From National Geographic:
Clouds of charged particles stretch a quarter the way to the moon, experts say.
Clouds of “cold plasma” reach from the top of Earth’s atmosphere to at least a quarter the distance to the moon, according to new data from a cluster of European satellites.
Earth generates cold plasma—slow-moving charged particles—at the edge of space, where sunlight strips electrons from gas atoms, leaving only their positively charged cores, or nuclei.
(Find out how cold plasma might also help explain why Mars is missing its atmosphere.)
Researchers had suspected these hard-to-detect particles might influence incoming space weather, such as this week’s solar flare and resulting geomagnetic storm. That’s because solar storms barrage Earth with similar but high-speed charged particles.
Still, no one could be certain what the effects of cold plasma might be without a handle on its true abundance around our planet.
“It’s like the weather forecast on TV. It’s very complicated to make a reasonable forecast without the basic variables,” said space scientist Mats André, of the Swedish Institute of Space Physics.
“Discovering this cold plasma is like saying, Oh gosh, there are oceans here that affect our weather,” he said.
Also, per a January 7, 2009 National Geographic article. ”Warm Plasma Cloak” Discovered Enveloping Earth”,
“The magnetosphere—the shield of ions and electrons that envelops Earth—extends far beyond the atmosphere, defending the planet from the harmful solar wind.
Charles “Rick” Chappell, a physicist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, led a research team that assembled information dating back decades to describe the new magnetosphere layer.
Some of the first hints of the cloak first showed up in data from research satellites in the early 1970s. The cloak was finally confirmed by NASA’s Polar satellite, which ended a 12-year run in April 2008.
The cloak’s discovery creates a theoretical home for particles that didn’t fit with any of the other understood parts of the Earth’s magnetosphere, Chappell said.”
Hat tip to WUWT regular Carla
The more we know the less….
Mars is missing its atmosphere for two reasons.
1. The Hellas basin impact.
2. The mean free velocity for nitrogen, Oxygen, methane, and hydrogen is higher than the escape velocity of the planet. That is also why what is left is mostly CO2 as the molecules are 1.4 times heavier than N2.
I really wish that people would quit looking for other reasons for something that has been explained decades ago.
For reference: “Plasma Clouds Around the Earth
Encircling the equatorial region of the Earth, and extending to latitudes nearly as far as the Arctic Circle, are regions of space where powerful flows of particles exist. Since the late 1950s at the dawn of the Space Age, they have been called the Van Allen belts. They were at one time believed to be particles from the solar wind, trapped by the Earth’s magnetic field. Like an invisible bottle, particles could enter the bottle but would have a hard time leaving.
There are actually two belts which are shaped like two nested donuts centered on the Earth. The inner belt contains 10 million-volt, high-energy protons (the stripped nuclei of hydrogen atoms), and is located between 700 kilometers and 12,000 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. The outer belt contains mostly electrons with energies higher than 1 million volts, located between 25,000 and 40,000 kilometers from the Earth’s surface.
There are two other important systems of particles that invisibly orbit the Earth: the plasmasphere and the ring current. Both of these systems contain much lower energy particles than the Van Allen belts, although they occupy nearly the same regions of space extending to at least 45,000 kilometers from the Earth’s surface.
Low-energy particles, with energies of a few tens of volts, surround the Earth in a vast donut-shaped cloud called the plasmasphere. The Earth’s magnetic field in this region is so strong that the charged plasmasphere particles are pulled along with the Earth’s 24-hour rotation. During times of severe coronal mass ejections, atoms from the Earth’s atmosphere are actually pumped into the plasmasphere in a so-called polar fountain. These fountains can be detected by orbiting satellites as they pass through the arctic and antarctic regions within a few thousand kilometers of the Earth.
The ring current extends from 8,000 kilometers to nearly 30,000 kilometers from the surface and occupies nearly the same zone as the much more energetic Van Allen belts. Ring current particles carry energies of thousands of volts. It is not a complete equatorial ring, like the planet Saturn’s rings, but is only at its strongest on the night-side of the Earth. Its strength increases and decreases with the activity in the magnetotail region.
During times of severe storminess, when the solar wind magnetic polarity is south-type, the ring current becomes a powerful river of charged particles that create their own intense magnetic field. This field modifies the Earth’s own field and actually decreases its intensity in the equatorial regions of the Earth. The origin of these 100,000-volt particles is something of a scientific mystery. We don’t fully understand how they are energized to such high voltages within the magnetosphere.
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/educator/litho8.html
Visualizations:
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/1998/10/29/ast07jan99_1_resources/mag_sketch_633_new.jpg
http://images.sciencedaily.com/2008/12/081212141849-large.jpg
@ur momisugly Just the facts
Thank you again. Now I’ll be up all night adding to my ‘vast wealth of useless knowledge’.
Inquiring minds need to know.
A bit of a mis-statement here, I think.
Even one stripped electron, leaving all the rest, makes a positive ion. It doesn’t have to be nake nuclei!!
Thanks – JustTheFacts. This really helps.
But somethingnthat would Really help would be an explaination of “Hellas”…
Nicht wahr?
This might answer your question:
http://dreamersperch.blogspot.com/2012/01/hellas-basin-on-mars-smart-cookie-award.html
It suggests that perhaps the impact that created Mars’ Hellas Basin destroyed the magnetic field of Mars.
eyesonu says: January 27, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Now I’ll be up all night adding to my ‘vast wealth of useless knowledge’.
Not useless, just knowledge that has not yet found practical application. 🙂
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
January 27, 2012 at 7:37 pm
I really wish that people would quit looking for other reasons for something that has been explained decades ago.
Amen !
http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
@ur momisugly Just the Facts
Quick question. I’m looking at the NASA link provided by you. I assume this NASA illistration wolud be a cross section and if looking from a 90 degree or ‘z’ axis the plasmasphere would be a donut.
Also is the Earth’s magnetic field the primary / determining factor locating around the equator. If the Earth magnetic poles were rotated 90 degrees would the orientation be the same with regards to the Earth’s magnetic poles. I guess I asking if the solar winds or the Earth’s magnetic field determines the orientation.
Probably not an answer at this point in time but if you have a correct theory please let me know or how to find it. This is cosmic!
Douglas DC says:
January 27, 2012 at 7:22 pm
The more we know the less….
Did Socrates say that, or was it Don Henley?
Two questions for Dennis or JustThe Facts
1) Are these plasma clouds electrically neutral? I had thought that it is impossible to have a charged plasma in space, although they can conduct massive currents.
2) Does “south-type” mean same polarity as earth or opposite polarity? I was assuming it means that a compass near the sun would point south.
So the Earth is surrounded by plasma which is an electric conductor. Now add the Sun’s rotating magnetic field. What happens when a magnetic field rotates around or through an electric conductor ?? Now I`m not proposing electric universe rubbish, but I dont understand why science is in such denial that there must be massive current generated and trasported through our solar system. Unless of course people want to claim that when a magentic rotates through an electric conductor (ie a generator) that it does not induce a current ??
eyesonu says: January 27, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Quick question. I’m looking at the NASA link provided by you. I assume this NASA illistration wolud be a cross section and if looking from a 90 degree or ‘z’ axis the plasmasphere would be a donut.
Yep:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Plasmasphere.jpg
Also is the Earth’s magnetic field the primary / determining factor locating around the equator. If the Earth magnetic poles were rotated 90 degrees would the orientation be the same with regards to the Earth’s magnetic poles. I guess I asking if the solar winds or the Earth’s magnetic field determines the orientation.
I am not sure I understand. Do you mean orientation in this sense?:
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/magsphere/msphere06.gif
http://www.geomag.us/info/Magnetosphere/magnetosphere.jpg
http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/c5/solarwind-interaction-magnetosphere410.jpg
What is the relationship of all this to the Kennelly-Heaviside Layer that was identified almost a hundred years ago?
Dennis Ray Wingo: “I really wish that people would quit looking for other reasons for something that has been explained decades ago”.
Leif Svalgaard: “Amen!”
I have to say that I find your grouse rather dismaying. Is not the defending of a consensus what we have come to so despise among certain climate scientists? Should not all scientific theories, even those considered as basic laws, (and especially the long-held “immutable” ones) be questioned from time to time, particularly in the light of fresh research and data or even just an approach from a fresh angle? Is that not what Popper’s falsifiability is all about, or have I as a layman misunderstood it?
If the established theories and laws hold good, so much the better.
John Wright says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:23 am
Should not all scientific theories, even those considered as basic laws, (and especially the long-held “immutable” ones) be questioned from time to time, particularly in the light of fresh research and data or even just an approach from a fresh angle?
Yes, they should and are all the time. What is reported here is confirmation of long-established knowledge.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:53 am
John Wright says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:23 am
Should not all scientific theories, even those considered as basic laws, (and especially the long-held “immutable” ones) be questioned from time to time, particularly in the light of fresh research and data or even just an approach from a fresh angle?
Yes, they should and are all the time. What is reported here is confirmation of long-established knowledge———————————————————————————————
Hum? here is what the article said Leif, including what it said about Mars losing its atmosphere. While the headline may be over dramatic, was all of the following already well known?
“four spacecraft which zip around Earth in an elliptical orbit—found evidence of positively charged, slow-moving (hence “cold”) plasma particles as far as 60,000 miles (100,000 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.
That’s about a quarter of the way to the moon, and a region where few researchers suspected any cold plasma lurked
The results imply cold matter constitutes between 50 and 70 percent of all charged particles in Earth’s magnetic field! That’s quite a jump from zero percent.
The sudden abundance of cold plasma means a few things. Space weather forecasts stand to improve, as cold plasma particles probably interact with incoming hot matter from solar storms—and that dynamic is missing from computer models. Another effect is that the Earth is bleeding off roughly 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of atmospheric gas every second.
When you look at planets with thin atmospheres like Mars (which has just 1 percent the atmospheric pressure of Earth), scientists like André begin to wonder what role the “blood loss” of cold plasma plays in killing atmospheres.
There are all kinds of ways to get rid of a planet’s atmosphere—big asteroid impacts, loss of a dynamo, and so on,” André said. “Well, this is certainly one of them when you apply it over billions of years of time. I don’t know how important it is, but this is on my short list.”
Plasma bands that do matter are shown here:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/154188main_plasma_bands_lgweb.jpg
Why? More here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
ggm says:
January 27, 2012 at 10:29 pm
“Now I`m not proposing electric universe rubbish, but I dont understand why science is in such denial that there must be massive current generated and trasported through our solar system.”
Because astrophysicists are not electrical engineers.
Very interesting and another item to add to the long list of influences on climate and another one ignored by the climate models.
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
January 27, 2012 at 7:37 pm
The subject in Dennis’s post was the atmosphere of Mars, not
Earth’s atmosphere, as a subsequent commenter innocently (?) misinterpreted it.
John Wright says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:23 am
John Wright then opines at January 28, 2012 at 12:23 am
“I have to say that I find your grouse rather dismaying. Is not the defending of a consensus what we have come to so despise among
certain climate scientists? ”
John,
You’re right. Climate scientists such as Phil Jones and Mike Mann bolster their
positions by quoting from and citing their own studies, or rely on studies by others
who just happen approve of their particular and peculiar brand of research.
They have been quick to mark what they think is their territory and defend
it as best as they can. They denigrade non-supporters as “deniers”.
So too do we have some solar scientists who are fond of quoting themselves
and brand their non-believers in their field or the ones tangenital to it to be
less than intelligent.
Personally, I figure folks who have to resort to quoting themselves first are
selling something that isn’t really confirmed by the facts as they are coming in.
Leif says:
John Wright says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:23 am
Should not all scientific theories, even those considered as basic laws, (and especially the long-held “immutable” ones) be questioned from time to time, particularly in the light of fresh research and data or even just an approach from a fresh angle?
Yes, they should and are all the time. What is reported here is confirmation of long-established knowledge.
—————————————————————————-
So now we know.. this particulat bit of science is settled. What a relief…. /sarc
DirkH says:
January 28, 2012 at 2:09 am
That´s a problem, indeed. But if every “modern” gadget, from toasters, pc´s to iPhones or Blackberries, we use today is powered by electricity, would´t it be advisable to teach kids, from the primary school the principles of electricity? That would make a real change in the future.
That´s the Earth´s Corona!!. When will our humble earth evolve to be a decent Sun?