ALERT: Geomagnetic K-index of 6 -- Threshold Reached: 2013 Mar 171700 UTC

Space Weather Message Code: ALTK06
Serial Number: 303
Issue Time: 2013 Mar 17 1713 UTC

ALERT: Geomagnetic K-index of 6
Threshold Reached: 2013 Mar 17 1700 UTC
Synoptic Period: 1500-1800 UTC

Active Warning: Yes
NOAA Scale: G2 - Moderate

NOAA Space Weather Scale descriptions can be found at
www.swpc.noaa.gov/NOAAscales

Potential Impacts: Area of impact primarily poleward of 55 degrees Geomagnetic Latitude.
Induced Currents - Power grid fluctuations can occur. High-latitude power systems may experience voltage alarms.
Spacecraft - Satellite orientation irregularities may occur; increased drag on low Earth-orbit satellites is possible.
Radio - HF (high frequency) radio propagation can fade at higher latitudes.
Aurora - Aurora may be seen as low as New York to Wisconsin to Washington state.

On Mar 17, 6:50*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Space Weather Message Code: ALTK06


You know Sam,these threads are rarely replied to yet they raise a lot
of questions as to what geomagnetic signatures are and where they come
from.Around a decade ago I started to look at the Earth's rotating
fluid interior like all other celestial objects with exposed viscous
compositions and looked specifically at any clues which may emerge
from an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar
latitudes,geomagnetism being one of them.By 2005 I decided to restrict
the issue to evolutionary geology and comparative planetary causes and
effects and specifically the linkage between the 26 mile spherical
deviation of the planet and crustal motion/evolution at the Mid
Atlantic Ridge.The proposal was so attractive that within two years
the empirical community dumped every assertion it could find at
rotation without taking any care whatsoever - par for the course as
far as I am concerned,yet looming behind evolutionary geological
concerns the geomagnetic signatures of differential rotation remain
and untouched by a community who seemingly are intent in exempting the
Earth from effects which govern all rotating celestial objects in a
fluid state.

I like you Sam,you try to keep things relevant even though it is hard
to feel any sense of panic with these 'ALERT' messages while
simultaneously ignoring the genuine tragedy which prohibits any
genuine attempt to consider fluid rotational dynamics beneath the thin
fractured crust of the Earth as it requires a definitive surface
equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per hour.

My presentation as to the difference between mechanical astronomy and
interpretative astronomy has been as relentless as your insistence on
the 'solar vs sidereal' perspective which you attach to the Earth's
daily and orbital motions while your community has since morphed into
an equally dismal conception based on idealized rotation once in 24
hours back in the year 1820.So what do you teach your students now
Sam ?,Newton's agenda is based on a rotating celestial sphere
framework and a clockwork solar system while contemporaries have now
shifted to a 'new' approach which is conjured out of thin air and has
no pedigree in terms of external references.

Like the attempt to insert a haphazard approach to rotation and plate
tectonics,your community tried to undo the damage of the 'solar vs
sidereal' concept in a most grotesque way while the offer has always
been to take the time and research the foundations of timekeeping and
the order in which each new facet emerged and the references attached
to them`.Your community has done me and the community of astronomers a
grave wrong by trying to fiddle with the 'solar vs sidereal' nonsense
instead of taking notice of what actually works so now you are left
with a 'new' version of exact rotation back in the year 1820 with no
historical or technical background behind that awful conclusion.

If you know what you are doing you can see the influences emerge but
sometimes I have to shake my head at the hamfisted attempts in
handling astronomical topics and especially cause and effect.

Oriel crank, nutter or bot - frankly who cares?