Solar Activity Report for 12/30/02
- The weekend geomagnetic activity has declined with the solar wind
speed as the Earth is exiting a high speed coronal hole solar wind
stream. However, the activity was quite impressive, triggering aurora
that were spotted and photographed as far south as Arizona. Some
quite beautiful aurora were protographed at several locations of
Canada and the northern US as well, as can be seen here :
The sunspot number continues to decline, and there is very little in
the way of sunspot activity to report at this time. There is another
small coronal hole that has rotated into view, however. Although it
is small, it is located squarely on the solar equator, and will be in
an Earth-pointing position very soon. Look for some solar wind gusts
to arrive along or about 1/4.
The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :
NOAA sunspot number : 44
SFI : 114
A index : 14
K index : 3
Solar wind speed : 466.6 km/sec
Solar wind density : 2.8 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 0.9 nPa
IMF : 5.2 nT
IMF Orientation : 0.7 nT South
Conditions for the last 24 hours :
No space weather storms were observed for the past 24 hours.
Foorecast for the next 24 hours :
No space weather storms are expected for the next 24 hours.
Solar activity forecast :
Solar activity is expected to be at very low to low levels.
Geomagnetic activity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be at quiet to unsettled levels.
Isolated active conditions are possible on day one due to the elevated
solar wind speed (approximately 500 km/sec).
Recent significant solar flare activity :
- --- In email@example.com, "mike" <mike@u...> wrote:
> It's been raining here days on end--I'd say impressive.THERE you are! I was beginning to get a little worried about you! We
had a beautiful weekend in SC. Absolutely goregeous, if a bit cool on
Saturday. Rain is predicted for New Year's Day.
- Many of my comments below assume the read has read Richard Lindzen's
big paper. Lindzen's paper on 'iris' is available at
\ 477&volume= 082&issue=03&page=0417 for the abstract, and the
link "print version" leads to a PDF of the full article.
I NEVER say that this paper mentions EMFs. To the contrary--I
specifically say it does not and SHOULD HAVE and focused on the data
in this paper. But his instincts are right--just the issue and
conclusion are wrong.
Let me make some basic assertions so I can get to my very specific
1. Lindzen is not trained/educated in EMFs.
2. Neither are any of the big name climatologists on clouds like
Hartmann, Fu, Wielicki. (See eg
http://www.albany.edu/~yfq/resume_txt.html for Hartmann's resume).
The only exception to this are a handful of sceintists looking at
gamma rays and glacial ages (See
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/iaci_workshop ) and they have not had
much press on what that means to climate systems and the way they
3. These same scientists have no substantial biology training.
4. There are three main ocean currents during La Nina in the tropical
5. There is little if any upwelling in the tropical West Pac. during
La Nina--and hence lack of biological activity for lack of chemistry
to start the food chain.
6. Lindzen's DATA showed an inverse relationship between cloud
wieghted SSTs and cirrus cloud cover.
7. Cirrus clouds cause an IR warming underneath them. It is
substantial (see Fu/Hartmann papers).
8. The Equatorial moves in the direction of west to east and contains
the warmest waters.
9. The North and South Equatorials each move from east to west.
10. Hence, a plausable cause of the inverse relationship is direction
of current--not SSTs. This answers the question above about whether
thermodynamics rules or EMFs.
11. This plausable cause of an inverse relationship is supported by
the fact in other tropical locations where current directions and
biological activity is not the same as in the La Nina W. tropical
Pacific, no iris has been found Bruce A. Wielicki of the NASA Langley
Research Center believes that the iris images were not representative
of the entire tropics--his data from a different satellite caused him
to conclude, in a paper the Journal of Climate, that, on balance,
warmer tropical clouds would have a slight heating, not a cooling,
effect. More on that later.
12. Per Fleming's right hand rule the direction of movement of a
conducting material, in this case the ocean trade currents of the
tropical W. Pacific during La Nina, has significance in which
direction an electrical field would be inducted. Hold your right hand
out and rotate it for North Equatorial and Equatorial and see how the
x, y, and z axis moves . . . This varies an EMF term called
IMPEDANCE. It would have influence on low frequancy large area ion
movements--waves I call Doran waves. It should be noted that the
Equatorial current is slightly north of the geographical equator. But
the earth's magnetic poles are not centered either--which helps to
explain how dependant the relationship is of wind to EMFs . . .
13. Ci are enhanced simply because they can contain a charge and that
charge moves relative to EMF in the ionosphere and in the cloud
itself below the cirrus formations. With their low mass, Ci will be
moved or slowed from the forces of gravity by very small, large scale
14. Induction by ocean currents has been observed in peer reviewed
article: This link is to an abstract about measurable induction by
BUT, this is merely what ocean currents are like in the context of
the earth's EMF and ignores the "noise" of other EMFs. What I am
saying is that when a strike occurs this itself has an EMF in that
locality and for that short period, with itself is ORGANIZED in the
context of the earth's EMF. Hence, direction of current for these
outliners or noise is going to be more significant because we are
dealing with larger localized EMFs where ocean currents will become
more significant as a forcing to create electrical currents in that
locality. Just by itself, the earth's EMF is fairly small in relation
to a small scale to a region, so the induction off of it is likewise
fairly small, even over a large area. But in the context of upper
atmospheric EMFs then the direction of ocean currents start to matter
for their inductive properties depending on their direction. THEN,
this induction sums to be significant the inductance subpart of
impedence. Hence, when a Doran wave goes through the pulse of ions is
met with a varying EMF condition--just by direction of ocean current!
15. EMFs science is hard core supported emperical science. Rules of
EMF behavior have long been established. The only questions respect
the circuitry of a living earth.
16. "Cirrus" are studied in ground level labs by EMF suspension. The
move readily in EMFs. The mere existance of cirrus increases infra
red values under them such that more warm, moist air is drawn toward
them. In this way they feedback more cirrus--such that a forcing
that increases their survival rate becomes more than it is.
Now for my ENSO comments:
Let me frame an obvious problem that has been overlooked in the
climatology sciences respecting ENSO. If, say, we are in the spring
of 1998 and SSTs are literally on fire in the equatorial E. Pacific.
In the W. Pac., there is cold anomalies. Now assuming these two
conditions--what causes the winds to SHIFT? And shift hard? The
problem is if you have an answer it must make sense to the purely
thermodynamic. That will be difficult to do because if climate is
merely thermodyanic and incidentally having EMFs than cold waters to
the surface should NOT support convective processes that cause
thermodyanics that favor warming. Looking at it another way, you have
a problem with cirrus formation--why don't SSTs drive them in the
However, EMFs and Gaia provide a plausable answer to the question and
in my view the probable answer--and my view is well supported
emperically. Consider that the W. Pac during La Nina conditions gets
from the South Equatorial the end of a food chain. IOW, the upwelling
off the coast of Peru that brings the fish there also eventually
brings a depleted biosphere to the West Pac. But during an El Nino--
that isn't true. The winds reverse and upwelling occurs in the W.
Pac. Initially, this causes cold anomalies, of course, but it also
brings a food chain. Assuming that our models is purely thermodynamic
but with the added biological input, there may be a plausable
solution. Darker algaes may uptake solar radiation better than
lifeless ocean, and increase SSTs thereby. Yet, cloudless areas, even
with the added heat in the oceans, must account for huge IR values
that depart out into space.
Now, if we do include both a biological and an EMF model, the algae
bloom comes both with added surface albedo but also with surface
chemistry altered by the upwelling--with ions and other chemistry
that is more conductive. Surface plants and cells will collect and
retain this chemistry. Hence, the upwelling can cause a conductive
change that is significant even if SSTs have not yet reversed in such
a manner as to make the waters more conductive just based on
This back and forth of El Nino is a fairly recent occurance. It has
been the steady 2 to 7 years for about 4-5 thousand years. And during
this time humans emerged and climate has been extremely stable. The
modulation of chaotic/random inputs, such as solar insOlation, solar
EMF/CME, and orbital and other siesmic changes has been very steady.
During one aspect of ENSO net induction moves against cirrus (La
Nina) and cools around the world, either by storms or by letting
raditive energies escape into space, or both, and during the other
aspect (El Nino) cirrus are net enhanced globally by the induction
for cirrus. Part of the EMF proof of this is CO2 uptake is varied by
ENSO--and indicates how battery like changes in the oceans change and
cause a varied ocean exchange chemistry.
ENSO, IMHO, has proved to be a very powerful aspect of modulation for
a living earth. The other aspect, as I have discussed, is more
related to the near shore hydrology and oceans and EMFs there
specifically via hydrate activity but also through the same ion and
condutivity issues of living chemistry washed into the oceans.