Sun's rotating 'magnet' pulls lightning towards UK

November 19, 2014
Sun’s rotating ‘magnet’ pulls lightning towards UK

(Phys.org) —The Sun may be playing a part in the generation of lightning strikes on Earth by temporarily 'bending' the Earth's magnetic field and allowing a shower of energetic particles to enter the upper atmosphere.

This is according to at the University of Reading who have found that over a five year period the UK experienced around 50% more when the Earth's was skewed by the Sun's own magnetic field.

The Earth's magnetic field usually functions as an in-built force-field to shield against a bombardment of particles from space, known as galactic cosmic rays, which have previously been found to prompt a chain-reaction of events in thunderclouds that trigger lightning bolts.

It is hoped these new insights, which have been published today, 19 November, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters, could lead to a reliable lightning forecast system that could provide warnings of hazardous events many weeks in advance.

To do so, weather forecasters would need to combine conventional forecasts with accurate predictions of the Sun's spiral-shaped magnetic field known as the heliospheric magnetic field (HMF), which is spewed out as the Sun rotates and is dragged through the solar system by the solar wind.

Lead author of the research Dr Matt Owens said: "We've discovered that the Sun's powerful magnetic field is having a big influence on UK lightning rates.

"The Sun's magnetic field is like a bar magnet, so as the Sun rotates its magnetic field alternately points toward and away from the Earth, pulling the Earth's own magnetic field one way and then another."

In their study, the researchers used satellite and Met Office data to show that between 2001 and 2006, the UK experienced a 50% increase in thunderstorms when the HMF pointed towards the Sun and away from Earth.

This change of direction can skew or 'bend' the Earth's own magnetic field and the researchers believe that this could expose some regions of the to more galactic cosmic rays—tiny particles from across the Universe accelerated to close to the speed of light by exploding stars.

"From our results, we propose that galactic cosmic rays are channelled to different locations around the globe, which can trigger lightning in already charged-up thunderclouds. The changes to our magnetic field could also make thunderstorms more likely by acting like an extra battery in the atmospheric electric circuit, helping to further 'charge up' clouds," Dr Owens continued.

The results build on a previous study by University of Reading researchers, also published in Environmental Research Letters, which found an unexpected link between from the Sun and lightning rates on Earth.

Professor Giles Harrison, head of Reading's Department of Meteorology and co-author of both studies, said: "This latest finding is an important step forward in our knowledge of how the weather on Earth is influenced by what goes on in space. The University of Reading's continuing success in this area shows that new insights follow from atmospheric and space scientists working together."

Dr Owens continued: "Scientists have been reliably predicting the solar magnetic field polarity since the 1970s by watching the surface of the Sun. We just never knew it had any implications on the weather on Earth. We now plan to combine regular weather forecasts, which predict when and where thunderclouds will form, with solar magnetic field predictions. This means a reliable forecast could now be a genuine possibility."

Explore further: Geomagnetic storm subsiding

More information: "Modulation of UK lightning by heliospheric magnetic field polarity." M J Owens et al 2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 115009 DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/115009

"Evidence for solar wind modulation of lightning." C J Scott et al 2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 055004. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/5/055004

Related Stories

Geomagnetic storm subsiding

April 14, 2011

A geomagnetic storm that sparked auroras around the Arctic Circle and sent Northern Lights spilling over the Canadian border into the United States on April 12, 2011 is subsiding. NOAA forecasters estimate a 25% chance of ...

The solar wind breaks through the Earth's magnetic field

June 10, 2014

Space is not empty. A wind of charged particles blows outwards from the Sun, carrying a magnetic field with it. Sometimes this solar wind can break through the Earth's magnetic field. Researchers at the Swedish Institute ...

Video: Magnetic field update

June 20, 2014

This animation shows changes in Earth's magnetic field from January to June 2014 as measured by ESA's Swarm trio of satellites.

Study of electrons in space could help weather forecasting

October 14, 2014

Researchers have discovered a formerly undetected impact of space weather on the polar atmosphere, which may explain some previously unexplained variations in winter weather patterns. Their results, published today (Tuesday ...

Recommended for you

Thunderstorms spread mercury pollution

August 31, 2016

In the southern United States, an afternoon thunderstorm is part of a regular summer day. But new research shows those storms might be doing more than bringing some scary thunder and lightning.

82 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 19, 2014
Even when they start to get it right, they get it oh so wrong.
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2014
I'm sure runrig and stumpy are just beside themselves when they see:

Scientists have been reliably predicting the solar magnetic field polarity since the 1970s by watching the surface of the Sun. We just never knew it had any implications on the weather on Earth


So now we know the solar magnetic field affects weather and oceans. Hmmm, I wonder if it has anything to do with climate as well?
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2014
It might help to remind people that we see poles which, by contrast to the rest of the planetary atmosphere, are hot. This is an incomplete list, but we see this for Saturn, Uranus, Enceladus and Venus. If climate science was still a normal science, the phenomenon of high-latitude electric joule heating would quite obviously be a hot topic right now. Instead, we have pundits like Phil Plait suggesting that manmade global warming causes the polar vortex here on Earth. It's striking that he completely ignores the fact that this polar vortex tends to cause bad weather precisely when it splits into two, just as we see on on Venus.

One of the hallmark features of a Birkeland Current is that it has different layers of rotation in opposite directions. Fluids don't have a habit of doing that, yet that is precisely what we see at Saturn's pole around the hexagon.

On Venus, we also see a connection between the two polar vortices, which is also a known feature of Birkeland Currents.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (18) Nov 19, 2014
I'm sure runrig and stumpy are just beside themselves when they see:

Scientists have been reliably predicting the solar magnetic field polarity since the 1970s by watching the surface of the Sun. We just never knew it had any implications on the weather on Earth


So now we know the solar magnetic field affects weather and oceans. Hmmm, I wonder if it has anything to do with climate as well?


err, no....
it's obvious that lightning is affected by the Sun. because of the Electromagnetic effect.
It is part of the physics of the atmosphere you know.

What the Sun does NOT do is alter it's TOTAL output of W/m^2 more than 0.1-0.2% (in a cyclic up/down fashion).
Other changes whether they be magnetic or in specific frequencies/wavelengths, can have an effect in the movement of the atmosphere. (for instance UV on the Strat. in the NH winter).
Thermodynamics my friend.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (18) Nov 19, 2014
Hannes:
Right then, let's see....

Reasons of asymetric/unusual atmospheric heating on said planets.

Saturn: Gas Giant
http://www.space....ure.html

Venus: Raging GHE
http://www.space....ure.html

Uranus: Gas Giant/Planet totates on side.
http://www.space....ure.html

Enceladus: Internal radiactivity/tideal forces
http://www.space....wer.html

manmade global warming causes the polar vortex here on Earth

If he did he is wrong. There are causalities that "can" cause the PV to move/split/weaken.
But NOT cause it.
polar vortex tends to cause bad weather precisely when it splits into two

Because of the above. It's a redistribution of the Earth's heat NOT a change in it. Clue is in the "G" word (from AGW - as in AVE temps)
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2014
Note that your Saturn link says nothing at all about why Saturn's "storm" at its pole would have layers which rotate in opposite directions. In fact, there's nothing at all in that press release which justifies any of the claims they make there.

Your Venus link simply assumes the validity of core accretion -- a model which has struggled to explain the numerous exoplanets. Nature ran an article only last July explaining that theorists are seeking out a new model for planetary formation.

Looks like I was mistaken on Uranus. It is Neptune that also has a hot pole ...

http://www.jpl.na...PIA09927

Apologies.

Enceladus' emissions at the pole are in sync with the brightness of Saturn's aurora. Note also that scientists did not expect any of their observations of Enceladus, so to pretend like it's all perfectly logical after-the-fact is revisionist.
Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2014
What the Sun does NOT do is alter it's TOTAL output of W/m^2 more than 0.1-0.2% (in a cyclic up/down fashion).

I don't know why you always go back to that, as you well know I agree with you. The Sun's output in terms of solar iridescence can be viewed as a constant. Yet we know that Earth still has some regulating cycle that ushers in ice ages or interglacials. So if it's not the heat from the Sun that does this, what is it then? My hunch is it's a combination of the Milankovitch cycle and the solar magnetic fields doing the work.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2014
What the Sun does NOT do is alter it's TOTAL output of W/m^2 more than 0.1-0.2% (in a cyclic up/down fashion).

I don't know why you always go back to that, as you well know I agree with you. The Sun's output in terms of solar iridescence can be viewed as a constant. Yet we know that Earth still has some regulating cycle that ushers in ice ages or interglacials. So if it's not the heat from the Sun that does this, what is it then? My hunch is it's a combination of the Milankovitch cycle and the solar magnetic fields doing the work.

It's the Earth's orbital parameter's - yes, the M cycles.
With the carbon cycle feedback (+ve and -ve).

And no, I did not know you "agreed with me".
I reply to many on here and don't have a good memory at the best of times.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2014
they get it oh so wrong
@cd
personal conjecture without evidence
TROLL post
you have the ability to refute the following? http://dx.doi.org...1/115009
http://dx.doi.org...5/055004
then you should post the equivalent evidence from reputable peer reviewed sources, not TROLL
reported
I'm sure runrig and stumpy are just beside themselves
@scroof
nope
because we read the SCIENCE, and not the blogs or pseudoscience, like you
TROLL POST
reported
If climate science was still a normal science
@Alfvie
you gave NO empirical evidence refuting climate science
TROLL POST
reported
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2014
On Venus, we also see a connection between the two polar vortices, which is also a known feature of Birkeland Currents
@Halfvie
this is easier explained and it is experimentally validated as well as more accurately represented by the following
http://www.planet...471.html
and before you say it: yes, i know it is a blog
but it DOES reference Washington research as well as http://www.ocean....isk.html
which is a study finding

the simplicity of the experiments and the high accuracy which are demonstrated make me believe that the simpler evidence experiment is far more accurate than your hypothesis which has no additional support than eu, a known pseudoscience

before you link to that known pseudoscience site, know that i also went to that site to compare their results to the above
you can see my argument here: http://phys.org/n...day.html
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2014
@Halfvie
this is easier explained and it is experimentally validated as well as more accurately represented by the following
http://www.planet...471.html
and before you say it: yes, i know it is a blog
but it DOES reference Washington research as well as http://www.ocean....isk.html
which is a study finding


Well there Cap'n Stupid, as you were saying...
Pseudoscience embraces over-fitting in a myriad of ways. blah, blah, blah...

Alright Cap'n Pseudoscience, you've taken it to new levels, and you're linking to meaningless blogs. Fail!

Show where the layers rotate in opposite directions. Oh right...Fail!
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2014
With the carbon cycle feedback (+ve and -ve).

Well that also plays a part, but your belief is based on assumption. You (and the rest of the AGW devotees) believe that temperature follows the carbon cycle, yet there's no certainty that this is the case. One can make the argument that the carbon cycle follows temperature, which blows up the whole AGW case. Can you honestly say from the data and graphs that one follows the other with 100% certainty?
http://carbonconn...1084.gif
Science is still undecided on the topic, yet AGW would have you believe otherwise.

nope
because we read the SCIENCE, and not the blogs or pseudoscience, like you
TROLL POST
reported

Stumpy, the class tattle tale. You must be so happy with yourself. Funny, I could report you for the same thing, but I'm not that childish. You posted nothing remotely correlating to the article, and made slanderous claims. Quite trollerific if I do say so myself.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2014
No, the Sun's magnetic field is not causing global warming.

Geez.
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2014
How scientific. Where's your proof?
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2014
How scientific. Where's your proof?


Where's yours?
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2014
Scroofinator claimed
... believe that temperature follows the carbon cycle, yet there's no certainty that this is the case.
Not about belief & not only temp. its about heat & evidence. The irrefutable thermal properties of CO2 re long wave radiation, well known for >100 years, wake up !

Scroofinator continued
One can make the argument that the carbon cycle follows temperature,
In a natural environment with different equilibria, entirely plausible.

Scroofinator claimed
.. which blows up the whole AGW case.
No. Now its un-natural & with different equilibria. Why can't U see the distinction, its been assessed previously.

Scroofinator claimed
http://carbonconnections.bscs.org/media/images/content/1084.gif
Science is still undecided on the topic, yet AGW would have you believe otherwise.
No. Vast majority of Scientists accept well known & irrefutable thermal properties of CO2. The question is where is heat going differentially & re buffer effect !
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2014
Scroofinator claimed
How scientific. Where's your proof?
It would have been noticed long before now by a myriad of local effects on charge distribution upon satellites and the like, there are no reports of any anomalies or any orbital changes needed for GPS or ISS disparate from relativity, atmosphereic drag or other gravitational effects etc as due to a partial differential effect from a magnetic field so far away. Magnetism is a comparatively short range force, earth's local magnetic field swamps that of the sun IIRC - astrophysicists can expand on that I expect if they feel the need.

Scroofinator answer this please:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2 to the atmosphere with known thermal properties of re-radiation NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

This aspect has been known for ?100 years, all experiments show this to be the case to varying degrees along with its effect on raising H2O ie Humidity levels further exacerbating AGW.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2014
LOL
Scroofie wants "proof" the Sun's magnetic field didn't cause AGW.
This is stupid in so many ways, I don't know which one to ridicule first.
At random, this is science and there is no "proof," you have proofs in math not science.
Moving right along, the Sun's magnetic field varies periodically, which means it can't account for a monotonic increase.
Then there's the field strength issue; the Sun's magnetic field is enormous, but not very strong. The Earth's is much smaller and denser, and thus stronger, which is why we have a magnetosphere, duh.
Then there's the fact that this effect (galactic cosmic rays causing lightning) has absolutely nothing to do with causing global warming.

You didn't just stick your foot in your mouth, you appear to be in almost up to the hip.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2014
Alright Cap'n Pseudoscience, you've taken it to new levels, and you're linking to meaningless blogs. Fail!
@cd
i guess you really are illiterate... after all, i DID note that it was a blog, and then also showed where it referenced a study that was relevant
and before you say it: yes, i know it is a blog
but it DOES reference Washington research as well as http://www.ocean....isk.html
you really should have read the WA page before commenting and looking stupid
but that is what PSEUDOSCIENCE does best
conjecture without evidence
You posted nothing remotely correlating to the article, and made slanderous claims. Quite trollerific if I do say so myself
@scroof
and like a true TROLL you failed to read the post and link
it is VERY relevant
as for your other crap... i am TIRED of reading TROLL posts...
you are posting PSEUDOSCIENCE based upon denialist delusion and conspiracy

nothing irrelevant about pointing out TROLLS/pseudoscience to help others
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2014
With the carbon cycle feedback (+ve and -ve)

Well that also plays a part, but your belief is based on assumption
@scroofTROLL
no, assumption would be making a decision based upon political motives like you are doing
try reading up on the science: http://www.scienc...abstract

i just linked what is know as a STUDY
which is empirical evidence published in a reputable peer reviewed journal

what you gave was a link to a graph, and then you make a CONJECTURE based upon your lack of education and knowledge

unless you are specifically talking about historical references between CO2 and temperature, that graph is meaningless
it DOES, however, support the information in the STUDY which i posted, if you would take the time to read it

feel free to look me up & PM me on http://saposjoint.net/ or on http://www.sciforums.com/ if you need access to the full study and you want to actually learn
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2014
lastly, @cd
Well there Cap'n Stupid, as you were saying...

Pseudoscience embraces over-fitting in a myriad of ways. blah, blah, blah...
you are the one who posts your stupendously stupid eu for every little thing on PO, from climate change to astrophysics...

you are the one that makes grandiose claims with no evidence except self reference or to a pseudoscience site
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
you are the one making claims that your eu explains everything (hence the over-fitting comment)
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
you are also the one who usually cannot come up with any reputable evidence supporting your conclusions

if there is a Cpt. of the stupids, it would be you

the eu is known pseudoscience
debunked by modern physics
they refuse to accept public debate because they have no evidence and they've already been publicly debunked a myriad of times

you can continue to accept eu on faith
i will stick to the real science
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2014
At random, this is science and there is no "proof," you have proofs in math not science.


Can someone explain this to Cap'n Stupid, he's been babbling on for over a year about proof this and proof that...
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2014
At random, this is science and there is no "proof," you have proofs in math not science

Can someone explain this to Cap'n Stupid, he's been babbling on for over a year about proof this and proof that...
@cd
i usually use the word evidence

technically speaking, if i were to provide this evidence in a court of law, it would be considered "proof"
usually when i use the word "proof" i mean it as" Evidence supporting my argument"
or in the following manner:
-n. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true

-n. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions

-n. A statement or argument used in such a validation
[ The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition @Wordnik]

your argument is negated by your lack of intelligence
which is why you support pseudoscience

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2014
At random, this is science and there is no "proof," you have proofs in math not science

Can someone explain this to Cap'n Stupid, he's been babbling on for over a year about proof this and proof that...
@cd
i usually use the word evidence

technically speaking, if i were to provide this evidence in a court of law, it would be considered "proof"
usually when i use the word "proof" i mean it as" Evidence supporting my argument"
or in the following manner:
Blah blah blah...


Why am I not surprised you would try and obfuscate the truth. As a matter of fact, your requests for PROOF this and PROOF that usually involves the CAPSLOCK button. This is your secondary nickname, remember Cap'n Capslock? I noticed how you don't use that method any longer since one of your links pointed out how childish such behavior is considered. A sure sign of dementia and Alzheimer's is reverting to childish behavior, something you excel at quite proficiently.
swordsman
3 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2014
More nonsensical physics. Magnetic fields do not "pull" other magnetic fields. They exert forces on the objects that create them.
Scroofinator
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2014
How scientific. Where's your proof?

Where's yours?

http://plasmareso...cing.pdf
This study shows that the Sun forces the oceans cycles based on the Hale cycle, and the oceans are the main drivers of Earth's climate, therefore the Sun's alternating polar magnetic field forces climate.
How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2 to the atmosphere with known thermal properties of re-radiation NOT increase thermal resistivity?

It does increase thermal resistivity, I can't argue that. GHGs are bad for the climate and environment, you'll get no denial of this from me.
The Earth's is much smaller and denser, and thus stronger, which is why we have a magnetosphere, duh.

And the magnetosphere is weakening at an alarming rate.
http://www.scient...xpected/
So the Sun's influence would be magnified, duh
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2014
LOL
Scroofie quotes an astrologer and pretends it's science.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2014
Why am I not surprised you would try and obfuscate the truth
@cd
obfuscate what truth?
asked & answered
and i don't use caps anymore because you don't normally read it anyway
you read what you want (usually you just don't)
your delusion makes you believe what you want
and then you make invalid ASSumptions
much like your take on physics: you make grandiose assumptions without evidence and then tell everyone that it must be true because your eu con men told you so and they have important looking papers that seem legit to you because you don't look up reality - like your vixra pdf where Crothers supposedly shows the flaws in GR and undermines the theory

Funny how crothers important works could be ignored by so many people...
WAIT!
it wasn't!
http://www.mathem...ews.html
http://www.mathem...508.html

it was just garbage which made fundamental errors
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2014
http://plasmareso...cing.pdf
This study shows that the Sun
@scroof
man, you really need to back off the wacky weed

1- your "study" is a link to plasmaresources, which is an eu site and thus posts known PSEUDOSCIENCE (capitalized for cd and for impact)
2- if this is legitimate science, i suggest you find that "study" linked in a reputable peer reviewed publication with an impact in astrophysics, because eu has a tendency to post legit LOOKING stuff (like cd's vixra link in another thread) but in actuality, it is riddled with fundamental errors that were already pointed out by a physicist (actually, quite a few)

i suggest finding better sources of science references because eu is not a legit source
it is pseudoscience
and i personally don't care how legit you "think" it is
if it violates the known laws of physics and ignores empirical evidence as well as experimental evidence, especially evidence specifically about plasma physics, it is PSEUDOSCIENCE
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2014
LOL
Schneib let's personal opinion influence his views of science.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2014
Plenty more Stump

http://www.scienc...49.short
"Correlations between these reconstructions and solar irradiance reconstructions (1) during the preanthropogenic interval from 1650 to 1850 provide an empirical estimate of the large-scale climate response to solar forcing"
http://www.scienc...98000882
"Accepting the idea of solar forcing of Holocene and Glacial climatic shifts has major implications for our view of present and future climate. It implies that the climate system is far more sensitive to small variations in solar activity than generally believed."
http://www.scienc...14.short
"One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system response to variations in solar output is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific associated with such solar variability."
Vietvet
3.8 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2014
@Scroofinator

The three links you provided are about short term changes, not long time trends.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2014
http://plasmareso...cing.pdf
This study shows that the Sun
@scroof
man, you really need to back off the wacky weed

1- your "study" is a link to plasmaresources, which is an eu site and thus posts known PSEUDOSCIENCE (capitalized for cd and for impact)
Not to mention written by an astrologer. Yes, really, look the guy up on Wikipedia. Real nut job.
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2014
Not to mention written by an astrologer. Yes, really, look the guy up on Wikipedia. Real nut job.

WTF in the wiki link makes you think he's a nut job? There's barely anything in it...
http://en.wikiped...dscheidt
You sure you're not describing the person in the mirror?

The three links you provided are about short term changes, not long time trends.

Lol, really trying to nitpick now huh? Sure, they're short term changes, but they occur on a historically cyclical basis. I'm pretty sure the ENSO cycle (as well as other ocean/climate cycles) has been occurring since the Earth had oceans.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2014
LOL
From your own link:
Theodor Landscheidt (Bremen, 1927 – May 20, 2004) was a German author, ASTROLOGER, and amateur climatologist.
Emphasis mine.

Dude, you're running me out of popcorn and beer.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2014
Am I missing something? Are you calling him a nut job because he was an astrologer?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2014
Ummm, yep.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2014
Are you claiming astrology isn't world-class nutjob bait?

Do you believe what the spiritual medium/gypsy with a glass ball/tarot "reader"/psychic tells you, too?

And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, I own a Rider-Waite deck (if I can find it) and know how to read them. It's all bullshit, man.
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2014
I don't particularly believe in it, but I'm not going to judge someone who does. You're basically calling all Indians nut jobs. There wouldn't be astronomy without astrology, you ignorant ass
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2014
Astrology is not science, it's mummery and superstition, period. I have no hesitation in making a judgment that all astrologers are nutjobs. Nor in applying it. I have the same judgment about crystal ball readers, spiritualists, and psychics. And about the eclectic universe. And the Babble. And climate denial. And Libertardianism. And fresh water economics.

They're all sucker games.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2014
and i don't use caps anymore...blah blah blah


You've got the mentality of a child. You must have the same head doctor that claimed Vietveg has good mental capacity.

Funny how crothers important works could be ignored by so many people...


Note the date, he has since corrected his errors, it did change the fact that GRT contains it own fundamental errors. It should also be noted that most of the "references" are wiki articles, which he probably edited for all we know.

Crothers has published several papers since, where is the commentary Bruhn insisted he would publish on his website to "correct" Crothers errors since then? Non-existent.

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2014
You're basically calling all Indians nut jobs
@Scroof
1- Indian as in: Hindu? or North American Aboriginal tribes?
2- IF you are referring to N.AM. Aboriginal tribes... they do NOT believe in astrology (some might, but this was introduced by Europeans)

the N.AM. Aboriginal tribes believed in certain spiritual practices that were not scientific, but they were heavily influenced by nature, observation and prior religious training, which tended to include everything from single deities to multiple powerful deities which were personified by human and natural weather, animals, etc

much of the anthropomorphic assertions (especially of animals) was natural back then as well

Current assertions of animal astrology and tarot are simply methods of certain people within the tribe to gain notoriety (infamy?) and financial success, not a reflection upon N.AM. Aboriginal tribes culture or religious beliefs

and definitely not a reflection of historical beliefs

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2014
You've got the mentality of a child
@cd
denigration will get you nowhere as a refute, and i really don't care how you perceive me as it is obvious that you are willing to accept any fringe pseudoscience that is contrary to mainstream science, as promoted by your posts above as well as your consistent promotion of the eu pseudoscience

you claim
he has since corrected his errors
but those errors show up in the works you referenced as well, so either you are intentionally trying to obfuscate the science or you are trying to redirect or produce a red herring argument
Neither are working

the work is fundamentally flawed and you are simply accepting of anything contrary to mainstream physics/astronomy

IF his work was so accurate, there would be a huge shift in GR today because you cannot refute reality, and thus we can conclude that his work is still fundamentally flawed and he does not yet comprehend GR

http://www.sjcrot...er-9.pdf
Scroofinator
4 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2014
1- Indian as in: Hindu?

Yes, I meant India Indians.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2014
1- Indian as in: Hindu?

Yes, I meant India Indians.
@Scroof
this is equally puzzling then
you said
You're basically calling all Indians nut jobs
when Schneib stated
Are you claiming astrology isn't world-class nutjob bait?

Do you believe what the spiritual medium/gypsy with a glass ball/tarot "reader"/psychic tells you, too?
so now i am even more confused
Are you saying that Hindu Indians are all believers/practitioners of astrology?
or are you saying that astrology and Hindu religion(s) (especially with all their deities) are the same/similar?

Please clarify that one... because it is not clear what you are trying to state with your comment... it is really odd and out of place

Scroofinator
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2014
Are you saying that Hindu Indians are all believers/practitioners of astrology?

I can't speak for all of them, but yes many of them are believers. Hindus practice kundali matching to determine if their partners are a good match, and it's essentially Vedic astrology.
http://en.wikiped...tibility
cantdrive85
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2014
IF his work was so accurate, there would be a huge shift in GR today


This is a silly comment as there have been numerous individuals who have pointed out fundamental errors in GRT and BBT and it has yet to change anything. It's that same childish mentality which believes science works as you think it does. I refer to the example of Birkeland's aurora theories, 60 years after laboratory result and close observation indicated the cause, it was intentionally concealed and ignored until the data was incontrovertible.

Tesla recognized the errors of GRT as far back as the 20's;
"...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..."

The metaphysicists still dominate to this day...
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (13) Nov 21, 2014
OMG that's a title to titillate the EU nutjobs! Honestly runrig and CS, I don't know where you find the time to continually point out the oft made, always wrong statements of this group. Your patience leaves me breathless lol!

Da Schneib I've read a few of your posts, you seem to have a good knowledge base. Welcome to the board (I haven't been around much so pardon the late hello!)

The scoof is a 20 something pot head and catthink-for-himself has some vested interest in the EU theories. Won;t get too far with either of them.

Hannes is a little easier to talk to about some of this stuff, although he has very little idea of how the science works. He has an odd idea that somehow we should consider the interpretation of ancient cave drawings by Velikovski as "scientific". I think he is an adherent of Nancy Leder.

Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2014
Hi, Maggnus! Thanks for the nice welcome. Nice ta almost meetcha!

My current take on the EU thing is that it's an attempt to justify astrology "scientifically." Snicker.
Scroofinator
not rated yet Nov 21, 2014
Flattered you remember me Maggnus, although I fail to see what smoking has to do with anything. Feel free to actually contribute to the discussion, that is the purpose of the comments section. By definition your comment is flagrantly reportable, but I'm not so childish to actually care. Blame the pot if you want.

Before the oh so knowledgeable Schneib tried to change the subject, I had posted 3 peer-reviewed articles linking solar forcing to ocean cycles and thus climate (you see I actually try to stay on the topic of the article). Shall we discuss the contents of these studies and how they apply to the following statement?

We now plan to combine regular weather forecasts, which predict when and where thunderclouds will form, with solar magnetic field predictions.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2014
there have been numerous individuals who have pointed out fundamental errors in GR
@cd
i know there have been a lot of crackpots who think they have found something, but just don't understand the science (see crothers)
much like the eu acolytes thinking they found the holy grail of GUT- loud talk, no evidence
It's that same childish mentality which believes science works as you think it does
you mean like my acceptance of field lines and magnetic reconnection which has been proven by labs all ovver the world?
yeah... i am such a sucker for actual evidence and science
The metaphysicists still dominate to this day
that is why we keep trying to tell you about it... leave the pseudoscience like eu to the crackpots
come join reality: it is nice here and we have evidence, logic, science, chocolate and cookies

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2014
I can't speak for all of them, but yes many of them are believers. Hindus practice kundali matching to determine if their partners are a good match, and it's essentially Vedic astrology.
http://en.wikiped...tibility
@scroof
well, if this is what you mean, then it is a bit more clear

but not relevant as their Vedic astrology is still pseudoscience and not science

and as such a rational person would not be wrong or amiss in classifying believers as nutjobs or the astrology, vedic or not, as nutjob bait

Rational minds who use logic and the scientific method will see through this type pseudoscience easily

It takes a willing participant to actively decide to ignore rational thought IOT believe in astrology, just like other pseudoscience (Phrenology, intelligent design, creationists, alchemy, eugenics, etc)

Plus popularity or widespread publication doesn't equal belief, always
see astrology here in the US

thank you for clarifying
imido
Nov 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2014
Just ignore him, he's senile troll (a retired http://i.imgur.com/jNDzZvA.gif). A parody to science.

ROTFLMAO
I love this guy, clearly one of the brightest and most perceptive on these threads.
Vietvet
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2014
Just ignore him, he's senile troll (a retired http://i.imgur.com/jNDzZvA.gif). A parody to science.

ROTFLMAO
I love this guy, clearly one of the brightest and most perceptive on these threads.


It makes sense that you would admire another pseudoscience moron.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2014
and as such a rational person would not be wrong or amiss in classifying believers as nutjobs or the astrology, vedic or not, as nutjob bait

And only an irrational person would judge another person (let alone an entire culture) based on personal beliefs. Not surprised to see your rants know no bounds.

Back to the actual article, what do you think about the fact science is now incorporating solar magnetic field predictions into our everyday weather forecasts?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2014
"Sun's rotating 'magnet' pulls lightning towards UK"

JUST the UK? And if so, from what direction?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2014

"...as the heliospheric magnetic field (HMF), which is spewed out as the Sun rotates and is dragged through the solar system by the solar wind."

And - waitaminit...
Solar wind is driving magnetic expansion? Sounds like a load of crap to me...
Lex Talonis
3.5 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2014
It's because of the resumption of Gnomic Activity at Stoned Henge that is causing all the channelling of mystic energy from the Auras to Earth.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2014
"Sun's rotating 'magnet' pulls lightning towards UK"
JUST the UK? And if so, from what direction?
Actually, what happens is, the solar magnetic field modifies the Earth's magnetic field, and as a result galactic cosmic rays become more common in the Northern Hemisphere, depending on the exact structure and shape of the two fields.

These galactic cosmic rays are very powerful, and zip through the atmosphere making ions in it. These ions then provide a path for lightning to follow, and it does.

So actually the title is at least misleading, and possibly even could be considered incorrect.
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2014
Scroofinator proves immense ignorance of consequences of arbitrary beliefs
And only an irrational person would judge another person (let alone an entire culture) based on personal beliefs.
No. Not only are you completely wrong, you have no consideration of consequences how beliefs affect activities & thus outcomes !

Scroofinator proves he has no world experience of any value & no useful education.

Scroofinator claimed
.. what do you think about the fact science is now incorporating solar magnetic field predictions into our everyday weather forecasts?
Science = "The discipline of acquisition of knowledge".

Science is a particular valuable philosophy that is testable, it has no central claim to authority such as any deity as in religion. It is people that do things not Science.

You should know, unless you are un-intelligent that media will exploit novelty & "science" as they see it to improve ratings.

Y can't U understand this simplicity ?

TBC
flying_finn
2.5 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2014
Sprites may be of cosmic origin, triggering lightning ?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2014
"...as the heliospheric magnetic field (HMF), which is spewed out as the Sun rotates and is dragged through the solar system by the solar wind."

And - waitaminit...
Solar wind is driving magnetic expansion? Sounds like a load of crap to me...
Solar wind is mostly protons and electrons; these are charged particles, and they are moving, so there is a magnetic field. It moves at the speed of light, so it spirals out from the Sun due to the Sun's rotation. Its effect on the magnetic field of the Earth changes as the orientation of the local solar magnetic field to the Earth's magnetic field changes. The solar wind fills all of the heliosphere, which extends out past Pluto to the heliopause where it meets the interstellar medium.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2014
Da Schneib offered
Actually, what happens is, the solar magnetic field modifies the Earth's magnetic field, and as a result galactic cosmic rays become more common in the Northern Hemisphere, depending on the exact structure and shape of the two fields.
How much more common, any reference to study please ?

Da Schneib added
..These ions then provide a path for lightning to follow, and it does.
It should be noted that ANY ionisation source *may* allow an electrical potential built up to find a discharge path & this need not only come from cosmic rays - any ionising radiation could seed such path. There has to be a potential first ie sufficient electric field (with power) to form an arc.

A comparative study of existing earth sourced ionisation sources ie. beta/gamma emitters along with space dust with radiologically active constituents versus cosmic rays would be of interest.

We also know a discharge does not exclusively require Any ionising radiation.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2014
Da Schneib
Solar wind is mostly protons and electrons; these are charged particles, and they are moving, so there is a magnetic field.
Which raises the question, as to charge balance because if there are equal numbers of p+ & e- then by definition there cannot be an electric current & therefore no magnetic field from the solar wind. What are the relative numbers ?

Da Schneib
It moves at the speed of light, so it spirals out from the Sun due to the Sun's rotation.
Field strength cannot change faster than speed of light true but, its not clear if the sun's magnetic field as such rotates with sun as it raises the issue of the faraday paradox.

Da Schneib
Its effect on the magnetic field of the Earth changes as the orientation of the local solar magnetic field to the Earth's magnetic field changes.
By how much ?

Da Schneib
...where it meets the interstellar medium.
Given its mostly a vacuum what do you claim this medium contains at that point ?

TBC
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2014
cont

If I understand Da Schneib, is claiming sun's magnetic field rotates with sun's rotation, that would contradict faraday paradox.

Straightforward terms for others too:-

- Take a rod bar magnet with opposing poles on each end
- Define one long axis as through Both poles ie center of end to end
- Rotate magnet around that long central axis only

Magnetic field does NOT move, reason offered here:-
http://en.wikiped..._paradox

Demonstration be arranged thus:-

- Take a disc magnet with opposing poles on each face
- Define short axis as through Both poles ie center of face to face
- Affix (stick) insulated wire from center of one face to edge of same face.
- Rotate magnet around that short central axis only

Although it appears field lines are NOT cut by the wire ie. Even though wire is 'stuck' - They rotate together there IS a voltage on wire ends AS IF the field is stationary despite motion of magnet CW or CCW

Comments re Sun's field ?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2014
Da Schneib offered
Actually, what happens is, the solar magnetic field modifies the Earth's magnetic field, and as a result galactic cosmic rays become more common in the Northern Hemisphere, depending on the exact structure and shape of the two fields.
How much more common, any reference to study please ?
Errrr, the one we're commenting on? They have statistical evidence, according to the article.

Da Schneib added
..These ions then provide a path for lightning to follow, and it does.
It should be noted that ANY ionisation source *may* allow an electrical potential built up to find a discharge path & this need not only come from cosmic rays - any ionising radiation could seed such path. There has to be a potential first ie sufficient electric field (with power) to form an arc.
The only ionizing particles likely to make it through the Earth's atmosphere are cosmic rays; they're the only ones powerful enough.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2014
Thus, they're the only ones that leave an ionization track that extends from cloud to ground.

In addition, they suggest that the change in the Earth's magnetic field could also influence the buildup of charge within the clouds that forms the potential, increasing it.

Did you read the article? I think you should read it again.

A comparative study of existing earth sourced ionisation sources ie. beta/gamma emitters along with space dust with radiologically active constituents versus cosmic rays would be of interest.
I seriously doubt space dust makes it to the tropopause moving at any speed worth talking about. We know it doesn't make it to the ground at speed or it would hit us all the time. It filters down through the atmosphere, settling out like dust always does. This isn't going to form a contiguous path to the ground on the millisecond timescales of lightning discharge.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2014
Beta and gamma particles from decaying radioactive nuclei are not sufficiently powerful to form a path from cloud to ground.

I find neither of your alternatives credible.

We also know a discharge does not exclusively require Any ionising radiation.
Sure, but in the presence of such radiation, the frequency of strikes will be increased; and the charge buildup will not be as high, because of the greater frequency at which a lower-resistance path becomes available due to a cosmic ray zipping through. From our POV it's all "lightning," and it makes little difference to the damage potential if the potential driving it is somewhat less; the increased frequency of strikes more than makes up for that in terms of total damage.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2014
Da Schneib
Solar wind is mostly protons and electrons; these are charged particles, and they are moving, so there is a magnetic field.
Which raises the question, as to charge balance because if there are equal numbers of p+ & e- then by definition there cannot be an electric current & therefore no magnetic field from the solar wind. What are the relative numbers ?
The Sun is not a continuous emitter over all parts of its surface of protons and electrons; therefore they are segregated and can form currents in space. Furthermore, the local variations in the Sun's magnetic field create two types of solar wind. You should read this: http://en.wikiped...nd_speed

You appear to be assuming the solar wind is homogenous. It is not.

Finally, you have ignored the Sun's gravity; electrons and protons have different masses, and so thermal acceleration means that more electrons can get out than protons at a given temperature.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2014
Da Schneib
It moves at the speed of light, so it spirals out from the Sun due to the Sun's rotation.
Field strength cannot change faster than speed of light true but, its not clear if the sun's magnetic field as such rotates with sun as it raises the issue of the faraday paradox.
Faraday's Paradox only applies when the rotation axis is aligned with the magnetic axis (the axis through the North and South magnetic poles of the magnet). The Sun's magnetic field is not so aligned.

The Faraday Paradox is based upon the fact that the magnetic field is not actually a separate field, but the relativistic delay in the action of the electric force. It's a misunderstanding of the underlying electromagnetic force. This is shown by the fact that the charges move even though they "shouldn't," in the disc form of the paradox. Analysis using the Lorentz Force shows why this is so.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2014
Da Schneib
Its effect on the magnetic field of the Earth changes as the orientation of the local solar magnetic field to the Earth's magnetic field changes.
By how much ?
Enough to let more cosmic rays in.

Da Schneib
...where it meets the interstellar medium.
Given its mostly a vacuum what do you claim this medium contains at that point ?
Ummm, are you seriously arguing there is no interstellar medium despite the fact that one of the Voyager probes has flown through the helioshock?

Really?

The interplanetary medium is mostly vacuum too. In fact I'm not sure we can make a vacuum that good on Earth yet. Are you claiming solar wind doesn't exist either?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2014
If I understand Da Schneib, is claiming sun's magnetic field rotates with sun's rotation, that would contradict faraday paradox.
...
Magnetic field does NOT move, reason offered here:-
http://en.wikiped..._paradox
You neglected the fact that the Faraday Paradox is easily explained by using the Lorentz force law.

Magnetism is not a separate force from electricity. They are a single force, electromagnetism, and "magnetism" is actually simply the correction for the speed-of-light delay in propagation of the electric force. There are no paradoxes if you use the QFT formulation of the EM field.

And as far as the Sun's magnetic field, the Faraday Paradox cannot apply since its rotational and magnetic axes are not aligned.

I hope you're not one of these EE nuts who thinks that the electric force propagates with infinite velocity, Mike.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2014
I should emphasize that magnetism is a vector field, thus one magnet influences the field of another. You can observe this by changing the field of a bar magnet with another bar magnet. You can observe the changes using the standard piece of paper with iron filings on it. Arguing that magnetic fields cannot influence one another is silliness.
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2014
Da Schneib with a veiled (questioning) attack
I hope you're not one of these EE nuts who thinks that the electric force propagates with infinite velocity, Mike.
Please Da Schneib, don't copy dumb tactics of those like Benni U argue against, it does U no credit.

Such (hopefully minor) proclivity to idle claims in question/attack guise consistent with those U argue against only detracts for U & your position.

Rather than sardonic/attack slips, please focus on Evidence ie. Re my posts.

Where is there any evidence of any sort of what I will or will not believe that has anything to do with your argument with Benni & others ?

I'm not a proponent of; faster than light effects or other tangential aspects of anything to do with your interactions with Benni. Please re-fresh your memory re my posts.

Will get to issues later re faraday paradox (I have built such demo in my lab), bear in mind detailed issues are more complex than U appear to assume. Eg Alignment.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2014
Da Schneib replied
Errrr, the one we're commenting on? They have statistical evidence, according to the article.
Sry, should have added word "other", trying to get more complete picture here.

Da Schneib claimed
The only ionizing particles likely to make it through the Earth's atmosphere are cosmic rays; they're the only ones powerful enough.
Not complete, plenty of dust/particles sloughed off comets/asteroids etc. Also dust/particulates thrown up to atmosphere, those (so called background ionising) radiation sources are all over the place.
ie Many ancesch for lightning seeding where there is sufficient electric field providing their is sufficient capacitance to offer an arc - that is, rather than just ordinary non visible charge equalisations which, of course happen all the time to varying degrees...

more later, other duties calling...
Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 26, 2014
@Mike We seem to have gone rather far afield. Do you agree that more cosmic rays making more long ionization paths from cloud to ground means lightning will strike more often?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 26, 2014
You claim that the Sun's magnetic field does not rotate with it, and that this is true due to the Faraday Paradox. However, you have ignored that the Faraday Paradox requires the magnetic and rotation axes to be the same.

This is obvious; take a bar magnet and rotate it at an angle to the magnetic axis. Any point in space surrounding the magnet will see the poles alternately get closer and farther away. Are you claiming this will not change the B field at all these points in space? That's silly.

As far as being aggressive, you apparently tried to accuse me of being a crank who believes in some special effect of the interstellar medium. I didn't like that. And you started it. Practice what you preach.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 26, 2014
Let's understand the Faraday Paradox; it's a result of the fact that if the rotation axis goes through both poles then their distance is unchanged when the magnet is rotated. Therefore, the B field strength at all locations is the same. This means that there is no change in B, and therefore a wire in the magnetic field does not experience ΔB and no current flows.

However, claiming that the magnetic field "doesn't move" is silliness. Its value doesn't change; that doesn't mean it "doesn't move," as you'll quickly find out if you try it with a horseshoe magnet. I'll leave that for you to think about. Remember that the axis must be through both poles.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 26, 2014
OK, @Mike, taking you literally, the galaxy (like most galaxies) is full of gas and dust, particularly in the spiral arms (if it has them, like ours does). This is somewhere around 10⁵ atoms/ions per cubic centimeter. The interplanetary medium is thicker, because the Sun's gravity constrains it, and because the Sun's solar wind constantly contributes to it. It also contains less dust, because the planets sweep it up.

Do you see now how the interplanetary and interstellar media are different, and understand now what the heliopause, helioshock, and heliosphere are? Do you get that it's not "just vacuum?"
Selena
Nov 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2015
@Da Schneib Seems the post email advice dropped off, Re Sun's field...

1. Alignment, any effect will be subject to sine of angle of alignment & thus is small except during pre & post Sun's magnetic reversals...
The Heliospherical magnetic field (HSMF) has many perturbations, I get the impression you feel the earth is subject to a moving field due to alignment issues rather than the pertubrations arising from the HSMF...

2. Not necessary to have a charged particle to make a "path to ground" or even close, anything which reduces dielectric strength & especially so upon normal breakdown often suffices.

& as such its not necessarily that case cosmic rays WILL make a FULL 'path to ground' depends collision reaction products, ie also IF they collide & angle

3. Don't recall ever calling u a crank on anything, have been extremely busy, please link me to the old comment ?

4. Cosmic rays are certainly modulated by HSMF not necessarily just increased, both ways...

more later

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.