3e22 kg * 2pi/(30*86400) rad/sec * 2pi/86400 rad/sec * 360e6 meters * 0.038 meters / (365.25*86400 sec) := -3 TW
The Earth’s surface is some 511e12 meters^2, so this works out to about 3/511 = 0.006 W/m^2.
The figure for lunar tides is off by over two orders of magnitude.
Argue with these people
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc160018-Where-Does-Earth-Gets-Its-Energy.pdf
Section 2.10
“Platzman (1991) performed an energy balance study of the lunar atmospheric tide by incorporating the three factors of the ocean, body, and load tides, characterized by barometric pressure data from Haurwitz & Cowley (1969) and satellite altimeter data of sea-tide dissipation and sea-tide elevation from NASA’s Geodetic Satellite (Geosat) (Cartwright & Ray, 1990). The energy dissipated in the atmosphere due to the lunar atmospheric tide was determined as the sum of excitation energy from the Moon’s gravitational effect on the body and load tides and by the vertical flux of tidal energy the atmosphere receives from the ocean (Platzman 1991). Annually averaged results showed that the lunar atmospheric tidal dissipation was on the order of 10 GW and maintained almost entirely by the ocean tide (Platzman 1991). This value corresponds to 1.96 · 10^5 W/m^2 when averaged at Earth’s surface.”
What can I say? I gave you the formula. It is easily derived, and the value for the rate of lunar recession is well established.
But wrong nevertheless as a measure of the energy that goes into the atmosphere. Study the link I gave you to see why.
http://m.imgur.com/yvrMXFy?r
(courtesy of Javier)
Bart: I’ll give you hint: the mass of the atmosphere is only 1/275 of the oceans, so the M2 tide has to be divided by 275, so goes from 3 TW to 10 GW.
Thanks for the reply Dr. S.
But the presentation goes on to say that the electrical discharge is; “hundreds of times more energy than a lightening stroke.”
And is responsible for the Airglow emission.
Something is wrong here then in comparing the 2, terrestrial and ionospheric electric discharge???
A hundreds of times more energy than a lightening stroke………
Than ONE lightening stroke.
But there are 50 strokes every second.
But still, the airglow total is 0.0036 W/m2 vs. all the lightening strokes 0.0005 W/m2.
In either case negligible. Further more the airglow is 100 km up and doesn’t impact the troposphere where we live.
“Bart: I’ll give you hint: the mass of the atmosphere is only 1/275 of the oceans, so the M2 tide has to be divided by 275, so goes from 3 TW to 10 GW.”
You just can’t bear it when I am right, can you?
You just can’t bear it when you are wrong. Have you studied the paper I linked to?
And you are wrong about this. Wrong by a factor of 275.
The energy from lunar tides that heats the atmosphere in 17 million times smaller than the solar energy heating the atmosphere. Another comparison: the energy form lunar tides heating the atmosphere is comparable to the integrated energy of starlight and the Cosmic Microwave Background.
lsvalgaard May 8, 2017 at 7:53 am
Than ONE lightening stroke.
But there are 50 strokes every second.
But still, the airglow total is 0.0036 W/m2 vs. all the lightening strokes 0.0005 W/m2.
In either case negligible. Further more the airglow is 100 km up and doesn’t impact the troposphere where we live.
—————————————————–
You really should watch the video Dr. S. It starts at 7 min. in where he starts explaining, “hundreds of times more energy than a lightening stroke.”
Isn’t that ionospheric electric discharge also connected to and driving the Equatorial Electro Jet? Yes it is…I believe it is what is observed. Something wrong with your graph…
The ionosphere…
At this time of year, last week, the radio station I listen to in GRB, is affected by the ionosphere. Instead of pointing my antenna North I point either straight up or South. While travelling in the North at this time of year I have found that a Suring station signal goes East and comes in through my Green Bay stations call letters 88.1.
driving the Equatorial Electro Jet? Yes it is…I believe it is what is observed.
The jet is 100 km up. Has no effect on climate or weather.
You are confusing ‘discharge’ with ‘current’. There is a steady electric current at all times in the ionosphere E-region. Not a ‘discharge’. You can learn more here:
http://www.leif.org/research/w6yx-Talk.pdf
“The energy from lunar tides that heats the atmosphere in 17 million times smaller than the solar energy heating the atmosphere.”
As I showed, the rate of energy loss is 3 TW. Your handwaving does not change that. It is 0.004% of net solar input. That is a factor of 25K, not 17M.
I’m not going to argue about it anymore, because however you slice it, it is small. But, I am not filled with confidence about the other figures in your reference.
I’m not going to argue about it anymore
Typical loser statement. What you do dot understand is that only 1/275 of that goes into heating the atmosphere. You [apparent] refusal to study carefully the paper I linked to [and the ones it in turn references] is telling.
I am not filled with confidence about the other figures in your reference.
Since you, obviously, don’t know what you are talking about, your ‘confidence’ is not worth much.
The way to deal with lack of confidence is to read the paper and argue with the science for each point where you confidence fails you.
You are such a blowhard, Leif. Of course all the heat goes into an through the atmosphere. Where else could it go? It’s got to leave the system, or there is no lunar recession. So, unless you’ve discovered a wormhole in the oceans, I’m afraid you’re just going to have to come up with some other handwaving excuse.
As you refuse to take the paper into consideration [as it will prove you wrong, so your refusal is understandable], let me repeat here what it says:
“The energy dissipated in the atmosphere due to the lunar atmospheric tide was determined as the sum of excitation energy from the Moon’s gravitational effect on the body and load tides and by the vertical flux of tidal energy the atmosphere receives from the ocean (Platzman 1991). Annually averaged results showed that the lunar atmospheric tidal dissipation was on the order of 10 GW” .
I know what your paper claims. But, the lunar tides are dissipating 3 TW. If they are talking about some other effect under an ambiguous rubric, then they are missing something in their budget. So, it’s either wrong, or incomplete. Take your pick.
Where you go off the rail is that you [and they also as a first step] calculate the energy dissipated in the ocean, but that is not the same as the energy that heats the atmosphere. To get that, you have to take into account the effect the oceans have on the atmosphere. As a rough estimate one can use the fact that the mass of the atmosphere in 1/275 of the oceans. Platzman does it right with fancy modelling etc, but comes up with about the same factor of 1/275, so that the energy input from the lunar tides to the atmosphere is 10 GW and not 3 TW. To quote the paper:
“The energy dissipated in the atmosphere due to the lunar atmospheric tide was determined as the sum of excitation energy from the Moon’s gravitational effect on the body and load tides and by the vertical flux of tidal energy the atmosphere receives from the ocean (Platzman 1991). ”
But since you don’t want to admit you were wrong, what does it matter what Platzman says.
One more time…
The lunar tides are dissipating 3 TW. That is energy that flees to space. Between the oceans and space is the thing we call the atmosphere. There is no alternate route.
If you want to claim that only 10 GW are dissipated by the atmosphere itself, go ahead. But, there is a much larger input term that is then not accounted for in the budget.
Last time:
The 3 TW are not heating the atmosphere, especially not if they are fleeing to space…
Only 10 GW is actually energy input to the atmosphere. You can’t read or understand English?
If they are passing through the atmosphere, they are heating it. They are just as much an input as the watts from sunlight.
The atmosphere is not heated measurably by an energy flux millions of times smaller [even if only tens of thousands of times smaller] than sunlight. The 3 TW warms the sea which in turn warms the atmosphere, it takes hundred of times less energy to heat air by one degree than to heat water by one degree. Again, you have no idea. People [like Platzman] who have researched this carefully agree on the 10 GW figure. End of discussion.
I have an idea: you are in a hole, and cannot help yourself. But, you really must stop digging.
The figure is 3 TW on basic principles. It is missing from the budget.
No, you have no idea. The 3 TW warms to ocean, not the atmosphere. For that you have 10 GW. It doesn’t matter how often you repeat your mistaken view. It is still wrong.
And, 2090 GW just vanish into subjective space. Sure thing.
Sorry – 2990 GW.
Dr Sv, why is it an “excuse” to say that above average solar activity produces warming?
If you look at the right-hand edge of the graph you can see why. Solar activity since 1900 is on par with that from 1730-1800 [the orange curve], but the temperature is through the roof.
70% of the planet is covered by water to an average depth of 6500′. The sun pours energy down on half of it 24/7 varying by seasonal inclinations and cloud cover changes. These variables along with ocean mixing currents and conveyors along with the longer term milankovitch variables are your climate thermostat. So, though the variability of the sun itself may be minor it is still the sun in the long run (plus of course the mostly unknown geothermal component). There, I’ve solved it. Unfortunately most of these climate regulators are unknowns other than the Milankovitch cycles. And don’t forget surface albedo when the ice begins to grow!
“Solar activity since 1900 is on par with that from 1730-1800 [the orange curve], but the temperature is through the roof.”
This is simplistic. It is not just the peak that matters. The area under the curve also has an influence, as well as the degree to which the cycles interfere either constructively or destructively with Earthly modal responses.
The areas under the curve are about the same in every century.
The rest of your comment is just to vague to make any sense.
“The areas under the curve are about the same in every century.”
They are not.
Just saying something without any analysis is the hallmark of ‘drive-by’ comments. Anybody can see that the areas under the curve are the same [within the errors] in every one of the last three centuries. Here is another view:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
“Anybody can see that the areas under the curve are the same [within the errors] in every one of the last three centuries.”
So, it bumps along from very low to very high. Yeah, looks the same “within errors” to me, assuming the errors are very high.
The errors in the blue curve are small. The red curve [cosmic ray proxy] has larger errors. To first order there are no differences between the 18th, 19th, and 20th century.
Factors of 2 to 4 are not “small” in my book.
Bart:
For the visually impaired [with matching holes in understanding], here is a view just for you:
http://www.leif.org/research/GSN-Boxes.png
So, we’re starting near zero, leaping up near 1000, diving back down to near 200, jumping back up again to about 700, diving down again to about 300, up again to near 800, back down to 400.
These are not small changes.
These are not small changes
Who said they were. But, again you don’t know what you are talking about. The modulation potential controls the modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays, causing them to vary by a few percent [=small changes].
“Who said they were.”
You did.
“The areas under the curve are about the same in every century.”
http://m.imgur.com/yvrMXFy?r
After 400 years of warming, would we reasonably expect solar forcings to have the same effect as 400 years ago?
Yes, but it depends a little bit on what you mean by ‘the same’
Let me explain… The rates of carbon growth, water vapor growth and the growth of ice melt all depend on a temperature above an equilibrium state temperature. (the further the departure from the equilibrium state, the faster the growth of all three) Temps 300 years ago were much closer to the equilibrium state than now. Hence less carbon growth, water vapor growth and ice melt. Therefor, these forcings would not have been nearly as much in the 1700s as they were in the 1900s (particularly the latter part of the 20th century)…
The rates of carbon growth, water vapor growth and the growth of ice melt all depend on a temperature above an equilibrium state temperature
Not at all. There is no equilibrium state. The state at any time is determined by the inputs acting on the current state. There is no magic equilibrium state that the Earth knows to strive for.
There IS an equilibrium state temperature at which the carbon growth rate, the water vapor growth rate and the ice melt rate would be zero. (at present it is about .7C below the temperature of the pause) Also happens to be the point at which sea level rise is zero. This is easily demonstratable with graphs of the relationship between carbon growth rate and temperature, graphs of the rate of sea level rise, as well as the water vapor graphs (which i’ve been having a tough time locating of late). Assuming this is true, that might go a long way toward explaining why the twentieth century produced more warming than the 1700s. i’ll try to post those graphs as time permits…
What is the equilibrium temperature during a glaciation, which has been the normal state of the climate the last several million years?
Let me ask you this: do you dispute that there is a temperature at which sea level rise would be zero? (would that not be an equilibrium state temperature?)
But doesn’t the falling solar irradiance mean we are entering a new ice-a…. lol, jokes.
TSI whack-a-mole continues.
Meant to ‘reply’ to another post.
afonzarelli
May 8, 2017 at 10:43 pm
Let me ask you this: do you dispute that there is a temperature at which sea level rise would be zero? (would that not be an equilibrium state temperature?)
————————-
Hello afonzalli
You have asked the above to Dr. Sv, as it seems…
Allow me to forward some kind of answer that may GIVE YOU ANOTHER PROSPECT OR POINT OF VIEW ..
No, that would not be the equilibrium state temperature, as per the above question, that will be some thing like the mean point of the temp in a temp variation, the same for sea level variation and ice content variation…. or vapor.
The point of mean for temp variation sea level or ice content variation does not necessary mean a state of equilibrium when actually for the whole time these variations happen and continue there is a state of equilibrium to consider always throughout the whole scale of the variation….especially when the correlation
of all this parameters never seem to fail, and very “tightly” maintained..and always seem to be at their mean and max – minimal points approximately at the same point in time….
A mean point or an average of a range does not necessary in all cases project to a point of a balance or equilibrium in isolation….or to a special balance one as in this case of your attempt to.
And the equilibrium in a continuous repeating variation is not stationary, and could be considered as been there during for the whole time….
The Earth energy budget is always in equilibrium, even when can be feasibly contemplated that it is at its mean at the same time that climate is at it’s mean point…..The Earths mean temp, the point of half way from both extremes in temp variation….
Even the balance and the equilibrium is not always stationary and permanently tight to a particular point in time, especially in a continuous varying system or function..generally speaking, not necessarily..
So no, what you actually pointing at with your question is the mean point for the main varying climate parameters….
Hopefully this is of some help for you…
A side “tip”….from all I can see and understand, the main difference between the real climate (it’s continuous change) and the GCM simulations is that when in the real the climate is always in equilibrium even when in variation, the simulations can not produce and follow such equilibrium….GCM does not mean or stand for as Global Climate Models…….for some “weird” reason..:)
cheers
O.K., Dr Svalgaard, not the prettiest graph in the world, but i suppose that it will do… Equilibrium state temperature is not a static thing. For example, let’s say that the pause lasts indefinitely and we’ll also say that sea levels are rising at 3 mm/ year. Over a long period of time the sea level rise would be less and less even though temps were to stay the same. Eventually sea level rise would stop altogether. Once we reach that point (of no sea level rise), then we would have reached a new equilibrium state. If after that point, temps were to rise again, the sea level rise would continue again relative to the new equilibrium state temperature…
You can see in the above graph that the rate of change (of sea level) tracks temperature even going negative briefly around the turn of the century. Calculations with the carbon growth rate and temperature (the so called ‘derivative plot’) also show the growthrate going negative around the turn of the century. (it’s been a while since i’ve seen the water vapor plots; all i can say is that the rate of change, too, tracks temperature)…
(comment held up in moderation)…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:24/derivative/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1900/scale:0.225/offset:0.097
Whiten, if i can wade through your gobbledygook (☺), i think we’re both on the same page. That’s why i added the caveat: “(AT PRESENT it is about .7C below the temperature of the pause)”. Hopefully this short, short comment won’t get swallowed by moderation…
afonzarelli
May 9, 2017 at 9:14 pm
Whiten, if i can wade through your gobbledygook (☺), i think we’re both on the same page. That’s why i added the caveat: “(AT PRESENT it is about .7C below the temperature of the pause)”. Hopefully this short, short comment won’t get swallowed by moderation…
———————————-
Hello again afonzarelli.
Thank you for the reply…..very interesting one…..
Got to admit, you may be correct, we both seem to be on the same page, in principle, especially when considering your mentioning of the ” ~.7C below the temperature of the pause”……
But if I have to consider it in detail, I must say one of us is reading the page backwards….especially when what you consider and address as growth in climate parameters in question, I do consider and address it as a variation….
Again in this case too, your “caveat” points out to the climate mean point in regard to the mean of the climatic parameters you address….not actually pointing to any special equilibrium that must be moving towards a new special one………which at present shows if we considered it carefully, it may show to be a significant anomaly in the data, in the way that it stands, but still natural and well within the equilibrium of climate and natural climate change…… It is a condition persisting there for ~2000 years as an anomaly….no wondering why in AR5 report these clever guys try to pin it in Noah too.:)
Not meaning to be mean but the moderation, if it had an effect on the length of this reply of yours that I am commenting now…..you should consider it as a positive…..:)
Thanks for your comments and your replies.
Honestly appreciated……..please do not mind much my expression in English…
cheers
Yet the world keeps jumping the shark into warm and cold periods ignoring the influence and wishes of men.I do believe that at least half of the output from the sun is of a type not recognised by science per sec. A change in the bit we do not monitor can alter our world in profound ways, all the planets in our system feel change when it happens. We are truly naive and locked in to how clever we are with our science, but we are only nibbling at the edges of how our universe really works. Predicting a warm or cool period with our limited knowledge is not easy but history gives us clues as to intervals when old Sol is rampant and when he is on sabbatical. These are about the only clues we have as our scientific knowledge is still kindergarten. I would implore those scientists looking at the sun to look deeper UV gives you sunburn and a suntan but there is more.
Hi Dr. S.
The study below on ionospheric electric discharge, used a constellation of global satellites called IRIDIUM, to map these rapid, explosive discharges of electric energy into the ionosphere.
Unlike a terrestrial lightening which takes milli seconds to discharge, these ionospheric, solar storm related discharges take place over tens of minutes or HOURS.
The discharge animation from observations, is for a 15 hour period. I started the video in the midst of the animation so that you might get a glimpse…
FM16 Press Conference: New research on the ionosphere, our interface to space
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
https://youtu.be/KnXuEgWhaWw?t=9m26s
The study below on ionospheric electric discharge, used a constellation of global satellites called IRIDIUM, to map these rapid, explosive discharges of electric energy into the ionosphere
You are confusing several issues here. Earlier you talked about airglow. That is an ongoing process, not explosive and not due to solar storms or the solar wind. Now you talk about electric ‘discharges’. It has always been the case that the interaction between the solar wind and the earth is bursty [better word than ‘discharges’]. All of this is no news [Birkeland talked about it more than a century ago] and has no effect on our climate, as the energy involved is so minute.
Hi Dr. S.
Electric ‘discharges,’ is more appropriate a term here, I think.
It is more than currents flowing along earth’s magnetic field lines from solar wind interactions here.
There is a build up of these currents with a corresponding rapid, explosive discharge occurring for lengthy time periods.
Contributing to ionospheric heating.
Where in the graph below describes this discharge phenomenum occurring regularly over the polar regions?
Anywhere along the ionospheric currents system, whether polar or equatorial, these ‘discharges’ would be occurring. Maybe they could call it the “Ionospheric Dynamo Discharges into the lower regions of … the ionosphere.” And below, cause we know there are also ground currents coming from … solar discharges.
Magnetic storm dissipation seems to general a term.
http://www.leif.org/research/Where-Does-The-Atmosphere-Get-Its-Energy-From.png
Carla, “Explosive discharge” We see as lightning , but not all earthly/atmospheric discharges are visible, the positively charged atmosphere and the negatively charged surface exchange electrons all the time some times positive Fair weather electric field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_weather_condition (atmosphere to ground) and the foul weather electric field .https://web.archive.org/web/20080317074712/http://science.nasa.gov:80/newhome/headlines/essd15jun99_1.htm (from the ground up) .
The link I left to, Schrodinger’s Cat May 6, 2017 at 11:40 am By Brian Tinsley I thought gave a good understanding, but the site went down a couple of day’s after I posted the link. There mite be more people interested in how the Global electric circuit works then first thought.
http://www.ferluga.net/didattica/Elettr-Atm.pdf
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Charge.html
Some more information on how the Sun and Earth interact.
“Earth is surrounded by a giant magnetic bubble called the magnetosphere. As it travels through space, a complex system of charged particles from the sun and magnetic structures piles up in front of it. Scientists wish to better understand this area in front of the bow shock, known as the foreshock, as it can help explain how energy from the rest of space makes its way past this boundary into the magnetosphere. Credit: Credit: NASA/GSFC”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/wind-slamswaves.html
“A new paper printed on May 12, 2016, in Science provides the first observations from inside a magnetic reconnection event. The research shows that magnetic reconnection is dominated by the physics of electrons — thus providing crucial information about what powers this fundamental process in nature.”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-directly-observes-fundamental-process-of-nature-for-1st-time