Stephanie Buchanan's banner

Stephanie Buchanan

@stephXskystory • 4,000 subscribers

Earth geometry, magnetic structure, & space weather. Background in math, physics, and quantum chemistry. Interested in the deeper pattern.

Shorts

EM Solver Update 05: the daily SWARM test is now fully passing! I’m adding more SWARM modes and testing how the solver behaves across different frequencies. The first really low frequency test exposed a brand new numerical issue 😭, so I’m working through that before scaling up. We're getting closer to the full multi-mode SWARM response model... Details:

92,436 просмотров

We're done! EM Solver Update 04: The production baseline is done! The realistic operator works, and the physical solution formally converged. Now we can FINALLY answer the question we started this whole thing for... does EM induction explain the abyssal ocean warming acceleration pattern? Details:

We're done! EM Solver Update 04: The production baseline is done! The realistic operator works, and the physical solution formally converged. Now we can FINALLY answer the question we started this whole thing for... does EM induction explain the abyssal ocean warming acceleration pattern? Details:

16,663 просмотров

Videos

Anya Rossi

sweetdream.ai

SweetDream.ai•Sponsored•Livecam

Watch Anya Live

Anya is streaming live right now! Join her private show and enjoy exclusive content.

Exclusive private shows

1.2k viewers online

Private Show

Join now for exclusive access

Free preview available • Premium content

Ocean Heat Source 12: Inverse prediction map complete I worked backwards from the observed abyssal warming and mapped where the missing heat sources would have to be, and how strong they'd have to be. The strongest predicted hotspot is around 51.8°W, 41.1°S. So... Roger (Ethical Skeptic ☀), is there something interesting down there? :) The prediction map is frozen...now we can begin our search.

Ocean Heat Source 12: Inverse prediction map complete I worked backwards from the observed abyssal warming and mapped where the missing heat sources would have to be, and how strong they'd have to be. The strongest predicted hotspot is around 51.8°W, 41.1°S. So... Roger (Ethical Skeptic ☀), is there something interesting down there? :) The prediction map is frozen...now we can begin our search.

Stephanie Buchanan

71,236 просмотров • 29 дней назад

EM Solver Update 02: Tracing where induction heating happens on Earth Space weather changes the electrical currents in and around Earth’s magnetosphere, which changes the magnetic field reaching the planet. SWARM represents that large scale magnetic field using spherical harmonics. The lowest ones are huge and simple, and as you go higher, the patterns get finer and more complicated. Mathematically, there are infinitely many possible modes, but SWARM only needs the first few to describe the large scale magnetospheric field. That’s where the solver comes in.. I take those big magnetic patterns and send them into a much messier Earth: oceans, continents, changing conductivity, and the solid Earth underneath. I’m following that energy into the abyss to see if induction heating can actually explain the abyssal warming. Details:

EM Solver Update 02: Tracing where induction heating happens on Earth Space weather changes the electrical currents in and around Earth’s magnetosphere, which changes the magnetic field reaching the planet. SWARM represents that large scale magnetic field using spherical harmonics. The lowest ones are huge and simple, and as you go higher, the patterns get finer and more complicated. Mathematically, there are infinitely many possible modes, but SWARM only needs the first few to describe the large scale magnetospheric field. That’s where the solver comes in.. I take those big magnetic patterns and send them into a much messier Earth: oceans, continents, changing conductivity, and the solid Earth underneath. I’m following that energy into the abyss to see if induction heating can actually explain the abyssal warming. Details:

Stephanie Buchanan

37,221 просмотров • 17 дней назад

Ocean Heat Source 05: Adiabatic compression doesn’t explain the deep ocean warming observation. Test type: Empirical, an audit of the Johnson 2026 data product and calculation workflow. The idea is basically this..as water sinks, the pressure rises and warms its in situ temperature a little, even without adding heat. So, I traced the Johnson 2026 warming map through the full workflow to see which temperature variable it actually uses. It uses Conservative Temperature, which removes that reversible pressure warming effect. So, the abyssal warming acceleration is still there after the compression effect has been taken out. Adiabatic compression can change the local thermometer reading a little. It can’t produce the Johnson warming signal itself. One mechanism crossed off... next. More details:

Ocean Heat Source 05: Adiabatic compression doesn’t explain the deep ocean warming observation. Test type: Empirical, an audit of the Johnson 2026 data product and calculation workflow. The idea is basically this..as water sinks, the pressure rises and warms its in situ temperature a little, even without adding heat. So, I traced the Johnson 2026 warming map through the full workflow to see which temperature variable it actually uses. It uses Conservative Temperature, which removes that reversible pressure warming effect. So, the abyssal warming acceleration is still there after the compression effect has been taken out. Adiabatic compression can change the local thermometer reading a little. It can’t produce the Johnson warming signal itself. One mechanism crossed off... next. More details:

Stephanie Buchanan

36,316 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

I tested whether Earth's gravity and inertia geometry independently recovers the proposed ECDO pole Np'. The static gravity axis (orange) was just 9.45° away from Np'. One independent P-wave tomography model, UNICA25, (pink) was only 2.16° away. The family balanced lowermost mantle preferred-axis center (blue) is still 18.81° away. UNICA25 is the only P-wave tomography model in the current set, so my next question is whether this reflects a P-wave vs. S-wave distinction, improved oceanic coverage with this model, or maybe another inversion assumption.

I tested whether Earth's gravity and inertia geometry independently recovers the proposed ECDO pole Np'. The static gravity axis (orange) was just 9.45° away from Np'. One independent P-wave tomography model, UNICA25, (pink) was only 2.16° away. The family balanced lowermost mantle preferred-axis center (blue) is still 18.81° away. UNICA25 is the only P-wave tomography model in the current set, so my next question is whether this reflects a P-wave vs. S-wave distinction, improved oceanic coverage with this model, or maybe another inversion assumption.

Stephanie Buchanan

27,541 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Ocean Heat Source 08: 📢Antarctic Bottom Water and overturning don’t explain the magnitude of the abyssal warming acceleration. Test type: Empirical, data-constrained model comparison This one reminded me how important quantitation is... Antarctic Bottom Water is real, and at first, it actually looked like a surprisingly good match to the abyssal warming signal. The density structure matched surprisingly well. The pathway was plausible. Then, I calculated how much warming acceleration the overturning circulation can actually supply. ECCO produces only ~2% of the observed 4-6 kdbar acceleration. So AABW/overturning may contribute, but it fails as the dominant quantitative explanation. I’m now down to the final 2 mechanisms! We’re getting close to narrowing this down. Next, I’m testing the geothermal/hydrothermal heating mechanism. Details:

Ocean Heat Source 08: 📢Antarctic Bottom Water and overturning don’t explain the magnitude of the abyssal warming acceleration. Test type: Empirical, data-constrained model comparison This one reminded me how important quantitation is... Antarctic Bottom Water is real, and at first, it actually looked like a surprisingly good match to the abyssal warming signal. The density structure matched surprisingly well. The pathway was plausible. Then, I calculated how much warming acceleration the overturning circulation can actually supply. ECCO produces only ~2% of the observed 4-6 kdbar acceleration. So AABW/overturning may contribute, but it fails as the dominant quantitative explanation. I’m now down to the final 2 mechanisms! We’re getting close to narrowing this down. Next, I’m testing the geothermal/hydrothermal heating mechanism. Details:

Stephanie Buchanan

18,222 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Ocean Heat Source 09: The dominant source is either a) geothermal/hydrothermal heating from below, or b) electromagnetic induction. Here’s where I’m at with the five mechanisms I’m testing to explain the abyssal warming acceleration: 1. adiabatic compression: closed 2. isopycnal heave: quantified; observationally limited 3. AABW/overturning: closed as the dominant quantitative explanation 4. geothermal/hydrothermal: in progress, looking weak as the dominant explanation, closing two loopholes... 5. electromagnetic induction: solver in development, strongest remaining hypothesis Two mechanisms closed. One ran into the limits of the observations. Two left to test... We're closing in.

Ocean Heat Source 09: The dominant source is either a) geothermal/hydrothermal heating from below, or b) electromagnetic induction. Here’s where I’m at with the five mechanisms I’m testing to explain the abyssal warming acceleration: 1. adiabatic compression: closed 2. isopycnal heave: quantified; observationally limited 3. AABW/overturning: closed as the dominant quantitative explanation 4. geothermal/hydrothermal: in progress, looking weak as the dominant explanation, closing two loopholes... 5. electromagnetic induction: solver in development, strongest remaining hypothesis Two mechanisms closed. One ran into the limits of the observations. Two left to test... We're closing in.

Stephanie Buchanan

13,645 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

DRIFT × Solar Signal Update 03: I finally returned to my solar signal test using Craig Stone’s DRIFT polar motion diagnostics. Earth’s geographic pole naturally wobbles, mostly through the Chandler wobble and an annual cycle. DRIFT looks at the shape, phase and stability of that path. I’m testing whether unusual states in that motion line up with changes in the solar wind magnetic environment. And, it does... specifically for two terms: coupling stability and R(t). Low DRIFT coupling stability shows up ~10% more often shortly after an IMF sector transition. And, extreme R(t) states were ~65% more common during sustained southward IMF Bz. So, two different DRIFT variables are showing timing relationships with two different parts of the solar wind magnetic environment.

DRIFT × Solar Signal Update 03: I finally returned to my solar signal test using Craig Stone’s DRIFT polar motion diagnostics. Earth’s geographic pole naturally wobbles, mostly through the Chandler wobble and an annual cycle. DRIFT looks at the shape, phase and stability of that path. I’m testing whether unusual states in that motion line up with changes in the solar wind magnetic environment. And, it does... specifically for two terms: coupling stability and R(t). Low DRIFT coupling stability shows up ~10% more often shortly after an IMF sector transition. And, extreme R(t) states were ~65% more common during sustained southward IMF Bz. So, two different DRIFT variables are showing timing relationships with two different parts of the solar wind magnetic environment.

Stephanie Buchanan

12,736 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

ECDO vs. EDC: the geometry seems to like a coupled crust and mantle. The biggest difference between the two theories is what moves during the proposed reorientation. ECDO, as proposed by Ethical Skeptic ☀, has the moving shell extending from the surface down to the core–mantle boundary. EDC, as proposed by SpaceWeatherNews, uses a much shallower shell, roughly 100 km deep, above the low-velocity zone. So, I tested that difference directly. First up: LIPs and LLSVPs. Across every tomography model in the analysis, the alignment held up better when the crust and mantle stayed together. Applying the exact 85º crust-only correction made the fit worse. Then, I checked five major hotspot tracks. Same story. The hotspot trails were best preserved without a large independent crustal rotation, and even letting the Euler pole wander around the globe could not rescue an 85º crust-only shift. At this point, the geometry is being pretty stubborn: the crust wants to stay with the mantle. That is strong evidence against the exact shallow shell geometry tested here. It supports preservation of crust–mantle coupling during any large reorientation. One caveat: a brief out and back excursion could restore the original alignment. That version would need to be tested using records formed during the temporary displaced interval. Apparently, the theory found another level.

ECDO vs. EDC: the geometry seems to like a coupled crust and mantle. The biggest difference between the two theories is what moves during the proposed reorientation. ECDO, as proposed by Ethical Skeptic ☀, has the moving shell extending from the surface down to the core–mantle boundary. EDC, as proposed by SpaceWeatherNews, uses a much shallower shell, roughly 100 km deep, above the low-velocity zone. So, I tested that difference directly. First up: LIPs and LLSVPs. Across every tomography model in the analysis, the alignment held up better when the crust and mantle stayed together. Applying the exact 85º crust-only correction made the fit worse. Then, I checked five major hotspot tracks. Same story. The hotspot trails were best preserved without a large independent crustal rotation, and even letting the Euler pole wander around the globe could not rescue an 85º crust-only shift. At this point, the geometry is being pretty stubborn: the crust wants to stay with the mantle. That is strong evidence against the exact shallow shell geometry tested here. It supports preservation of crust–mantle coupling during any large reorientation. One caveat: a brief out and back excursion could restore the original alignment. That version would need to be tested using records formed during the temporary displaced interval. Apparently, the theory found another level.

Stephanie Buchanan

17,388 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Ocean Heat Source 04: Now that I’ve pinned down the abyssal warming pattern, it’s time to investigate possible sources. I’m working through five main possibilities: 1. Adiabatic compression : could the water only appear warmer because it moved deeper and got squeezed? This one is already looking weak. 2. Redistribution and isopycnal heave: could density layers be moving up and down and shifting existing heat around? 3. Antarctic Bottom Water and overturning: could changing deep ocean circulation be carrying warmer water into the abyss? 4. Geothermal and hydrothermal heating : could heat be entering from the seafloor, ridges, or vents? 5. Electromagnetic induction and ohmic heating: could changing magnetic fields drive electric currents, and could enough of that electrical energy turn into heat? I’ll need my electromagnetic solver to finish that last test. Now, we get to see which mechanisms survive testing.

Ocean Heat Source 04: Now that I’ve pinned down the abyssal warming pattern, it’s time to investigate possible sources. I’m working through five main possibilities: 1. Adiabatic compression : could the water only appear warmer because it moved deeper and got squeezed? This one is already looking weak. 2. Redistribution and isopycnal heave: could density layers be moving up and down and shifting existing heat around? 3. Antarctic Bottom Water and overturning: could changing deep ocean circulation be carrying warmer water into the abyss? 4. Geothermal and hydrothermal heating : could heat be entering from the seafloor, ridges, or vents? 5. Electromagnetic induction and ohmic heating: could changing magnetic fields drive electric currents, and could enough of that electrical energy turn into heat? I’ll need my electromagnetic solver to finish that last test. Now, we get to see which mechanisms survive testing.

Stephanie Buchanan

14,408 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Больше нет контента для загрузки