BREAKING NEWS: New Study Suggests Electric Discharge Between Earth’s Core and Magnetic Field

This news release highlights the observation of charged particles in the form of what is sometimes described as “sprites”, which is an electrical discharge which surges from “below” to “above”. It is similar to the mechanics of a local lightening/thunderstorm we witness here on Earth. To the typical observer, it appears that lightening comes down from the heavens and strikes the Earth; however, it is the intense impulse of charge which comes from the ground which produces high voltage.

The existence of these upper atmosphere sprites has been reported by pilots for years sparking a healthy debate as to their cause and how they exist. ESA astronaut Andreas Mogensen during his mission on the International Space Station in 2015 was asked to take pictures over thunderstorms with the most sensitive camera on the orbiting outpost to look for these brief features.

Denmark’s National Space Institute has now published the results of photos taken by ESA astronaut Andreas Mogensen, of upper atmosphere discharges, sometimes referred to as blue lightening or ‘sprites’. The video taken by Mogensen were from the (ISS) International Space Station. (shown below)

The cause or effects of these charged particle events are not well understood. Researched data does suggest a connection between Earth’s magnetic field and Earth’s core. With this hypothesis as a foundation, my personal research suggest a continued conjunction goes beyond our Heliosphere and into our galaxy Milky Way.

The blue discharges and jets are examples of a little-understood part of our atmosphere called the heliosphere. The Heliosphere is the outer atmosphere of the Sun and marks the edge of the Sun’s magnetic influence in space. The solar wind that streams out in all directions from the rotating Sun is a magnetic plasma, and it fills the vast space between the planets in our solar system.

The magnetic plasma from the Sun does not conjoin with the magnetic plasma between the stars in our galaxy, allowing the solar wind carves out a bubble-like atmosphere that shields our solar system from the majority of galactic cosmic rays.

Andreas concludes, “It is not every day that you get to capture a new weather phenomenon on film, so I am very pleased with the result – but even more so that researchers will be able to investigate these intriguing thunderstorms in more detail soon.”

Earth’s Hottest, Most Buoyant Mantle Plumes Draw From A Primordial Reservoir Older Than The Moon

Earth’s mantle — the layer between the crust and the outer core — is home to a primordial soup even older than the moon. Among the main ingredients is helium-3 (He-3), a vestige of the Big Bang and nuclear fusion reactions in stars. And the mantle is its only terrestrial source.

Scientists studying volcanic hotspots have strong evidence of this, finding high helium-3 relative to helium-4 in some plumes, the upwellings from Earth’s deep mantle. Primordial reservoirs in the deep Earth, sampled by a small number of volcanic hotspots globally, have this ancient He-3/4 signature.

Inspired by a 2012 paper that proposed a correlation between such hotspots and the velocity of seismic waves moving through Earth’s interior, UC Santa Barbara geochemist Matthew Jackson teamed with the authors of the original paper — Thorsten Becker of the University of Texas at Austin and Jasper Konter of the University of Hawaii — to show that only the hottest hotspots with the slowest wave velocity draw from the primitive reservoir formed early in the planet’s history. Their findings appear in the journal Nature.

“We used the seismology of the shallow mantle — the rate at which seismic waves travel through Earth below its crust — to make inferences about the deeper mantle,” said Jackson, an assistant professor in UCSB’s Department of Earth Science. “At 200 km, the shallow mantle has the largest variability of seismic velocities — more than 6 percent, which is a lot. What’s more, that variability, which we hypothesize relates to temperature, correlates with He-3.”

For their study, the researchers used the latest seismic models of Earth’s velocity structure and 35 years of helium data. When they compared oceanic hotspots with high levels of He-3/4 to seismic wave velocities, they found that these represent the hottest hotspots, with seismic waves that move more slowly than they do in cooler areas. They also analyzed hotspot buoyancy flux, which can be used to measure how much melt a particular hotspot produces. In Hawaii, the Galapagos Islands, Samoa and Easter Island as well as in Iceland, hotspots had high buoyancy levels, confirming a basic rule of physics: the hotter, the more buoyant.

“We found that the higher the hotspot buoyancy flux, the more melt a hotspot was producing and the more likely it was to have high He-3/4,” Jackson said. “Hotter plumes not only have slower seismic velocity and a higher hotspot buoyancy flux, they also are the ones with the highest He-3/4. This all ties together nicely and is the first time that He-3/4 has been correlated with shallow mantle velocities and hotspot buoyancy globally.”

Becker noted that correlation does not imply causality, “but it is pretty nifty that we found two strong correlations, which both point to the same physically plausible mechanism: the primordial stuff gets picked up preferentially by the most buoyant thermochemical upwellings.”

The authors also wanted to know why only the hottest, most buoyant plumes sample high He-3/4.

“The explanation that we came up with — which people who do numerical simulations have been suggesting for a long time — is that whatever this reservoir is with primitive helium, it must be really dense so that only the hottest, most buoyant plumes can entrain some of it to the surface,” Jackson said. “That makes sense and it also explains how something so ancient could survive in the chaotically convecting mantle for 4.5 billion years. The density contrast makes it more likely that the ancient helium reservoir is preserved rather than mixed away.”

“Since this correlation of geochemistry and seismology now holds from helium isotopes in this work to the compositions we examined in 2012, it appears that overall hotspot geochemical variations will need to be re-examined from the perspective of buoyancy,” Konter concluded.

BREAKING NEWS: New Findings Illustrate Secondary Extended Solar Cycles Far Greater Danger than Previously Known

Based on a new study, space scientists at the University of Reading are predicting we are witness to the beginning of a longer-term solar cycle, which will exceed the better-known 11 year and 22 year cycles. Each cycle consist of a ‘solar minimum’ and ‘solar maximum’ measured by the number of sunspots during these periods – and the waxing and waning of charged particles produced by solar flares, coronal mass ejections, coronal holes, and charged filaments.

This research is produced by Dr Mathew Owens, from the University of Reading’s Meteorology department, and Co-author Professor Mike Lockwood FRS, University of Reading. Their paper was published in the journal ‘Scientific Reports’. “The magnetic activity of the Sun ebbs and flows in predictable cycles, but there is also evidence that it is due to plummet, possibly by the largest amount for 300 years”; said Owens.

As the Sun becomes less active, sunspots and coronal ejections will become less frequent. As this trend continues over time, the escalating reduction in solar wind has a direct causal effect on the layers of the Sun’s atmosphere. The most significant effect will be on the ‘heliosphere’ – which like Earth’s magnetic field, shields the Earth dangerous charged particles and radiation.

**I am working on the completion of this study – hope to have it published tomorrow. STAY TUNED…..

BREAKING NEWS: Earth Breaks Heat Record in 2016 and Why This Means Nothing

Last year, the Earth sweltered under the hottest temperatures in modern times for the third year in a row, US scientists said Wednesday, raising new concerns about the quickening pace of climate change.

Temperatures spiked to new national highs in parts of India, Kuwait and Iran, while sea ice melted faster than ever in the fragile Arctic, said the report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Taking a global average of the land and sea surface temperatures for the entire year, NOAA found the data for “2016 was the highest since record keeping began in 1880,” said the announcement.

And there’s your answer to why this means nothing. The recording of temperature variations is barely over a hundred years old. This is “nothing” as it related to geological shifts which can be measured in thousands of years, millions of years, and even billions of years.

It is all relative to “cycles”. Short-term cycles, long-term cycles, medium-term cycles, cycles within cycles. Climate cycles can be associated to solar cycles, which in themselves provide short, medium and long-term cycles. Climate variance can also be associated to solar system cycles which are driven by interplanetary cyclical disturbances which include shifting variances in our galaxy Milky Way.

To no surprise, it does not stop there; unfortunately, our newest astronomical instruments do. Now perhaps you can see why I have turned my attention to my latest body of research titled “Science Of Cycles”. The further and more advanced our astronomical instruments are developed, the more we learn of the intricate web of causal effects identifying a relationship from our most distant galaxies, to our small little house called Earth which is located in our tiny neighborhood called Solar System, which is part of our city named Milky Way.

Another factor has been the Pacific Ocean warming trend of El Nino, which experts say exacerbates the planet’s already rising warmth. And guess what is the cause of El Nino’s, La Nina’s, and of course La Cucaracha. The cause is shifting jet stream and ocean currents. And what is the cause of this shifting? It is charged particles coming from our Sun and our galaxy Milky Way. When they hit the Earth’s magnetic field, it morphs around Earth like a cocoon which as an effect on our upper atmosphere.

The fact is Earth has seen much hotter and cooler temperatures in her recent and distant past. To take a tiny snippet of 120 years is more than dishonest; it is reckless and appears to be used by special interest. Another fact…is  there really even one person on this Earth who is “pro” pollution? The greatest danger is for special interest to manipulate the populist in believing we can control cyclical heating and cooling trends. We cannot. There is only so much money in the world, and we should balance our efforts spending a significant portion on “preparation and preparedness”.

BREAKING NEWS: A New Powerful Study Affirms Battros 2012 Equation

When Earth overheats, it finds its way to maintain its ambient temperature. In very much the same way humans sweat through our pores to cool off, in like manner, Earth sweats by producing increased mantle plume activity.

New research released this week confirms increased heat from Earth’s core strengthens the flow viscous material (liquefied rock) upward through the mantle having an effect on tectonic plates, including seamounts which in-turn heats the oceans.

For decades, scientists have theorized that the movement of Earth’s tectonic plates is driven largely by negative buoyancy created as they cool. New research, however, shows plate dynamics are driven significantly by the additional force of heat drawn from the Earth’s core.

The new findings also challenge the theory that underwater mountain ranges known as mid-ocean ridges are passive boundaries between moving plates. The findings show the East Pacific Rise, the Earth’s dominant mid-ocean ridge, is dynamic as heat is transferred.

David B. Rowley, professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, and fellow researchers came to the conclusions by combining observations of the East Pacific Rise with insights from modeling of the mantle flow there. The findings were published Dec. 23 in Science Advances.

“We see strong support for significant deep mantle contributions of heat-to-plate dynamics in the Pacific hemisphere,” said Rowley, lead author of the paper. “Heat from the base of the mantle contributes significantly to the strength of the flow of heat in the mantle and to the resultant plate tectonics.”

The researchers estimate up to approximately 50 percent of plate dynamics are driven by heat from the Earth’s core and as much as 20 terawatts of heat flow between the core and the mantle.

Unlike most other mid-ocean ridges, the East Pacific Rise as a whole has not moved east-west for 50 to 80 million years, even as parts of it have been spreading asymmetrically. These dynamics cannot be explained solely by the subduction of a process whereby one plate moves under another or sinks. Researchers in the new findings attribute the phenomena to buoyancy created by heat arising from deep in the Earth’s interior.

“The East Pacific Rise is stable because the flow arising from the deep mantle has captured it,” Rowley said. “This stability is directly linked to and controlled by mantle upwelling,” or the release of heat from Earth’s core through the mantle to the surface.

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge, particularly in the South Atlantic, also may have direct coupling with deep mantle flow, he added.

“The consequences of this research are very important for all scientists working on the dynamics of the Earth, including plate tectonics, seismic activity and volcanism,” said Jean Braun of the German Research Centre for Geosciences, who was not involved in the research.

The forces at work

Convection, or the flow of mantle material transporting heat, drives plate tectonics. As envisioned in the current research, heating at the base of the mantle reduces the density of the material, giving it buoyancy and causing it to rise through the mantle and couple with the overlying plates adjacent to the East Pacific Rise. The deep mantle-derived buoyancy, together with plate cooling at the surface, creates negative buoyancy that together explain the observations along the East Pacific Rise and surrounding Pacific subduction zones.

A debate about the origin of the driving forces of plate tectonics dates back to the early 1970s. Scientists have asked: Does the buoyancy that drives plates primarily derive from plate cooling at the surface, analogous with cooling and overturning of lakes in the winter? Or, is there also a source of positive buoyancy arising from heat at the base of the mantle associated with heat extracted from the core and, if so, how much does it contribute to plate motions? The latter theory is analogous to cooking oatmeal: Heat at the bottom causes the oatmeal to rise, and heat loss along the top surface cools the oatmeal, causing it to sink.

Until now, most assessments have favored the first scenario, with little or no contribution from buoyancy arising from heat at the base. The new findings suggest that the second scenario is required to account for the observations, and that there is an approximately equal contribution from both sources of the buoyancy driving the plates, at least in the Pacific basin.

“Based on our models of mantle convection, the mantle may be removing as much as half of Earth’s total convective heat budget from the core,” Rowley said.

Much work has been performed over the past four decades to represent mantle convection by computer simulation. Now the models will have to be revised to account for mantle upwelling, according to the researchers.

“The implication of our work is that textbooks will need to be rewritten,” Rowley said.

The research could have broader implications for understanding the formation of the Earth, Braun said. “It has important consequences for the thermal budget of the Earth and the so-called ‘secular cooling’ of the core. If heat coming from the core is more important than we thought, this implies that the total heat originally stored in the core is much larger than we thought.

“Also, the magnetic field of the Earth is generated by flow in the liquid core, so the findings of Rowley and co-authors are likely to have implications for our understanding of the existence, character and amplitude of the Earth’s magnetic field and its evolution through geological time,” Braun added.

Exploded Planet Hypothesis Source of Earth’s Moon

First, I am compelled to set the record straight as to who was the first to publish their scientific papers as to the source of how Earth’s moon came to be. It was Dr. Tom Van Flandern who past away on the very same date (January 9th) this article was published yet 8 years prior. (see orbit)

I mention this because he was ridiculed, essentially blackballed, from the astronomical community simply because he stood firm to his convictions. No, not based on some hunch, but hard scientific research filled with countless hours of checking and re-checking his data. The only mention he received in this article was the following:

Raluca Rufu, a researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and lead author of the study are not the first to propose a multiple-impact scenario. Another paper published in 1989 raised that possibility, but “no further work was done on the subject,” Rufu said. “This paper is first to provide extensive calculations that we hope will stimulate others to reexamine the issue.”

In 1989, Dr. Van Flandern published is paper titled “Exploded Planet Hypothesis” identifying the early nature of our solar system. I would call that more than just “another paper published in 1989”. Does this latest article seem to strike a note of a personal nature? Yes it does. It is known Tom was more than just a scientist I had on my show several times, we became friends – he was more of a mentor, perhaps knowing of what I would go through as I was presenting new data supporting my Sun-Earth-Extreme Weather hypothesis.

Dr. Van Flandern’s pedigree far exceeds my own, yet when he could no longer tow-the-line of his colleagues simply because he could not deny the outcome of his research. It was sometime after 1989 he became the target from the very agencies he worked with. From 1963 to 1983, Tom was the top shelf astronomer at the U.S. Naval Observatory becoming Chief of the Research Branch and later becoming Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office.

Tom Van Flandern held memberships in the International Astronomical Union, the American Astronomical Society (and in its Divisions on Dynamical Astronomy and Planetary Sciences), and several other scientific organizations. He received second prize from the Gravity Research Foundation in 1974 and the Astronomy Award from the Washington Academy of Sciences in 2000.

And now, in an article published on Jan. 9th 2017, he is addressed as “just some another paper published in 1989 blah blah blah”. They appear to have taken his research mostly known as “Exploded Planet Hypothesis” and renamed it “Multiple Impact Hypothesis”. Yes, this really happened.
See the article below….

Earth’s Moon Formed in ‘Moonlet’
Mash-Up After Many Earth Impacts

Earth’s moon may be the product of many small moonlets that merged after multiple objects as big as Mars collided with Earth, leaving disks of planetary debris orbiting the planet, a new study suggests.

This idea that multiple impacts led to the moon’s birth challenges the most prevalent theory of lunar formation, which suggests that one giant impact led to the formation of the moon.

The new, multiple-impact hypothesis suggests that about 20 moon- to Mars-size objects struck the Earth, flinging debris from the planet into orbit. There, the debris formed disks around the Earth that looked somewhat like Saturn’s rings. Over centuries, debris in several disks accreted to form moonlets that migrated farther and farther from the Earth due to tidal interactions. Eventually, the moonlets settled at a distance known as the Hill radius, coalescing to form one big moon.

This process isn’t too far off from the “Giant Impact Hypothesis,” which states that a planet-size rock named Theia struck the Earth, leaving behind a jet of debris that went on to form the moon. But there’s one problem with this theory: it doesn’t provide a good explanation for the strong similarity between the composition of the moon and the Earth.

“The multiple-impact scenario is a more natural way of explaining the formation of the moon,” Raluca Rufu, a researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and lead author of the study, told Space.com. “In the early stages of the solar system, impacts were very abundant; therefore, it is more natural that several common impactors formed the moon, rather than one special one.

In a giant impact scenario, the object that struck the Earth would have needed an Earth-like composition to create a moon that is made of the same materials as Earth. If the impactor were composed of different stuff than Earth, the moon would not be so Earth-like in composition.

Authors of the new study, which was published today (Jan. 9) in the journal Nature Geoscience, performed several numerical simulations of moon-forming processes and determined that a multiple-impact scenario better explains the moon’s Earthly composition.

“Moreover, the composition similarity between the Earth and the moon in the giant impact cannot be explained without using a special Earth-like impactor,” Rufu added. “However, if multiple of bodies contribute to the final moon, their chemical signatures can even out, therefore the traces of the various impacts will be masked.”

Rufu also said that no existing evidence points more strongly to a single-impact hypothesis, though some studies have found that it is possible to reproduce the moon’s composition with a single impact if it strikes with enough angular momentum. Such an impact “will excavate more Earth material; hence the final moon composition is similar to Earth,” she said. “After the impact, the Earth-moon system has to lose the excess angular momentum.”

“To match both compositional and angular momentum constraints, the single giant-impact hypothesis requires such a specific type of collision that the moon’s formation becomes an uncomfortably improbable coincidence,” Gareth Collins, a planetary scientist at Imperial College London who studies impacts throughout the solar system, wrote in an accompanying Nature News & Views article. Collins wrote that the study revives “the hitherto largely discarded scenario that a series of smaller and more common impacts, rather than a single giant punch, formed the moon.”

Rufu and her colleagues are not the first to propose a multiple-impact scenario. Another paper published in 1989 raised that possibility, but “no further work was done on the subject,” Rufu said. “This paper is first to provide extensive calculations that we hope will stimulate others to reexamine the issue.”

Further research into the multiple-impact hypothesis is already underway. One of Rufu’s collaborators, physicist Hagai Perets of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, is already working to find out the efficiency of moonlet mergers. Rufu and her adviser also plan to study the moonlet-merging process “to understand the mixing of the moonlets inside the final moon.”