That Unexplained Electro-magnetic complexity in Climate Change
Does the mystery of how the Sun’s outer corona (a few million degrees) is so much hotter than the Sun’s surface (5800 to 6000 C) have a hitherto unexplained connection to Earth’s climate? Perhaps solar flares are linked to global warming after all. Richard F Cronin explains:
I have contacted respected climate scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer regarding variations in the internal heat of the planet causing periodic warming and cooling (Herndon’s GeoReactor) and been informed that such internal variations are unlikely insufficient to explain global warming and cooling, although Herndon’s GeoReactor does explain the minor uptick in atmospheric CO2 and methane.
It may be quite a bit more complex and involves solar weather, solar flares and variations in the geomagnetic field. It is known that the sun’s magnetic field and the earth’s geomagnetic field interact as do the field coupling in a transformer. As these fields distort due to orbital variations as well as gyroscopic movement, the field distortions generate a Back EMF and ohmic heating on the source, although this would be a fairly minor heating effect.
The bands of radiation coming out of the fusion body of the Sun range from Ultraviolet, thru visible radiation, to the Infrared. Obviously, gamma radiation and X-rays are also emitted.
The bands of radiation emitted by solar flares range from soft x-rays (least energetic x-rays) to Extreme Ultraviolet (highest energy UV).
The narrow band between soft x-rays to EUV is Bharat radiation, with wavelengths of approx. 13 to 31 nanometers.
In 2013, Dr. M.a. Padmanabha Rao identified the Bharat radiation band as indicative of U-235 fission. See link:
In “The Fourth Source. Effects of Natural Nuclear Reactors” (publ. 2012), Robert J. Tuttle describes that with the conditions inside the Sun, U-235 and the fissile elements exist as superfine droplets. Just 1 (one) gram of these droplets coalescing together is sufficient to ignite a fission detonation. That would be a solar flare. A coronal mass ejection (CME) is a larger coalescence.
It has always been a mystery how the Sun’s outer corona (a few million degrees) is so much hotter than the Sun’s surface (5800 to 6000 C).
“Nanoflares” in the Sun’s corona had been predicted by Thomas Gold and colleagues in the 1960s. Now, a study led by Shin-nosuke Ishikawa from the Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) confirmed there are millions of “nanoflares” in the corona. The Nanoflares are a logical cause for the elevated temperature of the corona and greater solar output. Ishikawa and fellow researchers took very precise readings during a flight of JAXA’s Focusing Optics X-Ray Solar Imager (FOXSI-2) which launched from NASA’s site in New Mexico in December 2014.
Many sources have looked to solar flares linked to global warming. There seems to be a good case to revisit this thinking being that ‘Seven New Papers Forecast Global Cooling, Another Mini Ice Age Soon.’
Additional information comes from page 29 of this NOAA article ‘Solar Physics and Terrestial Effects:
“The solar wind and the magnetosphere form a vast electrical generator which converts the kinetic energy of solar wind particles into electrical energy. The power produced by this magnetohydrodynamic generator can exceed 10 to the 12th power in watts, roughly equal to the average rate of consumption of energy in the United States today! The very complex plasmas and currents in the magnetosphere are not fully understood.”
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
Trackback from your site.
Joseph Olson
| #
“Spencer Sorcery on Magic Gas” at FauxScienceSlayer website
Sorry, Roy is undertrained in Astronomy, Radiation Physics, Nuclear Physics and
Thermodynamics. Also see “Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux” at FSS site
Reply
Richard F. Cronin
| #
Thanks, Joseph. I’ll follow up on your resources, You have kindly offered your inputs in the past. I’m always trying to learn.
Reply
Jim McGinn
| #
Quote of NOAA website:
“The solar wind and the magnetosphere form a vast electrical generator which converts the kinetic energy of solar wind particles into electrical energy. The power produced by this magnetohydrodynamic generator can exceed 10 to the 12th power in watts, roughly equal to the average rate of consumption of energy in the United States today! The very complex plasmas and currents in the magnetosphere are not fully understood.”
Right. Earth’s whole atmosphere is greatly electrified (not just the magnetosphere). And where you have electrified gases you have the potential for plasmas. Storms, for example, are the result of electrified gases forming an H2O based plasma that facilitates rapid flow of gases and liquid water.
Meteorological notions of convection and advection are failed models in that they fail to account for the concentrated kinetic energy of storms which are only explicable through plasma-based vortices, as seen in jet streams and tornadoes.
Meteorological notions of atmospheric flow are just propaganda. They aren’t science.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p123034
Reply
Richard F. Cronin
| #
Thanks, James. I’ll follow up on your resources.
Reply
Rosco
| #
A couple of days ago the air temperature at my home ~2 km from the Pacific Ocean at 6:00 am was 26°C. The sky was clear and blue and there was almost no wind.
By 10:00 am it had increased to 30°C, some cloud was visible away in the distance to the south west and the NE wind blowing in from the Pacific Ocean was beginning to visibly increase in velocity as reflected in the branches of trees.
To the southwest beyond a range of hills are large expanses of plain land between the coastal range and the great dividing range some 50 or so km away. This area typically suffers temperatures up to 10°C higher than where I live.
By mid afternoon high dark clouds from the South west had moved into my locality such that more than 75% of the visible sky was now cloud covered. The clouds were dark, heavy and threatening. Visible occasional lightning began to appear while the wind from the ocean continued to increase in strength.
Shortly thereafter the storm broke and for an hour rain poured down, lightning flashed, winds became stronger but the direction became variable as is typical around a storm centre and some localities suffered hail and/or wind damage.
And this typical summer storm season weather has nothing to do with convection ?
I don’t believe you.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Right, storms have nothing to do with convection.
The energy of storms does not come from below it comes from above–from jetstreams, And it is low pressure energy. It is delivered by vortices that are usually unseen.
Convection is a simple model that meteorologists relay to the public but they are clueless about the cause of storms.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
Have you observed dust devils (whirlwinds)? I suspect you have but I do not know if you have. But, if you have, could you explain a possible mechanism for the formation and the ‘reasonably’ short lifetime (existence) of this observed natural phenomenon?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Yes. I have seen them. These may be due to convection. But even here it’s hard to know for sure. Even with dust devils–with what appears to be really obvious evidence of convective uplift–it could be that dust devils only occur along boundary layers between moist air and dry air, but these would be hard to see since the differences in humidity are so subtle in a desert.
Another thing. If you think about it. The observation of dust devils being so low energy (benign) does (IMO) refute or dispute some variants of the convection theory of storms in that some to whom I have presented my dispute of the existence of ‘cold steam’ have responded along the lines that the warming of air is in and of itself explanatory of the power of storms. Obviously if it was that simple we would expect the worst and most dramatic weather to occur in or near deserts and this just doesn’t happen.
Here is an interesting political parallel between between convection model of storm theory and the greenhouse effect: For both, the people that are telling us that it is true are the same people that are least likely to discuss it and are most likely to flee any discussion of any shortcomings of these notions.
Jerry, I hope you check out my link below for “Cracking Water.”
Regards,
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Cracking Water
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16937
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
IMO anyone, who seems to claim to be a scientist trying to understand atmospheric phenomenon, cannot (should not) sidestep (ignore, dismiss) trying to explain a commonly observed, hence basic (fundamental), atmospheric phenomenon. For a good scientist should be aware that one never knows what one might learned from such an activity.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
The energy of storms originates in the jet streams. In the form of low pressure that siphons down through vortices. And these vortices possess genuine structural strength that itself is the result of an H2O based plasma that, literally, spins up on wind shear boundaries. So my hypothesis explains the correlation of tornadoes and wind shear. It also explains what a vortice/tornadoe actually is. The convection model of storm theory can’t explain any of this.
Moreover, there is no observation of storms that my theory can’t explain and that convection can explain.
The convection model of storm theory only makes sense if one stubbornly refuses to do the simple thought experiments that easily reveal it to be pseudoscience.
It’s only stubborn dullwittedness and intellectual laziness that keeps people believing in such a perfectly worthless notion like the convection model of storm theory.