TECTONIC UPLIFT by Solar Eruptions

This paper is structured as follows: ...

An explanation of the present-day Earth-Sun connection and an investigation of the energy coupling function between the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere is followed by a discussion of the role of Coronal Mass Ejections in causing magnetic storms on Earth and step changes in the coupling function.

Evidence is then presented relating to the magnitude of present-day solar eruptions, the likely magnitude of past events, and a discussion of the mechanisms whereby more massive events in the past could have delivered large amounts of energy directly to the surface of the Earth.

The amount of energy which could have been delivered is then compared to the energy necessary to contribute to uplift of mountain ranges by thermal expansion and found to be of the required order of magnitude. The effect on phase change models of uplift is considered next, concluding with a discussion of the formation of granite.

The postulated electric discharge contribution to the causes of uplift is then compared to Ollier and Pain’s (2000) list of constraints on mountain building and is found to satisfy them all; furthermore, it may offer a solution to the ‘granite problem’.

Finally, a consideration of present-day telluric currents and remanent magnetism associated with mountain ranges is offered as geological evidence in support of the current hypothesis. This paper concludes that the present era is one of relative solar inactivity compared to some past eras.

The Earth-Sun connection

a. A general introduction

Interplanetary space is not a vacuum; it is filled with low-density plasma, also known as ‘ionised gas’. Plasma contains a proportion of electrons and ions which give the ‘ionised gas’ electromagnetic properties; these in turn determine a range of behaviours which are completely unlike those of an ‘ideal’ or un-ionised

18 NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org

gas. It is for this reason that plasma is commonly referred to as ‘the fourth state of matter’.

The bodies of the solar system orbit within this plasma; this implies that all the planets, including the Earth, are electromagnetically connected to the Sun via the plasma. In the pages of this journal, Hissink (2009) demonstrated that “It is reasonably clear that the geophysical behaviour of the Earth can no longer be viewed in isolation from the rest of the solar system...” (ibid., p. 33).

The Sun itself is a magnetised body which continuously emits plasma in the form of the solar wind, which flows past Earth on its journey to the outer heliosphere. One property of the tenuous plasma in interplanetary space is that it carries ‘frozen-in’ magnetic field within it; because of the very high electrical conductivity of this plasma, the individual charged particles (ions and electrons) are ‘bound’ to magnetic field lines. Therefore, when the solar wind flows away from the Sun it carries a portion of the Sun’s magnetic field with it which is referred to as the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF). The solar wind thus has both kinetic energy and magnetic energy.

The Earth is also a magnetised body; the Earth’s dipole field extends out into interplanetary space forming a donut-shaped region, known as the ‘magnetosphere’, following the dipole field lines. Within the magnetosphere, the Earth’s magnetic field dominates the magnetic environment.

When the solar wind nears the Earth, the interaction of the IMF and the Earth’s magnetic field deflects the wind around the magnetosphere, similarly to fluid flowing around an object. Deflection of the solar wind involves a change of the magnetic field it contains; this in turn generates electric currents in the magnetopause according to Lenz’s Law which, in effect, states that any change to a magnetic field will be resisted by the generation of an electric current whose magnetic field opposes the original change.

These ‘convection’ currents in the outer boundary of the magnetosphere cause a complex chain of events which manifest as other current flows in the inner regions of the magnetosphere comprising the plasmasphere and the ionosphere. The ionosphere is the innermost region of the magnetosphere and normally extends from ~90 km to ~1,000 km above the surface of the Earth, i.e. it resides directly above the atmosphere. Currents in the plasmasphere flow directly to the ionosphere along the Earth’s dipole magnetic field lines which guide the charged particles to the magnetic polar regions where they cause the polar aurorae. Other diurnally-varying currents, such as the equatorial electrojet, flow in the remainder of the ionosphere. Finally, Telluric Currents in the surface of the Earth are induced in response to the various currents in the ionosphere above (see inter alia Baker et al., 2004; Carpenter and Park, 1973; Sandel et al., 2003).

This complex series of currents input energy into the magnetosphere, the plasmasphere and the ionosphere, where the energy is dissipated as Joule heating, particle acceleration in the auroral regions, and kinetic motion in the currents themselves (see, for example, Guo et al., 2011 and 2012). The proportion of energy normally dissipated in induced Telluric Currents in the Earth’s surface is extremely small, in part because the atmosphere is an insulating layer which prevents direct current linkages such as are present in the plasma layers above (Gold, 1959).

Thus far, only the ‘quiet Sun’ conditions have been mentioned. The system becomes significantly more complicated during the frequent solar eruptions in which the Sun emits large quantities of additional energy “from coronal magnetic storage” (Emslie et al., 2005, p. 3); this energy is emitted in the form of flares of radiation, and Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) and Solar Proton Events (SPEs) consisting of high-velocity ionised particles.

The consequent changes in the magnetic and kinetic energies of the solar wind enhance and extend the normal diurnal current systems outlined above, the most significant of which is the Ring Current at the boundary of the plasmasphere and outer magnetosphere. These enhanced effects result in ‘magnetic storms’ measurable on the surface of the Earth itself, and also cause the polar aurorae to descend to lower latitudes. (See inter alia Haisch et al., 1991; Gold and Hoyle, 1960; Emslie et al., 2005)

NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org 19

b. Solar wind – magnetosphere coupling

The process of transfer of energy from the incoming solar wind to the Earth’s immediate environment is known as ‘Solar Wind – Magnetosphere Coupling’. “…it is well-known that magnetic storms occur due to the enhanced energy transfer from the solar wind to the magnetosphere” (de Lucas et al., 2007, p. 1852).

However, exactly how this occurs is still under investigation. “Establishing the mechanisms by which the solar wind enters Earth’s magnetosphere is one of the biggest goals of magnetospheric physics.” (Hasegawa et al., 2004, p. 755). A key objective of these studies is to identify the ‘geoefficiency’ of the coupling mechanism, i.e. the percentage of the available ‘input energy’ in the solar wind which is actually ‘output’ to the magnetosphere (Guo et al., 2011, p. 8).

The ‘output’, or result of the coupling, is monitored indirectly by various Earth-based parameters of which the most recognised are the Dst, AE and Kp indices. For the present purposes, the Dst (Disturbance Storm Time) Index is the most relevant. This index gives information about the strength of the Ring Current and the intensity of the magnetic storm by measuring the reduction in the horizontal component of the Earth’s dipole field in the equatorial regions; the Dst index therefore has a negative value in units of nanoTesla (nT).

Using the Dst index allows estimates to be made of the amount of ‘output’ energy delivered to the magnetosphere in the form of Ring Current kinetic energy. However, because “these indices do not display a solar wind energy input into the magnetosphere, ...[they] cannot be regarded as an indicator of the efficiency of solar wind–magnetosphere coupling.” (Troshichev and Janzhura, 2012, p. 2)

The key problems lie in the facts that the level of the ‘input’ energy in the solar wind available for coupling is not known for certain, despite satellite measurements of various solar wind parameters since the 1970s (Tsurutani et al., 2003, p. 73); nor is the coupling mechanism itself fully understood. It is therefore very difficult to estimate the likely geoeffectiveness of any particular solar eruption.

The relevant parameters, or ‘drivers’, for the available input energy are the solar wind velocity, the IMF strength, and the clock angle between the IMF and the Earth’s own magnetic field in the magnetosphere (Guo et al., 2012). A southward IMF, which opposes the direction of the Earth’s field at the point of impact on the upstream side of the magnetosphere, has been found to be most geoeffective (see, for example, Hasegawa et al., 2004), but the precise influence of each of the drivers is a matter of considerable debate.

“As there is no direct observational means of determining the energy input from the solar wind to the magnetosphere and thermosphere-ionosphere system, various solar wind-based coupling functions ... have been developed.” (Guo et al., 2012, p. 1). Akasofu et al. (1981a, table 1) list thirteen different formulae (other than their own) that have been proposed for the coupling function.

According to Vasyliūnas et al. (1982), these coupling function models fall into three groups: “MHD dynamo action of solar wind plasma flow on open magnetic field lines as proposed by Dungey (1961); ... viscous coupling at the magnetopause as proposed by Axford (1964)”; and accretion of the solar wind into the outer magnetosphere (following Coleman, 1971) (Vasyliūnas et al., 1982, p. 362 and references therein).

It is generally accepted that the first of these groups of models is the most important: “…the major mechanism of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth’s magnetosphere is magnetic reconnection [Dungey, 1961]” (Tsurutani et al., 2003, p. 2). However this is disputed by some researchers. For example, Troshichev and Janzhura (2012) argue that this mechanism is “fundamentally incorrect” (ibid., p. 79). Similarly, Hasegawa et al. (2004) challenge the reconnection model on the basis that the response during northward solar-wind magnetic field conditions is “contrary to expectation if reconnection is dominant.” (ibid., p. 755)

20 NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org

In contrast, Scurry and Russell (1991) argue that non-reconnection models cannot readily explain the increase in storm activity when the IMF is directed southwards. They further pointed out that the best correlation between the solar wind parameters and the AE index occurred assuming a delay of ~ 1 hour and argued that “[t]his delay agrees with Dungey's hypothesis that flux is stored in the tail before its energy is released to produce geomagnetic signatures.” (ibid., p. 9541)

This comment highlights another contentious issue: whether the magnetic effects are ‘instantaneous’ or delayed by energy storage in the magnetotail. “Two of the current “models” for magnetic substorms that exist in this research area are commonly known as the “driven process” and the “energy storage and release process.” ” (Wolfe et al., 1984, p. 261).

Furthermore, analyses indicate that the coupling geoefficiency is not constant. For example, de Lucas et al. (2007) suggest that “the reconnection efficiency increases with increasing dynamic pressure.” (ibid., p. 1854). Moreover, according to Guo et al., (2011) previous researchers have found that the geoefficiency varied with the type of solar wind driver (ibid., p. 2). According to Guo et al. (2011), efficiencies vary between 31% and 98% for CMEs, based on the Akasofu ε parameter of input energy (ibid., p. 9). However, de Lucas et al. (2007) found that the Akasofu ε parameter significantly underestimates the available input energy.

Whilst the orientation of the incoming magnetic field is recognised to be important in the coupling mechanism, the magnetic energy leaving the Sun in a CME is not always accounted for in the energy budget when assessing the available input energy (see, for example, Emslie et al., 2005, table 1). This may result in an underestimation of the available input energy and so may be a contributing factor in the widelyvarying calculated geoefficiencies of different events.

These issues are mentioned here in order to demonstrate that the mechanisms whereby the solar wind energy is transmitted to the magnetosphere are still very uncertain. Scurry and Russell (1991) suggest that the studies are “fraught with ambiguities” (ibid., p. 9541). JASTP (Editorial) (2012) likewise suggests “These results provide a glimpse of the intricacies that exist in the coupling processes amongst the atmospheric regions.” (ibid., p. 4). Guo et al. (2011) go further: “In fact, we do not even know the details of how and where the transfer takes place.” (ibid., p. 5)

Nevertheless, one conclusion is reasonably certain: “…the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction is primarily electromagnetic, rather than kinetic.” (Akasofu, 1981b, p. 1133)

c. Conversion of the Sun’s magnetic energy into coronal mass ejections

Solar eruptions are manifested in a number of different forms, including solar flares (radiant energy), Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) and Filament Eruptions. All massive solar eruptions involve conversion of the Sun’s magnetic energy into one or more of these phenomena (see, for example, Lingenfelter and Hudson, 1980; Gold and Hoyle, 1960), but they do not necessarily all occur in any one event, nor do their magnitudes relate to each other in a simple way. “CMEs, solar flares, and filament eruptions are often associated, although their exact causal relationship is not yet well known.” (Bemporad et al., 2012, p. 2). In addition, the shock front associated with a high-velocity CME is thought to be the origin of a high-energy proton fluence known as a Solar Proton Event (SPE) associated with solar mass eruptions (See, for example, Khaler et al., 1978, p. 2; Plunkett and Wu, 2000, p. 1807).

For the present purposes, we are principally concerned with CMEs because “Observations show that … CMEs are the major cause of geomagnetic storms.” (Plunkett and Wu, 2000, p. 1807). A typical CME has a mass of ~ 1015 - 1016 g (Haisch et al., 1991, p. 288) and an average velocity of ~ 430 km s-1, rising to ~ 950 km s-1 for halo-type CMEs, although the velocities of CMEs observed up to 2004 range between ~100 kms-1 and a maximum of 2,604 kms-1 (Yashiro et al., 2004, p. 6 & fig. 5, p. 7).

The plasma in a CME also carries part of the Sun’s magnetic field with it. A CME therefore has large quantities of magnetic energy as well as kinetic energy. Interestingly, there is a class of CMEs which take

NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org 21

the form of a ‘Magnetic Cloud’ (MC) in which the magnetic energy is significantly higher than in CMEs without this feature (Burlaga et al., 1982). Approximately one third of CMEs show the definitive ‘flux rope’ signature of a Magnetic Cloud (Plunkett and Wu, 2000, p. 1809).

Magnetic Clouds have been identified with magnetic structures known as ‘plasmoids’ by some researchers (see, for example, Vandas, 1993a; Eselevich and Eselevich, 2007). Bostick coined the term ‘plasmoid’ in 1956 to describe the result of the conversion of kinetic energy into a self-contained rotating vortex structure containing large amounts of magnetic energy (Bostick, 1956 and 1957); as he later noted, plasma is able to convert one form of energy into the other very easily (Bostick, 1986). In the MC-type of CME, it appears that part of the Sun’s magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy whilst a significant proportion remains as, or is re-converted to, magnetic energy.

The reverse mechanism, conversion of electric circuit energy in the form of electric and magnetic fields into plasma kinetic energy can also occur, as Alfvén (1981) explained (ibid., Ch. 3, p. 45, fig. III.1(a,b) and accompanying text). This mechanism is observed in the formation of CMEs from the Sun’s magnetic energy.

The key point is that MC-type CMEs may contain a large proportion of their total energy in the form of magnetic energy.

Unlike flare radiation, CMEs are highly directional. The average angular size of CMEs is about 450 (Plunkett and Wu, 2000, p1808), although they may be narrower than 100 (Eselevich and Eselevich, 2007). Therefore, CMEs may not impact Earth at all if they are directed away from us, but when they do then “Part of that energy can be concentrated when the CME washes over a large object, like the Earth and its invisible shield, the magnetosphere,” (NASA, 1999).

As with the normal solar wind, “[t]he most important parameters that determine the geoeffectiveness of a CME are the speed of the ejected solar plasma (the driver gas) and the strength and orientation of the magnetic field (so-called interplanetary magnetic field (IMF)), both within the CME and in the compressed solar wind plasma ahead of it.” (Plunkett and Wu, 2000, p. 1811)

Solar eruptions can also occur in ‘clusters’, i.e. a series of eruptions occurring at short intervals from sunspot regions where the Sun’s magnetic energy has been concentrated. Clusters of events may be common. A significant proportion of the concentrated magnetic energy remains behind after each eruption; further eruptions are therefore likely (ESSL, 2008). This large reservoir of magnetic energy of active sunspot regions could supply a series of eruptions (Ponomarenko et al., 2007). Such clusters of events, as have occurred for example during the March 1989 storm and the ‘‘Halloween’’ 2003 events (Boteler, 2006, p169), increase the geoeffectiveness, probably through interaction of the CMEs en-route and alteration of the direction of the IMF (Bemporad et al., 2000).

CMEs often propagate faster than the interplanetary plasma through which they travel. “[W]hen the relative velocity between the interplanetary structure and the slow solar wind is higher than the magnetosonic velocity” (Alves et al., 2011, p. 1381) this leads to the formation of a bow shock ahead of the CME; this is followed immediately by a region of compressed interplanetary plasma known as the ‘sheath region’ in which the IMF is enhanced due to the compression. When such a CME impacts the Earth’s magnetosphere, both the sheath region and the CME couple successively to the magnetosphere; the shock and the CME each cause different effects and “shocks driven by MCs ... are more geoeffective ... than the isolated structures.” (Echer et al., 2006, p. 8), especially when the IMF in the sheath is southward (Tsurutani et al., 1992).

Guo et al. (2010) studied the differences between the sheath and CME parameters and their effects, using a solar-wind control function based on Borovsky (2008), and found that “The lognormal distributions suggest the presence of nonlinear interactions and multiplicative dynamical processes [between the ICME & its sheath], which are manifested in the tail of the [statistical] distribution” (Guo et al., 2010, p. 4 and
22 NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org references therein). Because the interaction of the CME with its sheath mirrors the coupling between the enhanced solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere, it is here suggested that this may help to explain the step changes manifested in the coupling data for the events observed to date.

d. Step changes in the coupling function

The severity of magnetic storms undergoes step changes at certain energy levels, indicative of sudden switches in the coupling mechanism or mode of energy transfer.

No magnetic storms occur on Earth below a threshold level of input energy: “By comparing the AE index and [the Akasofu coupling parameter] ε, one can also infer that magnetospheric disturbances are associated with ε > ~1018 erg s-1 ” (Akasofu, 1981b, p. 1131). Above this power level, a step change occurs in the coupling mechanism: “there is at least one part of the circuit which drastically changes its characteristics as the power of the solar wind-magnetosphere dynamo is increased above ~ 1018 erg s-1 (1011 W). It is the upward directed field-aligned current portion of the circuit in which magnetospheric electrons are the primary current carrier” (ibid., p. 1137)

The coupling mechanism also exhibits step changes at other energy levels. For example de Lucas et al. (2007) found that the energy input during storms with Dst < -165 nT is double of the energy for storms with Dst > -165 nT. (ibid., p. 1851), explaining: “…the jumps on the energy show that there is a clear separation between two groups of storms.” (ibid., p. 1861)

Similarly, studying the five largest storms between1971 and 1986 with peak Dst between -249 and –215 nT, Tsurutani et al. (1992) report that “Results are considerably different to the lower intensity major storms 220 < Dst < -100 nT studied by Tsurutani et al. 1988.” (ibid., p. 75 and fig. 2)

The fact that step changes are observed in the output of lower-energy events suggests that similar step changes in the mechanism are likely to occur at higher energy levels as well. For example, the 1859 storm and 1972 interplanetary event had very different statistics to smaller events. (Tsurutani et al., 1992). As Echer et al. (2011) stated: “The high end tails of distribution functions do not have adequate statistics to make meaningful measurements. The physics associated with them may be different...” (Echer et al., 2011, p. 1458 and references therein, emphasis added).

Thus, the physics of the largest events so far observed is apparently subject to another step change in the mechanisms involved.

The magnitude of solar eruptive events

a. Present-day events

The magnitude of present-day solar eruptions is known to vary widely. The largest solar eruption recorded in the scientific era is known as the Carrington (or Carrington – Hodgson) Event of 1859 (Odenwald et al., 2005). The energy of this event has been estimated to have been ~ 1034 ergs (see, for example, Tsurutani et al., 2003). The question of whether such an event is likely to be repeated or exceeded has become significant in today’s technological society, especially after the power grid failures in Quebec caused by the March 1989 storm. “This storm caused the Hydro-Quebec (Canada) power grid to go down for nine+ hours and caused a loss of ~ $360 to $645 million.” (Tsurutani et al., 2003, p. 5)

This question has been studied by Tsurutani, Gonzalez and colleagues, among others. Echer et al. (2011) developed an equation whereby the probability of an event of a given magnitude could be predicted, based on the numerous statistics for small events. They asked: “An obvious question is ‘‘can one use these distributions to predict the occurrence frequency of extreme events, such as the 1859 Carrington storm?” Unfortunately not, they continued, because “It was shown that by using the statistics presented here, the Carrington event would have been extremely rare.” (ibid., p. 1458)

NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org 23

It appears that the step changes in the coupling function discussed in the previous section of this paper preclude statistics from one data set being applied to another data set relating to events of a higher intensity.

In another study of the Carrington Event, Tsurutani et al. (2003) were “somewhat surpris[ed] to find that the 1859 flare / interplanetary ejecta was not unique. The August 1972 flare was definitely equally (or more) energetic, and the interplanetary ejecta speed was faster.” (ibid., p. 7); and “Kane et al. [1995] have estimated the more recent 1 June 1991 flare to have had an extreme energy of 1034 ergs.” (ibid., p. 6, and references therein)

Tsurutani et al. (2003, p. 7) asked, ‘‘are even more intense events possible?’’. They noted that “Our time span of observations has been quite limited (only hundreds of years), and it is therefore doubtful that we have detected events at the saturation limit (either flares or magnetic storms).” (ibid., p. 7). “The recent Kane et al. [1995] results have shown that the previously thought ‘‘upper limit’’ of 1032 ergs for the energy of a flare can be broken by a wide margin.” (Tsurutani et al., 2003, p. 7). They concluded: “Since we do not fully understand these specific saturation processes, [of the solar eruptions] it is therefore not known whether flares with energy >1034 ergs or magnetic storms with DST < -1760 nT are possible or not.” (ibid., p. 7)

b. Evidence for massive solar eruptions in the past

Solar flares are often associated with CMEs; both arise from similar processes involving expulsion of magnetic energy from the Sun. Although no direct relationship exists, the energy of a CME is often comparable to the energy emitted by the associated solar flare. The magnitude of a flare may be measured directly in various bands of the radiation spectrum; in contrast, kinetic energy is the usual measure of the energy of a CME and can be calculated from the observed velocity and estimated mass of the particles in the CME.

CMEs of 1030 – 1032 erg kinetic energy occur at a rate of ~1 per day (Haisch et al., 1991). The CME associated with the X28-class flare of 4 November 2003 may have had an effective energy of ~7 x 1033 erg (Ponomarenko et al., 2007), and, as discussed above, the Carrington event is estimated to have had an energy of ~1034 ergs.

A typical solar flare emits ~1029 erg in radiant energy in the visible spectrum (Schaefer et al., 2000). Smith and Scalo (2007) reported 11 X-ray class flares between 18 October – 5 November 2003; the most energetic flare of this series was only measured in soft X-ray but “The total flare energy at all wavelengths for the somewhat weaker 28 October flare was 4.6 × 1032 erg” (ibid., p. 6).

The ratio of radiation (flare) and kinetic (CME) energies varies between events. On reviewing the evidence, Ponomarenko et al. (2007) suggested that half the total energy of a solar eruption appears in the form of a CME. Examples occurred on both 21 April 2002 & 23 July 2002 when 1032 erg CMEs were ejected with flares of the same magnitude (Emslie et al., 2004). The energy of larger CMEs probably exceeds that of the associated flares (Emslie et al., 2005); more energetic solar eruptions may convert a larger proportion of their magnetic energy into CMEs (Lingenfelter and Hudson, 1980).

It has been suggested that stellar flares may simply be scaled-up versions of their solar counterparts (Hawley and Pettersen, 1991 and references therein). Schaefer et al. (2000) identified “nine cases of superflares involving 1033 - 1038 ergs on normal solar-type stars”. Referring to this finding and the known solar data, Smith and Scalo (2007) concluded: “… we believe it reasonable to infer that much more energetic solar flares have occurred in the past” (ibid., p. 6) and estimated that a 1038 erg X-ray flare is emitted by the Sun at least every ~200,000 years (ibid., p. 21).

On the evidence presented above, a CME of at least 1038 erg should be expected to accompany such an energetic flare. What effects might be expected from a CME of this magnitude, i.e. one up to 104 times as large as the largest event observed in the present era?
24 NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org

c. The ‘Gold scenario’

The astronomer Thomas Gold suggested in 1962 that there was no reason to assume on the present data that the Sun had always emitted energy at the rate seen in the present era (Gold, 1962, discussion p. 170). He considered what effect a more massive solar eruption would have on the Earth’s immediate environment. In the scenario outlined by Gold, the increased solar wind pressure would drive the inner edge of the Earth’s [outer] magnetosphere down into the upper atmosphere. Gold argued that the atmosphere is a good insulator and so the storm-generated electric currents which normally run in this conductive inner edge of the outer magnetosphere would then encounter great resistance. In this circumstance, the path of least resistance is to short down in a massive and continuous ‘lightning strike’ or discharge through the atmosphere, run through the more conducting surface of the Earth, and short back up to the magnetosphere in a second discharge to close the circuit back to the magnetosphere (see Gold,1962, figs. 1 and 2).

In this situation, huge direct currents of “hundreds of millions of Amps” (Gold, 1962) would run in the surface of the Earth between the points of discharge connecting the surface to the compressed magnetosphere.

The basic principles of Gold’s mechanism have been confirmed by more recent investigations. Alfvén (1981) detailed the mechanism underlying the resulting current flows in a conducting plate when a drifting plasma impacts the plate (ibid., Ch.3, p. 46, Fig. III.1(c) and accompanying text); the plate is equivalent to the Earth’s surface in the Gold scenario. Alfvén concluded: “Hence the deviation of a low density magnetized plasma beam shot towards a conducting obstacle is neither caused by a collision with the obstacle nor by a pressure gradient. Only electric and magnetic fields act on the particles.” (ibid., caption to fig. III.1(c)).

It has also now been confirmed that compression of the magnetosphere, including the inner regions of the plasmasphere and ionosphere, are a direct result of enhanced solar wind pressure. For example, Odenwald and Green (2008) showed that the pressure of the Carrington Event CME forced the magnetopause down from its normal distance of ~60,000 km above the surface to ~7,000 km or perhaps lower. Ponomarenko et al. (2007) refer to the “supercompression” of the magnetosphere under the impact of a “highly energetic” 5 x 1033 erg CME.

Gold (1962) considered that the ram pressure of the solar wind would only compress the magnetosphere on the Sunward side, and so discharges would occur on the day side. However since 1962, space missions have established that the mechanism of compression involves plasma draining from the whole of the inner magnetosphere, resulting in shrinkage or compression around the entire globe (Baker et al., 2004). Under these conditions, the discharges to Earth would no longer be confined to the dayside and could occur at any longitude i.e. at all times of day or night.

The ‘Gold scenario’ outlined above involves another very significant step change in the physics of the solar wind – magnetosphere coupling mechanism due to the compression of the ionosphere into the atmosphere. A further step change to an even greater level of coupling is also possible.

In his 1962 paper, Gold considered that the atmosphere would retain its insulating properties during a compressive event, resulting in an electrical ‘short’ through it to the conductive surface; he had previously (1959) considered the role of the insulating atmosphere in protecting the Earth from the electric current systems in the plasma in the magnetosphere. In that earlier paper, in which Gold introduced the term ‘magnetosphere’, he showed that, in normal circumstances, while “the atmosphere acts as an insulating sheet… no currents of any significance can flow between the ground and the lower surface of the ionosphere. (The atmospheric convection of charge is insignificant in its magnetic effects.)” (Gold, 1959, p. 1219). Clearly, if the insulating properties of the atmosphere were lost, the situation would be very different. This appears to be likely in the extreme conditions under consideration.

As Akasofu (1981b, p. 1135) stated: “The ionosphere is located at the 'bottom' of [the] magnetospheric

NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org 25

plasma and can be considered as the transition region from a fully ionised magnetospheric plasma regime to the neutral atmosphere regime.” Extreme compression of the magnetosphere into the atmosphere would intermix the two regions and introduce charged particles into the atmosphere, thereby rendering it conductive.

Furthermore, CMEs are associated with SPEs (see above) and “during a sporadic solar proton event (SPE), the flux of lower energy particles near the Earth may increase by orders of magnitude” (Usoskin, 2006, p. 1). Therefore it is likely that the extreme compression together with a massive increase in proton fluence accompanying a large CME would seriously impair or even destroy the insulating properties of the atmosphere. Under these circumstances, discharges to the surface become even more likely, and Gold’s “currents of significance” (Gold, 1959) would flow unhindered through the Earth’s surface, exactly as in Alfvén’s conducting plate.

d. The ‘multipole scenario’

Because currents follow the magnetic field lines in plasmas, under the ‘Gold scenario’ the discharges to the surface would still tend to occur preferentially at higher latitudes if the Earth’s dipole field was unaffected.

In this connection, it may be significant that the distribution of craters on the planet Mars is heavily concentrated between latitudes 40 and 65 degrees in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres (Weiss and Head, 2013 Fig. 1E; Boyce and Mouginis-Mark, 2006), perhaps indicative of similar forces at work there, we suggest, in the period when Mars still had a magnetosphere (Lillis et al., 2007; NASA, 2001).

However, as mentioned above, a further effect of those solar eruptions which cause geomagnetic storms is to enhance the equatorial Ring Current, which generates a magnetic field opposite to the Earth’s dipole field and which therefore reduces the normal dipole field, as measured by the Dst index (Sandel et al., 2003; Wolf et al., 2013).

The dipole field is only one component of the Earth’s total magnetic field. The spherical harmonic equations describing the complete magnetic field pattern have additional components known as the quadrupole (4-pole) and octupole (8-pole) fields. Normally, these ‘multipole’ components are dominated by the dipole component but if the dipole component was largely or completely neutralised by an enhanced ring current then the multipole components would define the remaining field (Merrill et al., 1996).

It is noteworthy that the Earth’s magnetic field is known to have undergone magnetic excursions and reversals as recorded in the geological record. During an excursion or reversal, the dipole field weakens to the point where the dominant remaining field consists of the usually weaker quadrupole and octupole components, as described above. It is possible that an extreme solar event may even have triggered an excursion or reversal by temporarily neutralising the normal dipole field.

Under the multipole condition, discharge currents would no longer be constrained to higher latitudes by the dipole field and could occur between any two multipole locations at any latitude, as proposed by van der Sluijs and Johnson (2013). Combined with the worldwide compression of the magnetosphere, this implies that the discharge currents to the surface may strike at any geographic locations, depending only on the multipole locations at the time.

Furthermore, if the multipole components were themselves too weak to significantly influence the path of the current then there would be no constraints at all on the discharge locations between which Gold’s connecting ground currents ran. (The question of discharge currents in the oceans is considered later in this paper.) Therefore a combination of the modified ‘Gold scenario’ involving worldwide compression of the magnetosphere into the atmosphere, together with a significant reduction of the Earth’s dipole field, would allow Gold’s discharge currents to occur at any latitude or longitude, day or night.

Because the currents in this scenario would have been direct currents running through the Earth’s surface,
26 NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org not the weak induced Telluric Currents observed today, the energy delivered to the surface would have been many orders of magnitude greater than so far observed in recent centuries. No data is available as to what the value of the geoefficiency of the transfer of energy from the magnetosphere to the Earth’s surface under the multipole scenario would be. However, it is clear that even if only a small proportion of the CME input energy is coupled via the compressed magnetosphere to the surface, a 1038 erg CME would result in very significant amounts of energy reaching the ground.

...

Acknowledgements:

The ‘multipole scenario’ discussed in this paper is based on an original idea by M. A. van der Sluijs contained in a forthcoming work which the present author has been privileged to have had advance sight of. The author of the present work would also like to thank Adabel Allen and the staff of the Zimmerman Library UNM in Albuquerque for their support during the research for this paper, and the reviewers of a previous draft for their helpful comments.

References

Ager, D.V., 1973. The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (1st. edn). Macmillan/Wiley, 114p. Akasofu, S-I., 1981a. Energy coupling between the solar wind and the magnetosphere. Space Science Reviews, v. 28, no. 2, p. 121-190. Akasofu, S-I., 1981b. The aurora: an electrical discharge phenomenon surrounding the Earth. Reports on Progress in Physics, v. 44, p. 1123-1149. Akimoto, S., Fujisawa, H. and Katsura, T., 1965. The olivine-spinel transition in Fe2SiO4 and Ni2SiO4. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 70, no. 8, p. 1969–1977. doi:10.1029/JZ070i008p01969. Alfvén, H., 1981. Cosmic Plasma. Astrophysics and Space Science Library, v. 42. D. Riedel, Dordrecht. ISBN 90-277-1151-8. Alves, M.V., Echer, E. and Gonzalez, W.D., 2011. Geoeffectiveness of solar wind interplanetary magnetic structures. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, v. 73, p. 1380–1384. Baker, D.N., Kanekal, S.G., Li, X., Monk, S.P., Goldstein, J. and Burch, J.L., 2004. An extreme distortion of the Van Allen belt arising from the “Halloween” solar storm in 2003. Nature, v. 432, p. 878–881 Béjina, F. and Jaoul, O., 1997. Silicon diffusion in silicate minerals. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 153, nos. 3–4, p. 229–238. Bemporad, A., Zuccarello, F.P., Jacobs, C., Mierla, M. and Poedts, S., 2012. Study of multiple coronal mass ejections at solar minimum conditions. Solar Physics, v. 281, no. 1, p. 223-236. doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-9999-3 Bingham, D.K., Gough, D.I. and Ingham, M.R., 1985. Conductive structures under the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 22, no. 3, p. 384-398. doi:10.1139/e85-037. Borucki W.J. and Chameides W.L., 1984. Lightning - estimates of the rates of energy dissipation and nitrogen fixation. Rev. Geophys Space Phys., v. 22, p. 363–372. Bostick, W.H., 1956. Experimental Study of Ionized Matter Projected across a Magnetic Field. Physical Review, v. 104, no. 2, p. 292-299. Bostick, W.H., 1957. Plasmoids. Scientific American, v. 197, no. 4, p. 87-94. Bostick, W.H., 1986. What laboratory-produced plasma structures can contribute to the understanding of cosmic structures both large and small. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, v. 14, no. 6, p. 703-717. Boteler, D.H., 2006. The super storms of August/September 1859 and their effects on the telegraph system. Advances in Space Research, v. 38, p. 159–172. Bowen N.L. and Tuttle O.F., 1950. The System NaAlSi3O8-KAlSi3O8-H20. The Journal of Geology, v. 58, no. 5, Feldspar Issue (Sep. 1950), p. 489-511. Bowen, N.L., 1922. The reaction principle in petrogenesis. The Journal of Geology, v. 30, no. 3, p. 177-198. Bowen, N.L., 1928. The evolution of the igneous rocks. Princeton University Press. Bowen, N.L., 1937. Recent high-temperature research on silicates and its significance in igneous geology. Am. Jour. Sci., ser. 5, v. 33, p. 1-21, doi: 10.2475/ajs.s5-33.193.1. Boyce, J.M. and Mouginis-Mark, P.J., 2006. Martian craters viewed by the Thermal Emission Imaging System instrument: Double-layered ejecta craters. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 111, no. E10. doi:10.1029/2005JE002638. Bucher, W.H., 1950. The crust of the Earth. Scientific American, May 1950. Burlaga, L.F., Klein, L,, Sheeley Jr., N.R., Michels, D.J., Howard, R.A., Koomen, M.J., Schwenn, R., and Rosenbauer, H., 1982. A magnetic cloud and a coronal mass ejection. Geophysical Research Letters, v. 9, p. 1317–1320. doi: 10.1029/GL009i012p01317. Camfield, P.A., Gough, D.I. and Porath, H., 1970. Magnetometer Array Studies in the North-Western United States and South-Western Canada. Geophys. Jour. Royal Astr. Soc., v. 22, p. 201-221. Carpenter, D.L. and Park, C.G., 1973. What ionospheric workers should know about the plasmapause / Plasmasphere. Rev. Geophys., v. 11, p. 133–154. Cherniak, D.J., 2003. Silicon self-diffusion in single-crystal natural quartz and feldspar. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 214, nos. 3–4, p. 655–668.

NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org 33


de Beer, J.H., van Zijl, J.S.V. and Gough, D.I., 1982. The Southern Cape Conductive Belt (South Africa): Its composition, origin and tectonic significance. Tectonophysics, v. 83, p. 205-225. de Lucas, A. / W.D. Gonzalez, E. Echer, F.L. Guarnieri, A. Dal Lago, M.R. da Silva, L.E.A. Vieira, N.J. Schuch, 2007. Energy balance during intense and super-intense magnetic storms using an Akasofu ε parameter corrected by the solar wind dynamic pressure. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, v. 69, no. 15, p. 1851–1863. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2007.09.001. Demouchy, S., Jacobsen, S.D., Gaillard, F. and Stern, C.R., 2006. Rapid magma ascent recorded by water diffusion profiles in mantle olivine. Geology, v. 34, no. 6, p. 429–432. doi: 10.1130/G22386.1. Dryer, M. and Faye-Petersen, R., 1966. Magnetogasdynamic boundary condition for a self-consistent solution to the closed magnetopause. AIAA Journal, v. 4, no. 2, p. 246-254. Dungey, W., 1961. Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones. Phys. Rev. Lett., v. 6, p. 47. Echer, E., Gonzalez, W.D. and Alves, M.V., 2006. On the geomagnetic effects of solar wind interplanetary magnetic structures. Space Weather 4, S06001. doi:10.1029/2005SW000200. Echer, E., Gonzalez, W.D. and Tsurutani, B.T., 2011. Statistical studies of geomagnetic storms with peak Dst≤−50 nT from 1957 to 2008. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, v. 73, nos. 11–12, p. 1454–1459. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.04.021. Edwards, C.L., Reiter, M., Shearer, C. and Young, W., 1978. Terrestrial heat flow and crustal radioactivity in northeastern New Mexico and southeastern Colorado. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 89, no. 9, p. 1341-1350. doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1978)89<1341:THFACR>2.0.CO;2. Emslie, A.G., et al, 2004. Energy partition in two solar flare/CME events. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 109, no. A10104, doi:10.1029/2004JA010571. Emslie, A.G., Dennis, B.R., Holman, G.D. and Hudson, H.S., 2005. Refinements to flare energy estimates: A followup to “Energy partition in two solar flare/CME events” by A.G. Emslie et al.. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 110, A11103, doi:10.1029/2005JA011305. Engineering Toolbox, 2014. www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-solids-d_1265.html & www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-solids-d_154.html Retrieved 4.1.14. Enkin, R.J., Osadetz, K.G., Baker, J. and Kisilevsky, D., 2000. Orogenic remagnetizations in the Front Ranges and Inner Foothills of the southern Canadian Cordillera: Chemical harbinger and thermal handmaiden of Cordilleran deformation. GSA Bulletin v. 112 no. 6 p. 929-942, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(2000)112<929:ORITFR>2.0.CO;2 Eselevich, M.V. and Eselevich, V.G., 2007. Features of Coronal Mass Ejections of Minimum Size. Cosmic Research, 2007, v. 45, no. 3, p. 186–195. Original Russian Text © M.V. Eselevich, V.G. Eselevich, 2007, published in Kosmicheskie Issledovaniya, 2007, v. 45, no. 3, p. 201–210. ESSL, 2008. Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory, Report 2008. www.nar.ucar.edu/2008/ESSL/contents.php, Retrieved 2.1.14. Freund, F. T., 2003. Rocks that crackle and sparkle and glow: Strange pre-earthquake phenomena. Journal of Scientific Exploration, v. 17, no. 1, p. 37–71, 2003 0892-3310/03 Gold, T., 1959. Motions in the magnetosphere of the Earth. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 64, no. 9, p. 1219–1224. doi:10.1029/JZ064i009p01219. Gold, T., 1962. Large solar outbursts in the past. Pontificiae Academiae Scientiarum Scripta Varia 25. Gold, T. and Hoyle, F., 1960. Origin of solar flares. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astr. Soc., v. 20, no. 2, p. 89-105. Gough, D.I., 1983. Electromagnetic geophysics and global tectonics. Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 88, no. B4, p. 3367-3377. Gough, D.I., Lilley, F.E. M. and McElhinny, M.W., 1972. A polarization-sensitive magnetic variation anomaly in South Australia. Nature, Phys. Sci., v. 239, p. 88-91. Graham, K.W.T., 1961. The re-magnetization of a surface outcrop by lightning currents. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 6, p. 85–102. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1961.tb02963.x Grapes R. H. and Müller-Sigmund, H., 2010. Lightning-strike fusion of gabbro and formation of magnetite-bearing fulgurite, Cornone di Blumone, Adamello, Western Alps, Italy. Miner Petrol., v. 99, p. 67–74. doi 10.1007/s00710-009-0100-3. Guo, J., Feng, X., Zhang, J., Zuo, P. and Xiang, C., 2010. Statistical properties and geoefficiency of interplanetary coronal mass ejections and their sheaths during intense geomagnetic storms. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 115, A09107, doi:10.1029/2009JA015140. Guo, J., Feng, X., Emery, B.A., Zhang, J., Xiang, C., Shen, F. and Song, W., 2011. Energy transfer during intense geomagnetic storms driven by interplanetary coronal mass ejections and their sheath regions. Jour. Geophys. Res.: Space Physics (1978–2012), 116(A5), doi:10.1029/2011JA016490. Guo, J., Feng, X., Emery, B.A. and Wang, Y., 2012. Efficiency of solar wind energy coupling to the ionosphere. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 117, A07303, doi:10.1029/2012JA017627. Haisch, B., Strong, K.T. and Rodono, M.A., 1991. Flares on the sun and other stars. Ann. Rev. Astr. Astrophys., v. 29, p. 275–324.

34 NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org

Hasegawa, H., Fujimoto, M., Phan, T.-D., Rème, H., Balogh, A., Dunlop, M.W., Hashimoto, C. and TanDokoro, R., 2004. Transport of solar wind into Earth's magnetosphere through rolled-up Kelvin–Helmholtz vortices. Nature, v. 430, p. 755-758. doi:10.1038/nature02799. Hawley, S.L. and Pettersen, B.R., 1991. The great flare of 1985 April 12 on AD Leonis. Astrophys. Jour.. v. 378, p. 725–741. Hissink, L.A.G., 2009. The Earth in an electric solar system. New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 51, p. 23-34. Hyndman, R.D. and Hyndman, D.W., 1968. Water saturation and high electrical conductivity in the lower continental crust. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 4, p. 427-432. Irving, E., Wynne, P.J., Evans, M.E. and Gough, W., 1986. Anomalous paleomagnetism of the Crowsnest Formation of the Rocky Mountains. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 23, no. 5, p. 591-598. doi:10.1139/e86-061. JASTP (Editorial), 2012. Overview of the special issue on the Atmospheric Coupling Processes in the Sun–Earth System. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, v.75-76, p. 1–4. Johnston, S.T., 2001. The Great Alaskan Terrane Wreck: reconciliation of paleomagnetic and geological data in the northern Cordillera. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 193, p. 259-272. Jorgensen, P.J., 1962. Effect of an Electric Field on Silicon Oxidation. The Journal of Chemical Physics, v. 37, p. 874-877. doi:10.1063/1.1733177. Kahler, S.W., Hildner, E. and Van Hollebeke, M.A.I., 1978. Prompt solar proton events and coronal mass ejections. Solar Physics, v. 57, no. 2, p. 429-443 Knight, J. and Grab, S.W., 2013. Lightning as a geomorphic agent on mountain summits: Evidence from southern Africa. Geomorphology. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.07.029. Kojitani, H. and Akaogi, M., 1995. Measurement of heat of fusion of model basalt in the system diopside-forsterite- anorthite. Geophysical Research Letters, v. 22, no. 17, p. 2329–2332. Kronenberg A.K. and Kirby, S.H., 1987. Ionic conductivity of quartz: DC time dependence and transition in charge carriers. American Mineralogist, v. 72, p. 739-747. Lanzerotti, L.J. and Gregori, G.P., 1986. National Research Council Geophysics Study Committee. The Earth's Electrical Environment, 263, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 1986. Ch. 16 Telluric currents: The natural environment and interactions with man-made systems. Lilley, F.E.M., 1975. Electrical conductivity anomalies and continental seismicity in Australia. Nature, v. 257, p. 381-382. Lillis, R.J., Frey, H.V., Manga, M., Mitchell, D.L., Lin, R.P. and Acuña, M.H., 2007. Magnetic signatures and crater retention ages of Giant Buried Basins on Mars: New constraints on the timing of the ancient dynamo. Seventh International Conference on Mars, held July 9-13, 2007 in Pasadena, California. LPI Contribution no. 1353, p. 3090. Lingenfelter, R.E. and Hudson, H.S., 1980. Solar particle fluxes and the ancient sun. In: The ancient sun: Fossil record in the earth, moon and meteorites; Proceedings of the Conference, Boulder, CO, October 16-19, 1979. (A81-48801 24-91) New York and Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1980, p. 69-79. Martin, J.J., 1988. Electrodiffusion (sweeping) of ions in quartz - a review. Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control 02/1988; 35(3):288- 96. DOI:10.1109/58.20449. Merrill, R.T., McElhinny, M.W. and McFadden, P.L., 1996. Magnetic Field of the Earth (Vol. 63). Academic Press. Morgan, P. and Swanberg, C.A., 1985. On the Cenozoic uplift and tectonic stability of the Colorado Plateau. Journal of Geodynamics, v. 3, p. 39-63. Munir, Z.A., Anselmi-Tamburini, U. and Ohyanagi, M., 2006. The effect of electric field and pressure on the synthesis and consolidation of materials: A review of the spark plasma sintering method. Journal of Materials Science, v. 41, no. 3, p. 763-777. NASA, 1999. science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast29dec99_1/ Retrieved 28.12.13. NASA, 2001. science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast31jan_1/ 10.1.14 “Although Mars no longer has a substantial magnetosphere, scientists think it once did and that the remnants of it still exist.” Retrieved 28.12.13 NASA, 2012. Solar System Exploration: Earth: Facts & Figures. NASA. 13 Dec 2012. solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Earth&Display=Facts Retrieved 4.1.14. Odenwald, S., Green, J. and Taylor, W., 2005. Forecasting the impact of an 1859-calibre superstorm on satellite resources. Advances in Space Research, v. 38, no. 2, p. 280–297. Odenwald, S.F. and Green, J.L., 2008. Bracing the satellite infrastructure for a solar superstorm. Scientific American, July 28, 2008 www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bracing-for-a-solar-superstorm&page=2 Ollier C. and Pain C., 2000. The origin of Mountains. Routledge 2000. Park, S.K., Hirasuna, B., Jiracek, G.R. and Kinn, C., 1996. Magnetotelluric evidence of lithospheric mantle thinning beneath the southern Sierra Nevada. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 101, no. B7, p. 16,241-16,255.

NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org 35


Pasek, M.A., Block, K. and Pasek, V., 2012. Fulgurite morphology: a classification scheme and clues to formation. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 164, p. 477–492. Plunkett S.P. and Wu, S.T., 2000. Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and their geoeffectiveness. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, v. 28, no. 6, p. 1807–1817. Ponomarenko, A.G., Zakharov, Y.P., Antonov, V.M., Boyarintsev, E.L., Melekhov, A.V., Posukh, V.G., Shaikhislamov, I.F. and Vchivkov, K.V., 2007. Laser Plasma Experiments to Simulate Coronal Mass Ejections During Giant Solar Flare and Their Strong Impact on Magnetospheres. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, v. 35, no. 4, p. 813-821. Porath, H., 1971. Magnetic variation anomalies and seismic low-velocity zone in the western United States. Jour. of Geophys. Res., v. 76, no. 11, p. 2643-2648. Porath, H., Oldenburg D.W. and Gough, D.I., 1970. Separation of magnetic variation fields and conductive structures in the western United States. Geophys. Jour. Royal. Astr. Soc., v. 19, p. 237-260. Roperch, P. and Carlier, G., 1992. Paleomagnetism of Mesozoic rocks from the central Andes of southern Peru: Importance of rotations in the development of the Bolivian orocline. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 97, no. B12, p. 17,233–17,249. doi:10.1029/92JB01291. Sakai, H., Sunada, S. and Sakurano, H., 1998. Study of lightning current by remanent magnetization. Electrical Engineering in Japan, v. 123, no. 4, p. 41–47, 1998. (Translated from Denki Gakkai Ronbunshi, v. 117-B, no. 7, July 1997, p. 1050-1055). doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6416(199806)123:4<41::AID-EEJ6>3.0.CO;2-O. Sandel, B.R., Goldstein, J., Gallagher, D.L. and Spasojevic, M., 2003. Extreme ultraviolet imager observations of the structure and dynamics of the plasmasphere. Space Sci. Rev., v. 109, p. 25–46. Schaefer, B.E., King, J.R. and Deliyannis, C.P., 2000. Superflares on ordinary solar-type stars. Astrophys. Jour., v. 529, p. 1026-1030. Scurry, L. and Russell, C.T., 1991. Proxy studies of energy transfer to the magnetosphere. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 96, no. A6, p. 9541–9548. doi:10.1029/91JA00569. Simpson, F. and Tommasi, A., 2005. Hydrogen diffusivity and electrical anisotropy of a peridotite mantle. Geophys. Jour. Int., v. 160, p. 1092–1102. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2005.02563.x. Smith, D.S. and Scalo, J., 2007. Solar x-ray flare hazards on the surface of Mars. Planetary and Space Science, v. 55, no. 4, p. 517–527. Stanley, W.D., Mooney, W.D. and Fuis, G.S., 1990. Deep crustal structure of the Cascade Range and surrounding regions from seismic refraction and magnetotelluric data. Jour. of Geophys. Res., v. 95, no. B12, p. 19,419-19,438. Towle, J.N., 1980. New evidence for magmatic intrusion beneath the Rio Grande rift, New Mexico. Geological Society of America Bulletin, Part I, v. 91, p. 626-630. Troshichev, O. and Janzhura, A., 2012. Space weather monitoring by ground-based means: PC index. Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Tsurutani, B.T., Gonzalez, W.D., Tang, F. and Lee, Y.T., 1992. Great magnetic storms. Geophysical Research Letters, v. 19, no. 1, p. 73-76. Tsurutani, B.T., Gonzalez, W.D., Lakhina, G.S. and Alex, S., 2003. The extreme magnetic storm of 1–2 September 1859. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 108, no. A7, p. 1268. doi:10.1029/2002JA009504, 2003. Usoskin, I.G., Solanki, S.K., Kovaltsov, G.A., Beer, J. and Kromer, B., 2006. Solar proton events in cosmogenic isotope data. Geophys. Res. Lett., v. 33, L08107. doi:10.1029/2006GL026059. van der Sluijs, M.A. and Johnson, R.J., 2013. Geometry of an intense auroral column as recorded in rock art. Journal of Scientific Exploration, v. 27, no. 2, p. 227–246. Vandas, M., Fischer, S., Pelant, P. and Geranios, A., 1993a. Spheroidal models of magnetic clouds and their comparison with spacecraft measurements. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 98, no. A7, p. 11467–11475, doi:10.1029/93JA00055. Vandas, M., Fischer, S., Pelant, P. and Geranios, A., 1993b. Evidence for a spheroidal structure of magnetic clouds, Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 98, no. A12, p. 21061–21069. doi:10.1029/93JA01749. Vasyliūnas, V.M., Kan, J.R., Siscoe, G.L. and Akasofu, S.-I., 1982. Scaling relations governing magnetospheric energy transfer. Planet. Space Sci., v. 30, p. 359–365. Verhoogen, J., 1952. Ionic diffusion and electrical conductivity in quartz. American Mineralogist, v. 37, p. 637–655. Verrier, V. and Rochette, P., 2002. Estimating peak currents at ground lightning impacts using remanent magnetization, Geophys. Res. Lett., v. 29, no. 18, p. 1867. doi:10.1029/2002GL015207, 2002. Walton, M, 1960. Granite Problems. Science, New Series, v. 131, no. 3401, p. 635-645. Weiss, D.K., and Head, J.W., 2013. Formation of double-layered ejecta craters on Mars: A glacial substrate model. Geophys. Res. Lett., v. 40, p. 3819–3824. doi:10.1002/grl.50778. Wolf, R.A., Freeman, J.W., Hausman, B.A., Spiro, R.W., Hilmer, R.V. and Lambour, R.L., 2013. Modeling convection effects in magnetic storms, in Magnetic Storms. (eds. Tsurutani, B.T., Gonzalez, W.D., Kamide, Y. and Arballo, J.K.), American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C. doi: 10.1029/GM098p0161.

36 NCGT Journal, v. 2, no. 1, March 2014. www.ncgt.org

Wolfe, A., Lanzerotti, L.J. and Meloni, A., 1984. Discussion of “A high time resolution study of the solar wind- magnetosphere energy coupling function” by Akasofu, Carbary, Meng, Sullivan and Lepping. Planet. Space Sci., v. 32, no. 2, p. 261-262. Yashiro, S., Gopalswamy, N., Michalek, G., Cyr, O.C.St., Plunkett, S.P., Rich, N.B. and Howard, R.A., 2004. A catalog of white light coronal mass ejections observed by the SOHO spacecraft. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 109, A07105. doi:10.1029/2003JA010282.

Appendix I. Consideration of the possible effects on the Earth’s orbit

A reviewer of an earlier draft of this paper questioned whether a CME of 1038 erg energy would change the Earth’s orbital parameters either because of the kinetic energies involved, or because magnetic forces are potentially much stronger than gravitational forces. These questions are addressed below.

The impact of the normal solar wind on the magnetosphere does not cause a change to the Earth’s orbit because the forces are extremely small. Dryer & Faye-Petersen (1966) calculated that the total drag from the solar wind amounted to ~ 4 x 1011 dynes, or ~ 4 x 106 N; this amounts to ~1 part in 1016 of the gravitational force on the Earth from the Sun which is given approximately by GMm/R2 = ~ 3.5 x 1022 N (NASA, 2102).

The normal solar wind contains numerous CMEs of between 1031 - 1032 erg energy emitted on an almost daily basis (see above) which do not affect the orbit. Similarly, the ~ 102 times as large CME of November 4, 2003 with energy estimated at ~ 7 x 1033 erg (Ponomarenko et al., 2007) had no measurable orbital effect. Even an event 106 as large as a typical daily CME would only generate a force of ~1 part in 1010 of the gravitational attraction and so would not be expected to significantly alter the Earth’s orbit, even if all the energy was in the form of kinetic energy.

As a very worst case scenario, suppose that the entire energy of a massive 1038 erg CME was in the form of kinetic energy and further suppose that this energy was transmitted with 100% efficiency to the Earth’s orbital parameters rather than being largely dissipated in Joule heating by electric currents as normal. Under these worst case limiting assumptions, the Earth’s orbital energy, given by -GMm/2R = -2.67 x 1040 erg (NASA, 2102), might change by ~1 part in 250; under the limiting case assumptions above, and if this energy was converted to an orbital change rather than to a change in the planet’s rotation rate, a equivalent ~1 part in 500 change in the radius of the Earth’s orbit could have occurred. Thus, under these worst case limiting assumptions, a 0.4% change in the Earth’s orbit is theoretically possible due to a 1038 erg CME impacting the Earth. Realistically, any effect would have been much smaller because firstly, the coupling efficiency is unlikely to have been 100%; and secondly, most of the energy would have been dissipated in Joule heating, not a change to the orbital energy.

Turning to the second point, a magnetic force between the Earth’s magnetosphere and an incoming CME carrying a magnetic field would cause an equal and opposite reaction force on the CME; the kinematic effect on the body of the Earth depends on the relative inertial masses of the Earth and the CME. The mass of a present-day CME is of the order of 1016 g (see above) i.e. 1013 kg; the mass of the Earth is ~ 6 x 1024 kg (NASA, 2102), i.e. a factor of 6 x 1011 higher. In essence, this is why the normal solar wind is diverted around the Earth without affecting its orbit.

A typical present-day CME has an energy of 1032 erg (see above). In order to estimate the maximum possible mass of an incoming CME, suppose that the 106 order-of-magnitude increase in a 1038 erg CME was due entirely to additional kinetic energy, given by mv2/2 ; and further suppose that both the mass and the velocity had increased by a factor of 100. (This is a conservative assumption for the present estimate because the velocity of CMEs is known to vary over a greater range than their mass – see above.) Under these limiting assumptions, the mass of a 1038 erg CME might reach ~1015 kg; this is still insignificant compared to that of the Earth. Therefore the kinematic effects due to magnetic forces of a CME 104 times as energetic as the largest measured to date (~7 x 1033 erg) will be confined to the CME and kinetic effects on the magnetosphere, and will not measurably change the Earth’s orbital parameters.

In summary, the principal effect of an incoming CME is to generate electric currents in the magnetosphere and, under the scenarios discussed in this paper, the body of the Earth itself. The majority of this energy will be dissipated as heat in the surface of the Earth and in the atmosphere and magnetosphere above it and would not be expected to cause significant orbital changes. The effects on the body of the Earth would be limited to the crustal layers in which the currents ran.