This entry was posted on November 7, 2009 at 18:46 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Really enjoyed your Stanford presentation on “Becoming a Scientist” and today’s comment.
“Leif, for a man who is excellent, when it comes to the narrow range of your expertise, you seem unaware of worlds outside your canyon.
When people come into my canyon I tell them the facts. And how do you justify to state that my range of expertise is ‘narrow’? as compared to many commenters here who have no expertise”.
Where do you think your research into the Sun’s magnetic fields is going to lead (read your paper from the late 70′s)?
Judith Curry’s blog posts over the past couple weeks have been a nice compliment to your approach to science and learning. I hope you have another wonderful 30 years.
Dr. Svalgaard, I always look forward to your informed and cogent remarks at WUWT. Now I will bookmark this blog also.
I agree with your opinions about the lack of correlation between solar activity and recent warming. Some people are desparate to find something besides CO2 so they have jumped on the solar bandwagon.
I am a “luke warmer” and don’t think there is any calamity awaiting us from anthropogenic CO2, but if the temperatures start to agree with the models I would have to reconsider.
I am a scientist first after all.
Also I admire your patience with certain posters at WUWT.
I follow your comments on WUWT with interest and have read many of your research papers, a great number of the earlier of which concern the IMF.
There being no magnetic monopoles, I understand the IMF to be sum of all the magnetic fields associated with each of the bodies in our solar system, capable of producing the same – the sun being clearly by far and away the largest body.
Since we know much more of the shape of the IMF from time to time, and the influence which the solar MF has upon it, I wondered whether research has been published considering whether the IMF – given particular patterns of field lines and strength in particular locations within the system at particular times – might be able to influence the geomagnetic field so greatly that the IMF might be able to initiate reversals (or excursions as once known) in the Main Field of this planet.
This would stand as a tentative alternative to those theories of geomagnetic reversals et al based on internally generated changes in Earth’s core.
The IMF is 10,000 times weaker than the Earth’s magnetic field at the surface, and a million times weaker than the core field [which is where the surface field comes from]. Even with the occasional [rare] enhancements of the IMF during CMEs the IMF cannot influence the core field. This is apart from the fact that the so-called skin-depth is so shallow that magnetic field changes cannot [and do not] enter the core at all.
Thank you for that clear response. Is it your view additionally that there can likely be no major impact on (that is to say, not simply a magnetic storm but sufficient impact to initiate a reversal in) the earth’s magnetic field from solar effects alone?
I am referring to massive CME’s, or changes in the solar wind speed and density arising from some other solar activity.
The Earth’s strong magnetic field and the relatively high conductivity of the mantle [plus the very high conductivity of the core] combine to shield our main magnetic field from solar mischief. So, don’t expect any effect form solar activity on the core field. At the surface there can be inductive effects from rapid changes in the external magnetic field. These effects can be sever: burnout transformers, corrosion of pipelines, see silde 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
Thank you, I appreciate your response. I would still like to have an opportunity to re-read your papers on the IMF in particular.
In the meantime, am right in thinking that absent the solar wind, the sun facing section of the earth’s field would likely expand until it met with equal force and intensity the sun’s own field – i.e that the enormous discrepancy between the two field strengths at the sun-ward boundary of earth’s field is due principally to the compressing force of that wind?
Also in the time since you wrote your earlier papers on the IMF, has science determined with any more clarity the existence, if any, and strength of the magnetic fields of the other bodies in our solar system?
Most bodies in the solar system have magnetic fields, some [e.g. Jupiter] much stronger than the Earth’s; some [e.g. the Moon] much weaker and disorganized.
The Earth’s magnetic field is 10,000 times stronger than the the magnetic field in the solar wind, but decreases with the cube of the distance, so out at something like 10 earth radii is so weak that it matches the energy of the solar wind and a ‘stand-off’ is achieved. Outside of that the solar wind is stronger, inside the Earth’s field is stronger.
I saw your comment on WUWT on the solar activity. I’m trying to get some support/action on a Solar Physics and Terrestrial Climate conference (solter.org.uk). Are you interested?
November 7, 2009 at 19:26 |
This is my 1st post
November 12, 2009 at 09:28 |
And your new blog has been bookmarked. Looking forward to it.
Regards
Bob
November 12, 2009 at 09:48 |
That should have read, And your new blog has been added to my Favorites. It’s early here.
November 16, 2012 at 14:09 |
‘Bout time! Bookmarked.
November 20, 2012 at 00:02 |
Thought that was you when I clicked on your name, but, when did you change it, or is that just due to the blog?
In any case, you are now added. Curious to see what you have to say.
November 20, 2012 at 14:25 |
main() {
printf(“Hello Leif!\n”);
}
December 29, 2012 at 14:56 |
Really enjoyed your Stanford presentation on “Becoming a Scientist” and today’s comment.
“Leif, for a man who is excellent, when it comes to the narrow range of your expertise, you seem unaware of worlds outside your canyon.
When people come into my canyon I tell them the facts. And how do you justify to state that my range of expertise is ‘narrow’? as compared to many commenters here who have no expertise”.
Where do you think your research into the Sun’s magnetic fields is going to lead (read your paper from the late 70′s)?
Judith Curry’s blog posts over the past couple weeks have been a nice compliment to your approach to science and learning. I hope you have another wonderful 30 years.
Happy New Year,
GarryD
January 28, 2013 at 20:11 |
Time for a second post!
February 25, 2013 at 21:23 |
Dr. Svalgaard, I always look forward to your informed and cogent remarks at WUWT. Now I will bookmark this blog also.
I agree with your opinions about the lack of correlation between solar activity and recent warming. Some people are desparate to find something besides CO2 so they have jumped on the solar bandwagon.
I am a “luke warmer” and don’t think there is any calamity awaiting us from anthropogenic CO2, but if the temperatures start to agree with the models I would have to reconsider.
I am a scientist first after all.
Also I admire your patience with certain posters at WUWT.
Lance
March 3, 2013 at 17:44 |
Dear Dr Svalgaard,
I follow your comments on WUWT with interest and have read many of your research papers, a great number of the earlier of which concern the IMF.
There being no magnetic monopoles, I understand the IMF to be sum of all the magnetic fields associated with each of the bodies in our solar system, capable of producing the same – the sun being clearly by far and away the largest body.
Since we know much more of the shape of the IMF from time to time, and the influence which the solar MF has upon it, I wondered whether research has been published considering whether the IMF – given particular patterns of field lines and strength in particular locations within the system at particular times – might be able to influence the geomagnetic field so greatly that the IMF might be able to initiate reversals (or excursions as once known) in the Main Field of this planet.
This would stand as a tentative alternative to those theories of geomagnetic reversals et al based on internally generated changes in Earth’s core.
kind regards,
George Bingham
March 3, 2013 at 17:49 |
The IMF is 10,000 times weaker than the Earth’s magnetic field at the surface, and a million times weaker than the core field [which is where the surface field comes from]. Even with the occasional [rare] enhancements of the IMF during CMEs the IMF cannot influence the core field. This is apart from the fact that the so-called skin-depth is so shallow that magnetic field changes cannot [and do not] enter the core at all.
March 4, 2013 at 02:17
Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
Thank you for that clear response. Is it your view additionally that there can likely be no major impact on (that is to say, not simply a magnetic storm but sufficient impact to initiate a reversal in) the earth’s magnetic field from solar effects alone?
I am referring to massive CME’s, or changes in the solar wind speed and density arising from some other solar activity.
with kind regards,
George Bingham
March 4, 2013 at 02:33 |
The Earth’s strong magnetic field and the relatively high conductivity of the mantle [plus the very high conductivity of the core] combine to shield our main magnetic field from solar mischief. So, don’t expect any effect form solar activity on the core field. At the surface there can be inductive effects from rapid changes in the external magnetic field. These effects can be sever: burnout transformers, corrosion of pipelines, see silde 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
March 15, 2013 at 17:49 |
Thank you, I appreciate your response. I would still like to have an opportunity to re-read your papers on the IMF in particular.
In the meantime, am right in thinking that absent the solar wind, the sun facing section of the earth’s field would likely expand until it met with equal force and intensity the sun’s own field – i.e that the enormous discrepancy between the two field strengths at the sun-ward boundary of earth’s field is due principally to the compressing force of that wind?
Also in the time since you wrote your earlier papers on the IMF, has science determined with any more clarity the existence, if any, and strength of the magnetic fields of the other bodies in our solar system?
March 15, 2013 at 18:11
Most bodies in the solar system have magnetic fields, some [e.g. Jupiter] much stronger than the Earth’s; some [e.g. the Moon] much weaker and disorganized.
The Earth’s magnetic field is 10,000 times stronger than the the magnetic field in the solar wind, but decreases with the cube of the distance, so out at something like 10 earth radii is so weak that it matches the energy of the solar wind and a ‘stand-off’ is achieved. Outside of that the solar wind is stronger, inside the Earth’s field is stronger.
April 10, 2013 at 14:28 |
Hi,
I saw your comment on WUWT on the solar activity. I’m trying to get some support/action on a Solar Physics and Terrestrial Climate conference (solter.org.uk). Are you interested?
Mike Haseler email: admin (at) solter.org.uk
April 10, 2013 at 14:30 |
In principle: yes. Practically it might be difficult.