|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 6, 2011 22:08:24 GMT
The data does not allow trend lines to be drawn with any confidence other that the linear [minimum assumption] line. The ratio ~SSN/(Flux-66) does not show a solar cycle dependence and is constant 1835-1990 [with the usual noise on top], but has fallen to about half of that value since, suggesting that L&P started about 1990. The SSN alone does not say anything about L&P. There is no evidence of L&P around 1810. L&P was likely present 1645-1715. are "magnetic needle" "Geomagnetic East component" and "F10.7 radio flux" "sfu flux" comparable all the times ? I think so. There is a very simple physical reason for this: the conductivity of the ionosphere varies with solar EUV. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 6, 2011 23:44:04 GMT
The change in rY is determined by the conductivity of the ionosphere [and of the speed of the tidal and thermal winds up there] so has nothing to do with the secular changes of Y [which are much too small to have any effect]. However, since the conductivity of the ionosphere is inversely proportional to the total field strength, the 10% decrease of the main field the past 150 years would lead to a 10% increase of the conductivity. There does seem to be about this change in rY over the past 150 years. On the other hand the actual electric current is the product of the conductivity and the electric field. Since the latter is roughly vxB, the electric field would be 10% lower, compensating for the increase in conductivity. The precise relationship remains to be worked out, though, and this is thus a research problem. |
|
|
|
Post by france on Feb 7, 2011 8:56:09 GMT
[quote author=france board=general thread=622 post=63916 time=1297026700 are "magnetic needle" "Geomagnetic East component" and "F10.7 radio flux" "sfu flux" comparable all the times ? thanks dr Svalgaard. I have an other question : what the difference between aa index and Geomagnetic East component ? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 7, 2011 9:14:36 GMT
[quote author=france board=general thread=622 post=63916 time=1297026700 are "magnetic needle" "Geomagnetic East component" and "F10.7 radio flux" "sfu flux" comparable all the times ? I think so. There is a very simple physical reason for this: the conductivity of the ionosphere varies with solar EUV. thanks dr Svalgaard, but I have an other question : what the difference between aa index and Geomagnetic East component ?[/quote] The important element was the variation, rY, of the East component, not the East component itself. The value if rY is determined by the solar UV, while the aa-index is determined by the solar wind. So the two indices measure very different things, although both have a solar cycle variation. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 7, 2011 16:12:09 GMT
Perhaps I left out the crucial bit: ‘Regarding the magnetic needle reconstructions, since magnetic needle does not differentiate between two types of magnetic signal, secular geomagnetic and ionospheric’. 1: they are not reconstructions, but direct measurements. 2: the secular signal does not come in, only in so far that it modifies the conductivity slightly of the ionosphere on time scale of decades or longer. This is what the 'magnetic needle' variations look like:  Each division on the X-axis is one day. |
|
bradk
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 199
|
Post by bradk on Feb 8, 2011 12:34:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by france on Feb 8, 2011 23:33:25 GMT
The change in rY is determined by the conductivity of the ionosphere [and of the speed of the tidal and thermal winds up there] so has nothing to do with the secular changes of Y [which are much too small to have any effect]. However, since the conductivity of the ionosphere is inversely proportional to the total field strength, the 10% decrease of the main field the past 150 years would lead to a 10% increase of the conductivity. There does seem to be about this change in rY over the past 150 years. On the other hand the actual electric current is the product of the conductivity and the electric field. Since the latter is roughly vxB, the electric field would be 10% lower, compensating for the increase in conductivity. The precise relationship remains to be worked out, though, and this is thus a research problem. Dr Svalgaard, what is exactly rY ? and where can we follow this value ? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 8, 2011 23:54:49 GMT
The change in rY is determined by the conductivity of the ionosphere [and of the speed of the tidal and thermal winds up there] so has nothing to do with the secular changes of Y [which are much too small to have any effect]. However, since the conductivity of the ionosphere is inversely proportional to the total field strength, the 10% decrease of the main field the past 150 years would lead to a 10% increase of the conductivity. There does seem to be about this change in rY over the past 150 years. On the other hand the actual electric current is the product of the conductivity and the electric field. Since the latter is roughly vxB, the electric field would be 10% lower, compensating for the increase in conductivity. The precise relationship remains to be worked out, though, and this is thus a research problem. Dr Svalgaard, what is exactly rY ? and where can we follow this value ? More info here: www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdfand here: www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdfThere is nobody at the present time that publishes these values [except me - from time to time] |
|
|
|
Post by france on Feb 9, 2011 10:29:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 9, 2011 15:51:01 GMT
When a conductor moves with velocity v across a magnetic field of strength B and electric field E is created which has the value E = v times B. So, if the magnetic field B decreases 10%, the electric field also decreases 10%. The graph on page 14 does not track temperatures. For example, the red curve in middle of the 19th century is at the same level at during the 20th century, while temperatures have risen perhaps 1 degree from the 19th to the 20th century. So, there is no correlation with temperature. |
|
|
|
Post by france on Feb 10, 2011 22:07:51 GMT
[quote author=lsvalgaard board=general thread=622 post=64121 time=1297266661The graph on page 14 does not track temperatures. For example, the red curve in middle of the 19th century is at the same level at during the 20th century, while temperatures have risen perhaps 1 degree from the 19th to the 20th century. So, there is no correlation with temperature.[/quote] I see, dr Svalgaard, may be the conductivity of ionosphere (electric field as you explain) has something to do with the fact the same levels of curves generate a difference of 1° C in Earth temperatures. You say yourself there is 10% of difference since past 150 years . I mean the accumulation of heat could modify the conductivity and electric field all along the years. At the begining it could be less warm and at the end (modern epoch) it could be warmer. It's a question I ask for a long time. How ionosphere and so on stratospher and tropospher evolve ? 10 % in 150 years it's a reason to consider the question. Don't you think so ? So it'sn't because the curves are at the same level temperatures should be the same. What about the 10% of difference ? I think the gathering should have a weight not negligible on global atmospher up and down. I don't know if I explain well my thinking. Do you understand what I mean ? This study indicates a strong correlation climate and solar evolution and p 33 there is a graph of electric charges in atmosphere. What do you think about it ? indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576 |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 10, 2011 23:16:35 GMT
[quote author=lsvalgaard board=general thread=622 post=64121 time=1297266661The graph on page 14 does not track temperatures. For example, the red curve in middle of the 19th century is at the same level at during the 20th century, while temperatures have risen perhaps 1 degree from the 19th to the 20th century. So, there is no correlation with temperature. I see, dr Svalgaard, may be the conductivity of ionosphere (electric field as you explain) has something to do with the fact the same levels of curves generate a difference of 1° C in Earth temperatures. You say yourself there is 10% of difference since past 150 years . I mean the accumulation of heat could modify the conductivity and electric field all along the years. At the begining it could be less warm and at the end (modern epoch) it could be warmer. It's a question I ask for a long time. How ionosphere and so on stratospher and tropospher evolve ? 10 % in 150 years it's a reason to consider the question. Don't you think so ? So it'sn't because the curves are at the same level temperatures should be the same. What about the 10% of difference ? I think the gathering should have a weight not negligible on global atmospher up and down. I don't know if I explain well my thinking. Do you understand what I mean ? This study indicates a strong correlation climate and solar evolution and p 33 there is a graph of electric charges in atmosphere. What do you think about it ? indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576[/quote] [/quote] First: the density of the ionosphere is extremely small so its temperature has no impact on the heat budget.
Second:
The Kirby paper is long and we'll see how the experiment comes out. Personally I don't think the effect is there. |
|
|
|
Post by france on Feb 14, 2011 22:15:45 GMT
Yes Kirby paper is long Dr Svalgaard. On the other one observation of particles burst prior Chili earthquakes arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1011/1011.3592v1.pdfand on this one study of hight latitude of ionospher : the coupling magnetospher solar wind (in French I'm sorry but pictures are add in caption in english) Romain Maggiolo (Maggiolo et al submittted to Ann Geo) show the graph in range 30 (there is no pagination  ) he explains that with earth measurements it appears that aurorae begin around 2 hours after IMF north and disappeared around after 20 minutes IMF south. With others graphs he shows for the conductivity (range 13, 14,15, 16..) I understand that the current drives out when IMF is N but it penetrates atmospher when IMF is S. If not how do you explain the fact aurorae disarpeare when IMF is S ? (see range 21 : Roth et al 1993 (1), Echim et al 2007, 2008 (2). (1) Peripheral discontinuities can produce convergent electric fields of which height scale runs in connection with discrete auroral arch. (2) coupling this discontiunities with ionospher electric current system is generated Auroral archs are generated when IMF is N according the first observation I wrote (p 13, 14, 15, 16) if not it's when IMF is S. There is something strange with this thread  |
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Feb 18, 2011 0:15:08 GMT
Leif I have noticed over the last 2 weeks that despite the unprecedented SSN and SFI Numbers the readings for 304A radiation is still considerably lower than what it was last Fall when the SFI was struggling to break 90. At that time the 304A was readinga photon count of 230 now it's hovering around 215. I'm trying to find an explanation for this ? The only thing I can think of is the fact that the earth's orbit around the Sun is slightly elliptical. Varying about a million miles. Can this be the cause ?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 18, 2011 0:35:18 GMT
Leif I have noticed over the last 2 weeks that despite the unprecedented SSN and SFI Numbers the readings for 304A radiation is still considerably lower than what it was last Fall when the SFI was struggling to break 90. At that time the 304A was readinga photon count of 230 now it's hovering around 215. I'm trying to find an explanation for this ? The only thing I can think of is the fact that the earth's orbit around the Sun is slightly elliptical. Varying about a million miles. Can this be the cause ? Since both 304 and SFI are photons they are subject to the same variation with distance [which in any case is maximally 6.6%]. Chalk it up to a messy Sun. |
|
) he explains that with earth measurements it appears that aurorae begin around 2 hours after IMF north and disappeared around after 20 minutes IMF south. With others graphs he shows for the conductivity (range 13, 14,15, 16..) I understand that the current drives out when IMF is N but it penetrates atmospher when IMF is S. If not how do you explain the fact aurorae disarpeare when IMF is S ?
