Study: When the sun pulses X-rays, Earth’s ionosphere pulses in sync

A team of scientists led by solar physicist Laura Hayes investigated a connection between solar flares and Earth’s atmosphere. They discovered pulses in the electrified layer of the atmosphere – called the ionosphere – mirrored X-ray oscillations during a July 24, 2016 flare.

 

NASA Detects Solar Flare Pulses at Sun and Earth

When our Sun erupts with giant explosions — such as bursts of radiation called solar flares — we know they can affect space throughout the solar system as well as near Earth. But monitoring their effects requires having observatories in many places with many perspectives, much the way weather sensors all over Earth can help us monitor what’s happening with a terrestrial storm.

By using multiple observatories, two recent studies show how solar flares exhibit pulses or oscillations in the amount of energy being sent out. Such research provides new insights on the origins of these massive solar flares as well as the space weather they produce, which is key information as humans and robotic missions venture out into the solar system, farther and farther from home.

The first study spotted oscillations during a flare — unexpectedly — in measurements of the Sun’s total output of extreme ultraviolet energy, a type of light invisible to human eyes. On Feb. 15, 2011, the Sun emitted an X-class solar flare, the most powerful kind of these intense bursts of radiation. Because scientists had multiple instruments observing the event, they were able to track oscillations in the flare’s radiation, happening simultaneously in several different sets of observations.

SDO observations of 2011 X-class flare
NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory captured these images of an X-class flare on Feb. 15, 2011.
Credits: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/SDO

“Any type of oscillation on the Sun can tell us a lot about the environment the oscillations are taking place in, or about the physical mechanism responsible for driving changes in emission,” said Ryan Milligan, lead author of this first study and solar physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and the University of Glasgow in Scotland. In this case, the regular pulses of extreme ultraviolet light indicated disturbances — akin to earthquakes — were rippling through the chromosphere, the base of the Sun’s outer atmosphere, during the flare.

What surprised Milligan about the oscillations was the fact that they were first observed in extreme ultraviolet data from NOAA’s GOES — short for Geostationary Operation Environmental Satellite, which resides in near-Earth space. The mission studies the Sun from Earth’s perspective, collecting X-ray and extreme ultraviolet irradiance data — the total amount of the Sun’s energy that reaches Earth’s atmosphere over time.

This wasn’t a typical data set for Milligan. While GOES helps monitor the effects of solar eruptions in Earth’s space environment — known collectively as space weather — the satellite wasn’t initially designed to detect fine details like these oscillations.

When studying solar flares, Milligan more commonly uses high-resolution data on a specific active region in the Sun’s atmosphere to study the physical processes underlying flares. This is often necessary in order to zoom in on events in a particular area — otherwise they can easily be lost against the backdrop of the Sun’s constant, intense radiation.

“Flares themselves are very localized, so for the oscillations to be detected above the background noise of the Sun’s regular emissions and show up in the irradiance data was very striking,” Milligan said.

There have been previous reports of oscillations in GOES X-ray data coming from the Sun’s upper atmosphere, called the corona, during solar flares. What’s unique in this case is that the pulses were observed in extreme ultraviolet emission at frequencies that show they originated lower, in the chromosphere, providing more information about how a flare’s energy travels throughout through the Sun’s atmosphere.

To be sure the oscillations were real, Milligan and his colleagues checked corresponding data from other Sun-observing instruments on board NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory or SDO, for short: one that also collects extreme ultraviolet irradiance data and another that images the corona in different wavelengths of light. They found the exact same pulses in those data sets, confirming they were a phenomenon with its source at the Sun. Their findings are summarized in a paper published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters on Oct. 9, 2017.

These oscillations interest the scientists because they may be the result of a mechanism by which flares emit energy into space — a process we don’t yet fully understand. Additionally, the fact that the oscillations appeared in data sets typically used to monitor larger space patterns suggests they could play a role in driving space weather effects.

In the second study, scientists investigated a connection between solar flares and activity in Earth’s atmosphere. The team discovered that pulses in the electrified layer of the atmosphere — called the ionosphere — mirrored X-ray oscillations during a July 24, 2016, C-class flare. C-class flares are of mid-to-low intensity, and about 100 times weaker than X-flares.

Stretching from roughly 30 to 600 miles above Earth’s surface, the ionosphere is an ever-changing region of the atmosphere that reacts to changes from both Earth below and space above. It swells in response to incoming solar radiation, which ionizes atmospheric gases, and relaxes at night as the charged particles gradually recombine.

In particular, the team of scientists — led by Laura Hayes, a solar physicist who splits her time between NASA Goddard and Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, and her thesis adviser Peter Gallagher — looked at how the lowest layer of the ionosphere, called the D-region, responded to pulsations in a solar flare.

“This is the region of the ionosphere that affects high-frequency communications and navigation signals,” Hayes said. “Signals travel through the D-region, and changes in the electron density affect whether the signal is absorbed, or degraded.”

The scientists used data from very low frequency, or VLF, radio signals to probe the flare’s effects on the D-region. These were standard communication signals transmitted from Maine and received in Ireland. The denser the ionosphere, the more likely these signals are to run into charged particles along their way from a signal transmitter to its receiver. By monitoring how the VLF signals propagate from one end to the other, scientists can map out changes in electron density.

Pooling together the VLF data and X-ray and extreme ultraviolet observations from GOES and SDO, the team found the D-region’s electron density was pulsing in concert with X-ray pulses on the Sun. They published their results in the Journal of Geophysical Research on Oct. 17, 2017.

“X-rays impinge on the ionosphere and because the amount of X-ray radiation coming in is changing, the amount of ionization in the ionosphere changes too,” said Jack Ireland, a co-author on both studies and Goddard solar physicist. “We’ve seen X-ray oscillations before, but the oscillating ionosphere response hasn’t been detected in the past.”

Hayes and her colleagues used a model to determine just how much the electron density changed during the flare. In response to incoming radiation, they found the density increased as much as 100 times in just 20 minutes during the pulses — an exciting observation for the scientists who didn’t expect oscillating signals in a flare would have such a noticeable effect in the ionosphere. With further study, the team hopes to understand how the ionosphere responds to X-ray oscillations at different timescales, and whether other solar flares induce this response.

“This is an exciting result, showing Earth’s atmosphere is more closely linked to solar X-ray variability than previously thought,” Hayes said. “Now we plan to further explore this dynamic relationship between the Sun and Earth’s atmosphere.”

Both of these studies took advantage of the fact that we are increasingly able to track solar activity and space weather from a number of vantage points. Understanding the space weather that affects us at Earth requires understanding a dynamic system that stretches from the Sun all the way to our upper atmosphere — a system that can only be understood by tapping into a wide range of missions scattered throughout space.

Advertisements

50 thoughts on “Study: When the sun pulses X-rays, Earth’s ionosphere pulses in sync

  1. Great stuff. As an ex Radio Officer in the Merchant Navy I can actually understand most of this. When communicating to Portishead Radio in Morse code from the Pacific and Indian oceans we had to determine which short wave frequency to select depending on weather and daylight/nighttime conditions.
    During Sun spot eruptions, we just poured another gin and tonic and gave up.
    BTW not one mention of global warming in this article – is this a first for you Anthony?

    • No but it is a first for “science”. A paper which studies the Earth’s atmosphere without a genuflection reference to AGW or CO2.

      Truly unprecedented.

  2. It is known that here on Earth,that large earthquakes can result in detectable ionospheric disturbances.


    On March 28, 2005, the over-the-horizon radar prototype Nostradamus wasn’t operative. After the first early seismic information (received by cell phone (SGREAMS, Seismic Global Relay, and Event Alert by Mail and SMS, http://ganymede.ipgp.jussieu.fr/∼gabsi/)) I (the “I” refer to the first author (G. Occhipinti) who was alone during the measurement of the OTH radar but in contact by cell phone with his co-authors) jumped in a cab to go to the radar control center and catch, at least, the Rayleigh wave phase R2. Surface waves generated by large earthquakes travel around the world several times: we call R1 the first and more energetic wave reaching the observation point A, consequently R2 is the second wave reaching A, after having travelled around the world (Figure 1). We weren’t interested in measuring the Rayleigh wave at the surface of the Earth but its signature in the ionosphere. Surface displacement induced by Rayleigh waves is known to produce, by dynamic coupling, an acoustic wave that,propagating upward in the atmosphere, is strongly amplified by the combined effects of the decrease of atmospheric density ρ and the conservation of kinetic energy Ec = ρv2, where v is the local velocity perturbed by the wave propagation. Reaching the altitude over 80 km the generated acoustic wave interacts with the ionosphere creating strong variations in the plasma velocity and plasma density, detectable by ionospheric sounding (e.g., Doppler sounders, Incoherent Scatter Radar, GPS).
    (read more here:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL044009/full )

    Not too surprising that is the case for the sun too. The observation of coupling to the Earth’s ionosphere by X-ray and EUV is a nice find.

    The Earth got hit with a series of X class flares events in the first half of this recent Sept 2017. Probably the same happened then. Heating of the stratosphere from these events likely is observable by the AMSU data that UAH and RSS analyze in the Temp data sets.

    (My conjecture) Those high flux EUV events from X class flares probably create an elevated pulse of stratospheric ozone too. Elevated ozone concentrations that then continues to help keep the stratosphere heated long after the solar X-class EUV/X-ray EM pulse has subsided.

  3. It is known that here on Earth,that large earthquakes can result in detectable ionospheric disturbances.


    On March 28, 2005, the over-the-horizon radar prototype Nostradamus wasn’t operative. After the first early seismic information (received by cell phone (SGREAMS, Seismic Global Relay, and Event Alert by Mail and SMS, http://ganymede.ipgp.jussieu.fr/∼gabsi/)) I (the “I” refer to the first author (G. Occhipinti) who was alone during the measurement of the OTH radar but in contact by cell phone with his co-authors) jumped in a cab to go to the radar control center and catch, at least, the Rayleigh wave phase R2. Surface waves generated by large earthquakes travel around the world several times: we call R1 the first and more energetic wave reaching the observation point A, consequently R2 is the second wave reaching A, after having travelled around the world (Figure 1). We weren’t interested in measuring the Rayleigh wave at the surface of the Earth but its signature in the ionosphere. Surface displacement induced by Rayleigh waves is known to produce, by dynamic coupling, an acoustic wave that,propagating upward in the atmosphere, is strongly amplified by the combined effects of the decrease of atmospheric density ρ and the conservation of kinetic energy Ec = ρv2, where v is the local velocity perturbed by the wave propagation. Reaching the altitude over 80 km the generated acoustic wave interacts with the ionosphere creating strong variations in the plasma velocity and plasma density, detectable by ionospheric sounding (e.g., Doppler sounders, Incoherent Scatter Radar, GPS).
    (read more here:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL044009/full )

    Not too surprising that is the case for the sun too. The observation of coupling to the Earth’s ionosphere by X-ray and EUV is a nice find.

    The Earth got hit with a series of X class flares events in the first half of this recent Sept 2017. Probably the same happened then. Heating of the stratosphere from these events likely is observable by the AMSU data that UAH and RSS analyze in the Temp data sets.

    (My conjecture) Those high flux EUV events from X class flares probably create an elevated pulse of stratospheric ozone too. Elevated ozone concentrations that then continues to help keep the stratosphere heated long after the solar X-class EUV/X-ray EM pulse has subsided.

  4. “This is an exciting result, showing Earth’s atmosphere is more closely linked to solar X-ray variability than previously thought,”

    Well fancy that, the sun having an influence on Earth’s atmosphere…that must be 97% unprecedented !!
    but good to know they plan to look at it.

    Hayes said. “Now we plan to further explore this dynamic relationship between the Sun and Earth’s atmosphere.”

    translation = give us some more money

  5. The is also the SuperDARN network around the world that studies high latitude F-region auroral events.
    From Wikipedia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Dual_Auroral_Radar_Network
    The Super Dual Auroral Radar Network (SuperDARN) is an international scientific radar network[1][2] consisting of 35[3] high frequency (HF) radars located in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. SuperDARN radars are primarily used to map high-latitude plasma convection in the F region of the ionosphere, but the radars are also used to study a wider range of geospace phenomena including field aligned currents, magnetic reconnection, geomagnetic storms and substorms, magnetospheric MHD waves, mesospheric winds via meteor ionization trails, and interhemispheric plasma convection asymmetries.

  6. And what has this to do with global arming and climate change? Oh I get it. Manufacture doubt, muddy the water, shift the focus to anything but elephant stomping around the room. Smh.

    1saveenergy November 22, 2017 at 10:28 am
    “Well fancy that, the sun having an influence on Earth’s atmosphere…that must be 97% unprecedented !!…

    …translation = give us some more money”

    Nice work 1saveenergy, you’ve just been slam-dunked.

    Not only a shiny squirrel but those stoopid sciencey types get a dissin’ too.

    In other news: Humans dump 40Gt…belch expected.

    • tony
      This is interesting science.

      Many folk invoke the Sun – as having a bigger effect than a gas that is not present at all to the nearest one-tenth of a percent in Earth’s atmosphere [yes, four hundredths of one percent, as in about 1940, so it is there, but as a pretty small component].
      And a gas, moreover, that absorbs a small selection of wavelengths, and few indeed that are not already absorbed by water vapour.
      IIRC an illustration of this was posted on this site in the last few days.
      Has climate changed?
      Yes. It has done that for aeons.
      Has the human race caused climate change?
      Locally, certainly – UHIs, etc.
      More widely – well, the data manipulation [not just changing [adjusting, in a sense that suits the Team’s narrative] numbers, but closing sites where negligible (or negative) temperature change is recorded] can be said to be human-caused warming records.

      Does CO2 have an effect?
      Probably – my reading of the literature.
      Is it significant?
      Hell, no! I am not sure it is discernible. Again, my opinion.
      Do I have any ‘standing’ [before my seventh glass of wine; after that, less so, perhaps?]?
      I have followed weather, as an amateur, then professionally as a Master Mariner, when my life – and those of twenty-five others – could depend on it.

      Happy Thanksgiving!

      Auto

      • Auto you express your opinion well but I disagree.
        Trivialising the concentration, downplaying the absorbtion, etc. None of it being supported by any evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence).
        Opinions may change if they are exposed to new and compelling observations.

        Sometimes it’s hard to tell from within this bubble, but your opinions are held by only a tiny minority of the people who are well-trained experts in their fields. That doesn’t mean you are wrong. But I implore you to look anew at latest research.

        Reveiw the latest literature like this pretty graphical snapshot from here https://phys.org/news/2016-11-climate-sensitive-atmospheric-co2.html

        Global mean temperature anomaly with respect to preindustrial reference level. Left panel: Reconstruction of last 784,000 yrs. Right panel: Global warming projection to 2100 based on newly calculated paleoclimate sensitivity. Credit: Friedrich, et al. (2016)

        If there are flaws (as have been exposed by further cited studies) then what are they?

        You are entitled to your opinion Auto. But I really don’t understand how you or anyone, IF you have read the literature, and IF you do not have a financial interest, can come to the opposite opinion.

        I doubt you have a financial interest so I assume you have just not reasonbly appraised youself of the Published Scientific Literature.

      • Global warming projection to 2100 based on newly calculated paleoclimate sensitivity. Credit: Friedrich, et al. (2016)
        If there are flaws (as have been exposed by further cited studies) then what are they?

        Because actual climate sensitivity is a fraction of a degree /doubling.
        Here is a link where I calculate from TSI, and NCDC GSoD surface temperature data, the sensitivity to insolation in degree F/Whr/day. Divide by 43.2 to get instantaneous rate in C.
        https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/

        And that water vapor regulates cooling, co2 has little affect on Min T, the one requirement for CO2 to warm.
        https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/

      • Regarding the Sun and Earth surface temperature effects, consider the following contradictory statements.

        Radiation from the Sun incident on the Earth “peaks” in the infrared (IR) band, so it is not surprising that a large portion of the incoming solar radiation never reaches the Earth’s surface because it is absorbed by the Earth’s atmospheric greenhouse gases, which absorb electromagnetic radiation in the IR band. This has a tendency to cool the Earth’s surface.

        Radiation from the Sun incident on the Earth “peaks” in the visible band, so instead of being appreciably absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, incoming solar radiation passes essentially unattenuated through the Earth’s atmosphere, which because greenhouse gases absorb outgoing Earth radiation has a tendency to warm the Earth’s surface.

        Both of the above claims can’t be correct. In fact, they both contain elements of truth; and they both present that truth in a way designed to convey a desired message. Specifically, the latter is worded to imply greenhouse gases are heating the Earth because greenhouse gases have little impact on the rate at which the Earth receives (gains) energy but have a significant impact on the rate Earth emits (loses) energy. The former is worded to imply greenhouse gases also have a significant impact on incoming solar radiation, thereby providing a cooling influence to Earth surface temperature.

        Whether or not incoming solar radiation “peaks” in the IR or visible band is a function of the way in which solar radiation is characterized—per unit frequency interval or per unit wavelength interval. The distribution of solar radiation as a function of frequency/wavelength is called the “Spectral Radiance” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law) and is often expressed in one of two related but different ways. According to the above reference

        “The spectral radiance of a body, Bf, describes the amount of energy it gives off as radiation of different frequencies. It is measured in terms of the power emitted per unit area of the body, per unit solid angle that the radiation is measured over, per unit frequency. Planck showed that the spectral radiance of a body for frequency f at absolute temperature T is given by

        Bf(f,T) = [(2*h*f^3)/c^2] / {e^[h*f/(k*T)] – 1}

        “where k the Boltzmann constant, h the Planck constant, and c the speed of light in the medium, whether material or vacuum. The spectral radiance can also be measured per unit wavelength L instead of per unit frequency. In this case, it is given by

        BL(L,T) = [(2*h*c^2)/L^5] / {e^[h*c/(k*T*L)] – 1}”

        Note that the two spectral radiance expressions are not the same—even with a substitution of f=c/L in the former (or equivalently L=c/f in the latter). Thus, when addressing the issue of the “peak” of the incoming solar radiation, one must identify which spectral radiance expression (frequency or wavelength) is being used. The most direct way to see that the two expressions give different results is to examine the two forms of Wien’s Law. Wien’s Law gives the frequency/wavelength at which radiation from a black body at temperature T Kelvin is a maximum. The frequency and wavelength forms of Wien’s Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law) are:

        frequency_peak (in Hertz) = 58,789,254,206 * T

        where T is the temperature in Kelvin of the black body;

        wavelength_peak (in meters) = 0.00289776829 / T

        From these equations, the product of frequency_peak and wavelength_peak is 170,357,637 meters per second, not 299,792,458 meters per second—the speed of light in a vacuum. That is, the frequency_peak does NOT correspond to the wavelength_peak in the sense that the two are related by the equation

        Frequency * wavelength = velocity of light in a vacuum.

        Incoming solar radiation is often modeled as radiation from a black body at approximately 5,778 Kelvin. At 5,778 Kelvin, the peak frequency for the spectral radiance per unit frequency is 3.4*10^14 Hertz, which corresponds to a wavelength of approximately 0.88 microns. At 5,778 Kelvin the peak wavelength for the spectral radiance per unit wavelength is 0.5 microns, which corresponds to a frequency of approximately 6*10^14 Hertz.

        According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared, (a) the visible band of the electromagnetic spectrum exists between frequencies of 4.3*10^14 Hertz and 7.9*10^14 Hertz (0.4 microns to 0.7 microns), and (b) the IR band of the electromagnetic spectrum exists between frequencies of 3*10^11 Hertz and 4.3*10^14 Hertz (0.4 microns to 0.7 microns to 1,000 microns). Thus, the frequency and wavelength at which the spectral radiance per unit wavelength is a maximum exist in the visible band; whereas the frequency and wavelength at which the spectral radiance per unit frequency is a maximum exist in the IR band. Based on this fact, it is every bit as correct to say “incoming solar radiation peaks in the IR band” as it is to say “incoming solar radiation peaks in the visible band.” Since outside the stellar/planetary radiation community, the term “spectrum” is more often associated with “frequency” than “wavelength,” if anything it is more correct to say the solar spectrum peaks in the IR band, not the visible band. However, both are correct.

        As I see it, the choice is sometimes dictated by the message the writer/speaker wants to convey: Use wavelength spectral distribution to make the point that CO2 will contribute to Earth surface warming because as a greenhouse gas it allows solar radiation, which peaks in the visible band, to pass unattenuated through atmospheric CO2., Use frequency spectral distribution to make that point that CO2 won’t contribute to Earth surface warming because incoming solar radiation peaks in the IR band and hence will be partially absorbed by atmospheric CO2, thus resulting in Earth surface cooling.

  7. For too long NASA has ignored the elephant in the living room, natural variability, so as to continue to propagate its Global Warming scam. This is a welcome change. The effects discussed are probably small and temporary, but this is an important work nevertheless, if it opens the door to a serious study of natural variability.

    • Hmm. Natural variation streaking towards 5 or 600.

      An abrupt, baked in 10,000 year change to the atmoshere is… a scam? Break out of your bubble son.

      • Oh look, NOT ONCE was peak CO2 able to maintain peak temperature..

        In FACT, peak CO2 was ALWAYS followed by a steep DROP in temperature.

        There is NO CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE, Mc Clod.

        Not in sea level rise, Not in the satellite data.

        NOWHERE.

        .

      • Andy
        Actually you are slightly wrong:
        Peak CO2 was not followed by a drop in temperature.
        Peak CO2 occurred every time several centuries AFTER peak temperature, AFTER temperatures had starting falling precipitously at glacial inception.
        That delayed CO2 peak at glacial inception is one of the strongest falsifiers of the delusion that CO2 drives temperatures.
        CO2 is simply a lagged proxy of temperature.

      • Yep probably badly worded.

        What I should have said was that..

        At every peak in CO2, the temperature was dropping rapidly.

    • TM
      We simply DONT KNOW the past CO2 concs or temperatures at high frequency with sub century timescales.
      Palaeo data is grossly smoothed.
      Your side hide this fact in order to claim recent changes as “unprecedented”.
      As in Shakun-not-stirred reconstruction blurring to death the Holocene by mixing dozens of dodgy proxies.
      You cant bolt instrumental onto Palaeo.
      Not even if your name is Mike.
      Granted today’s CO2 may well be a several million year high point. (Not clear if bad or good.)
      But the temperatures – not so much.

      • Do you dispute that it could take in the order of thousands of years for ‘who knows what’ effects of this abrupt pulse of CO2/methane to dissipate back into the long-turn signal?

        And if not, do you think the word “scam” amply desribes the motives of those wanting to study those possible effects?

      • TM
        All evidence-based scientific research into climate dynamics is of course welcome.
        Now here’s a curious thing.
        In writing the above post (starting with “we simply DONT KNOW…”) I at first included a line with the word “scam”.
        Then I thought better of it and deleted it before posting the response.
        But your reply comments on the use of the word “scam”.
        Can’t help thinking that’s strange.
        Do you have a software tool that shows you what posters are writing before they hit the “post comment” button?
        If so, who is providing you with such powerful software tools – and why?
        Who are you working for?
        (Can’t be the Russians surely??)

      • I used that word above and the comment went to moderation. Five minutes later it was out of moderation. It just depends on whether a moderator is paying attention at the moment.

      • pochas
        It’s not about moderation.
        I wrote the word “scam” – then deleted it – BEFORE hitting the “post comment button”.
        But Tony responded to my use of “scam” (which was not in what I actually posted.)
        Spooky!
        Have just passed it for publication, hope there are no more ghosts in your machine! .Mod

  8. I presented three papers at a symposium on Earth’s Near Space Environment, 18-21 February 1975, held at the National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi. They were published in Indian Journal of Radio & Space Physics, Vol. 6: 44-66. They are:

    Effect of Solar Flares on Lower Troposheric Temperature & Pressure — this was later identified as one of the 15 papers of unusual interest in the introduction chapter of volumes compiled on solar and terrestrial physics abstracts by SCOSTEP of American Academy of Sciences, 1966

    Power spectral analysis of lower stratospheric meteorological data of H, T, u & v

    Power spectral analysis of Total & Net Radiation Intensities

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Conti—

      The effect of solar flares on lower troposheric [i.e., ground surface, 850, 700 & 500 mbar levels) temperature and pressure [i.e., dynamic height of the constant pressure) has been studied. The data of 81 flares for the period 1957-59 at a few selected stations in India have been analyzed.

      The analysis showed that the effect of solar flare occurs in a 24-hr period, while the influence starts receding after 48-hr. The change in magnitude of the solar flare influence is observed to decrease with decrease of altitude. The effect on pressure is more pronounced compared to that on temperature.

      The change in the magnitude of the solar flare influence is seen to depend on the intensity of the flare but not on the time of occurrence of the flare.

      The same type of seasonal variation [i.e., winter maximum and summer minimum] is not seen at all the stations, but this variation shows a considerable relation to the general circulation pattern over the region in different seasons.

      From this analysis, it is suggested that the wave radiation is the probable cause for the observed variation within 24-hr of the flare outburst.

      Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  9. Fascinating! I wonder if these pulses effect our sensitive brains and weather there is an emotional connection.

  10. I seen the surface of the sun and it move like the ocean, tidal waves that would be from the surface of the planet to above the moon in height and the sunspot also,but I have not been able to talk to anyone about this.

  11. The earth’s fluorescent response to solar xray flares presumably involves photoelectric absorption, at least to some extent? It would be interesting to know which elements are fluorescing? This would represent a kind of XRF (xray fluorescence) elemental analysis of the upper atmosphere based on characteristic emission energies.

    • But the characteristic xrays of the main atmospheric elements are so weak as to be more like high-energy UV than xrays, i.e. 282, 392 and 526 eV for C, N and O respectively. Only Argon has a characteristic at about 3keV that could be called an xray.

Comments are closed.