Earth's Ionosphere drops to a new low

Tex,
I don’t think it works that way. To a large extent, the total amount of gas in the atmosphere stays pretty constant (shorter terms) but it moves around over the planet to create high and low pressures, and regions of average pressures. There always has to be highs and lows which are above and below the average.
So by and large, a photon emitted from the earth’s surface has to run the gamut of the same number of gas molecules to get out of the atmosphere. It only takes a millisecond to clear 300 km, whcih isn’t the all clear, but 5 ms certainly would be.
Those photons could care less, whether they pass up all those molecules in the first 100 km or whether it takes 1000 km travel to pass them all; the probablility of hitting any of them shouldn’t change.
Now the temperature may mess with that a bit, in that any single molecule covers a larger piece of the outfield, if it is warmer, but, that would just reduce the time it spends in any one place so I don’t see how much would change in the way of capture probablity. (but I’ll readily accept anybody’s math that says otherwise.)
I suspect that a significant way in which the “atmosphere height” may affect climate would be in what it does to water vapor distribution, and hence cloud formation.
But off-hand I can’t say what that effect might be.

The main thing missing from my theories is the mechanism whereby small changes in solar activity have such a large effect on observed global temperatures.
Even Leif Svalgaard has been flummoxed by that to the extent that he has been driven to doubt about the validity of the apparent historical link between climate changes and solar changes.
To my mind the smaller the depth of any part of the atmosphere the more exposed is the surface to the cold of space and the faster heat energy is lost from the atmosphere.
As I’ve said before the weather patterns and the global temperature trend FOLLOW a change in the global heat balance. So, if small solar changes (moderated by the oceans) can change that balance then the weather patterns change and over time a climatic change becomes apparent.
There’s so much that we do not know that any suggestion that the science is settled is a product of a non scientific agenda.

Les Johnson (14:38:36) :
Possibly related….a giant breech in the magnetosphere…
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm?list91627
I wonder if vukcevic has seen this article, goes along nicely with his theory.
But once again new horizons opening before our very eyes.

Lief, Pamela:
Remarkably little basic internet data (on sites updated since 2003 at least!) on the EARTH’S magnetic field, its relative strength, and the position of the (rapidly-moving-towards-Siberia) magnetic north pole.
Now, we (the few skeptics in this AGW-dominated world) have long theorized that a decrease in the SUN’S magnetic field reduces the shielding effect AROUND the earth, and this decrease in the solar system’s net shielding allows more cosmic rays (creating more cloud nuclei) into the upper and mid atmosphere; which then increases reflectivity, which reduces temperature.
An increase in the sun’s activity increases the shielding effect, which reduces the cloud nuclei formation, which (in general) increases the amount of energypenetrating the atmosphere, which increases temperature.
BUT ,,,, (dramatic paused added for effect in the classroom) ….
What if the EARTH’S magnetic and self-shielding effects need to be added to the sun’s shielding and magnetic fields? If the earth’s shielding were steadily going down as the poles shift – they are loooong overdue! – then the recent 160 years of a warming trend might be twice related to magnetic field shielding: the earth’s shielding is being reduced, at the same time as the sun’s shielding is being reduced.
—-
From this web site:
http://thepanelist.com/Opinions/Opinions/Shifting_Gears,_or_What_Happens_When_the_Poles_Fail_200809241195/
—-
It won’t be the first time it has happened. In fact, earth’s polarity has shifted a number of times in the past, usually in 250,000-year intervals (based on the study of lava flows and old ship’s records). One such shift, called the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal, is estimated to have occurred about 780,000 years ago, or double the time between the two pole shifts prior to that. This unexpectedly long interval is, in fact, what has scientists concerned about a coming pole shift.
In 2001, an international polar expedition discovered that the earth’s North magnetic pole has shifted about 186 miles since 1994. This drift continues today, moving about 25 miles a year from the Canadian Arctic toward the Severnaya Zemkya islands north of Russia in the Arctic Ocean, leading some scientists to predict that the North Pole may eventually end up in the South Atlantic. This speculation is supported by an anomaly in that area with a surprisingly high magnetic field intensity of about 60 percent. Although how a shift to the east predicts a subsequent movement south is beyond me.
The movement and shift is further supported by the fact that, in the last two decades, Earth’s field intensity (measured in gauss and mentioned above) has shrunk by almost 2 percent, with a decrease in the South Atlantic nearer 10 percent.
This decline in field intensity is one of the factors leading scientists to predict a pole reversal. What they can’t even guess at is how long before it happens, how the transition occurs, or what happens to living creatures at the time.

Steven H.:
Kind of randomly I had been looking at those pictures the last few days, but I noticed that the extent image was “stuck” on December 11. Today’s image is the first new one I’ve seen since last Friday. I’m afraid my browser’s cache didn’t save the old file.
The slope of the line graph definitely changed since Friday (to nearly 0!) – I wonder if there has been a problem with the data and values from last week have carrying over?
That would explain the zero slope. What’s clearly different about today’s extent image is that the “1979-2000 median” line has been updated, but I think the sea ice has also been updated as Hudson Bay is almost entirely covered now.
The website does say there are occasional problems with the “real-time” updates and that monthly data are considered more accurate. Perhaps there were just some data glitches and this will all work out.

“” Stephen Wilde (16:10:53) :
The main thing missing from my theories is the mechanism whereby small changes in solar activity have such a large effect on observed global temperatures.
Even Leif Svalgaard has been flummoxed by that to the extent that he has been driven to doubt about the validity of the apparent historical link between climate changes and solar changes. “”
Well Steven, that position, that the sun can’t possibly be responsible for changes in earth climate; is one of the mantras of the UN IPCC club; and among the most commonly cited problems by the so-called mainstream press that propagates the IPCC propaganda (IMHO).
So I have to say I am very surprised to learn that Leif holds such a position.
I’m not a climatologist, so I don’t know exactly (or even approximately) how any of these global oscilaltion cycles works; but to me, they ONLY relate to how local climate changes; and I don’t believe they have much to do with the overriding question of whether the earth is gaining energy and getting hotter, or losing energy and getting colder, or pretty much staying put.
And I should hasten to add, that I am not interested in major earth orbit shifts; they clearly do things that are somewhat out of the ordinary, and hopefully somewhat understod.
But I have a VERY simple view of how I believe that basic energy balance situation works. It’s so simple I can’t believe it is not widely taught, and I can’t even imagine how it could possibly be wrong. (a good proof it is wrong would be gladly accepted).
The basic sun problem (evidently) is that around 35 years or three sunspot cycles of satellite measurments of the solar constant (Unfortunately not all from the same satellite) show that the solar constant changes cyclically with the sunspot numbers, so that it is higher at high sunspot numbers, and lower at low sunspot numbers; and the curve to me seems to have significant harmonic that makes it flatter at the bottoms and pointier at the peaks; which may be nothing more than the amount of time the sunspot numbers are near the peaks versus near the valleys. In any case, the peak to peak vartiation in the solar constant is only about 0.1% amplitude.
And the IPCC global warmers say that isn’t nearly enough heating change to affect the earth’s climate even though there is a significant body of data that shows earth temperature somewhat tracking the sunspot cycles, at least as far as the 22/23 year full magnetic cycle.
Despite this statistical linkage; the IPCCers are much more able to believe a linkage between global surface temperatures, and concurrent atmospheric CO2; even though the data shows absolutely no such correlation.
So what gives; the temperatures show clear linkages to multiples of the 22/3 year magnetic cycle and nobody believes; but they readily believe a CO2 temperature link in the absence of any such data.
So if the sun has an effect how does it do it; if 0.1% is not enough of a “forcing” (IPCC swear word) to cause any observable change in global surface temperatures.
Here’s my simple (IMHO) explanation; and I should hasten to add that I originated none of this; I’m just reading other people’s data, and connecting dots.
The major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by far is water. Were it not for water in the atmosphere this planet would be an ice ball, no matter how much CO2 we had.
Water absorbs (some) incoming solar radiation, beginning at around 700 nm where there is significant solar energy. That helps warm the atmosphere directly; but works to cool the surface (less surface sunlight).
Water also absorbs in the infra-red starting around 1.1 microns, and then all over the place in bands out to around 3 microns; which adds to the direct solar warming of the atmosphere but subtracts from the surface warming. But the earth emitted IR near BB radiation, even over the hottest desert areas, has very little energy below about 4.5 microns, and over most of the globe below 5 microns, with 75% of it being generally longer that 10 microns where water becomes strongly absorbing. CO2 doesn’t really kick in in the IR region till around 13.5 to 16.5 microns (near ground level where the highest atmospheric density and pressure and CO2 partial pressure, makes CO2 most active. Beyond the 16.5 micron region water is the most opaque liquid known, and absorbs everything in less than ten microns of water depth.
So water vapor creates a GHG warming effect that also is a positive feedback effect, in that the warming due to water vapor absorption of IR, leads to further (prompt) evaporation from the oceans (73% of the earth surface).
That is the basic GHG positive feedback warming that raises the earth temperature from less than -15 C up to about +15C.
CO2 also intercepts part of the earth IR (the 13.5-16.5 micron slot), which also causes (on return to earth) prompt water evaporation; arguably a positive feedback effect, except there is so much water vapor compared to CO2, that the water vapor doesn’t really need any help to cause positive feedback warming on its own.
Now in addition to being by far the majority of earth GHG in the atmosphere, water is unique in that it is THE ONLY GHG which occurs in the atmosphere in all three phases; vapor, liquid, and solid; and in the liquid and solid phases, water forms clouds; so much clouds, that the earth has about 50% cloud coverage of its surface at all times. Clouds are the biggest contributor to the earth albedo of 0.367 or thereabouts. Snow and ice are miniscule in that very little sunlight reaches the regions where snow and ice are, and old snow and ice don’t reflect anywhere near as much as people think; snow in particular traps quite a bit anechoically.
So clouds reflect quite a bit of direct sunlight back into space, which cools both the atmosphere, and also the ground; and in addition clouds that can precipitate, further absorb a lot more direct sunlight which may warm the atmosphere, but further cools the surface by reduction of ground level insolation. (ever been under a midwest thunderstorm in summertime?)
Nobody ever observed the earth surface to warm up, when cloud passes in front of the sun; it ALWAYS cools due to simple geometrical optics. Evne at night, when metorologists (on the six o’clock news) claim it warms due to high clouds; it doesn’t; it still cools, but maybe at a slower pace; but it still cools, and in the daylight (we’re talking climate; not last night’s weather) it cools a whole lot more.
Most of the earth’s cooling takes place in broad daylight; like around noon . Try running cold water through your car’s radiator and see how ineffective it is at cooling your engine; that’s why it is pressurized to raise the water temperature.
So water vapor leads to positive feedback warming, and clouds lead to negative feedback cooling.
Recent measuremnts from satellites show that a 1 deg C increase in global mean surface temps, results in a 7% increase in global evaporation; total atmospheric water content; and total global precipitation. See Wentz et al, in SCIENCE for July 2007. “How much more Rain will global Warming Produce”) (maybe give or bring; don’t have the paper in front of me). Wentz hangs out at RSS in Santa Rosa California.
What Wentz et al didn’t say was the obvious, that precipitation is fashionably associated with Clouds; real clouds of the dark sun blocking kind; not the “cloud that floats on high oer dale and hill”.
That total global evaporation and precipitaiton must be equal is obvious; other wise we would end up with the oceans over our heads.
It is also interesting to note, that the Playstation video gamers also agree with Wentz et al, on the 7% per deg C increase in global evaporation and total atmospheric water vapor. (read the water vapor pressure tables in the CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, ofr obviousness).
BUT !! The gamers cliam that the total global precipitaiton only increases by from 1 to 3% per deg C, not 7%. So the models are in error by as much as a factor of seven from real world actual experimental observations of reality; and aren’t perturbed by the one way transport of the oceans up into the atmosphere. Notice the ever present 3:1 fudge factor that is built into all Playstation climate models.
So now we have a regulating system. If it gets too cold, we get lots of rain and snow, and soon the dark clouds break up and disappear; and more sunlight reqaches the ground and it stops colling.
If it gets too hot, you get more evaporation, more water vapor GHG (remember the logarithmic warming versus GHG), and eventually you get more clouds, and more albedo, and less ground level insolation and it stops warming.
So as long as we have the oceans out there, we couldn’t change the temperature of this planet either up or down even if we wanted to.
So now what all this solar activity business ??
Well it is obvious (at least to me) that the earth’s temperature is regulated by modulation of the cloud cover. Too cold, lose clouds, warm up; too hot, more clouds, cool down.
So anything that encourages cloud formation will cause the cloud cover to shift to ballance at a lower temperature. So dust from a volcano cools the earth; not so much by blocking or scattering much sunlight, but by nucleating raindrops in clouds to give more cloud cover at a lower temperature. Anything that inhibits cloud formation, like California clean air particulate regulations, causes it to warm up to get enough evaporation to produce enough clouds.
Now enter Henrik Svensmark et al, with their cosmic ray thesis. I have to admit, that from an earlier life as a nuclear physicist, I knew about the Wilson cloud chamber, and its abilty to show charged particle tracks in a supersaturated water vapor chamber.
Water molecules do not like to condense on each other; but they will condense on damn near anything else; dust particles, pollen grains, microbes, even on showers of ionised gases, which is what cosmic rays produce in the upper atmosphere. Various kinds of high energy particles from mesons to protons, and weirder things, crash into upper atmospheric gases,a dn create thick trails of ionised atoms/molecules that are ideal for growing water droplets and starting cloud formation. Some of these nuclear reactions result in N14 turning into C14 which is raioactive. Some of these reactions result in release of Neutrons, and being uncharged, they can pass through the atmosphere largely unscathed, whereas the high energy charged primaries can never get through all that gas mess up there withoug hitting something; so the neutrons are measurable at surface level to monitor cosmic ray flux.
So cosmic rays and charged particles from the sun can create charged particle showers in the upper atmosphere and encourage cloud fromation through droplet nucleation.
Solar activity affects the charged ion flux, and can be historically monitored before the space age, by measuring the C14 concentration in clearly datable tree rings; and C14 variation has a very convincing linkage to solar activity since the space age. In fact I got a nice paper from Fred Singer just yesterday, since I was discussing this very subject with him.
The linkage between solar activity and cosmic ray flux as evidenced by C14 production is very striking. There is no such match between CO2 and global temperatures.
Now solar charged particles and cosmic rays are also influenced by the magnetic environment of the earth, which includes the solar magnetosphere, and when the near earth fields are strong, the charged particles get steered towards the magnetic poles, which are regions of low water vapor concentration, so not a lot of cloud nucleation can occur; but when the combined near earth magnetic fields are weaker, the cosmic ray flux on earth is more uniform, and stronger so lots of CRs fall in the tropical regions where ther is plenty of water vapor to form clouds, so cosmic rays and charged solar ions have more effect when near earth magnetic fields are low, and that relates to the 22/3 year solar magnetic cycle.
When I first heard of Svensmark’s work about a year ago; I did some cartwheels.
I have to confess I have not read their original papers in detail yet; but I am quite convinced that they are correct.
The linkage between that pesky orange ball up there, and earth climate; is not the insipid 0.1% change in the soalr constant, but it is the very sizeable change in cloud formation that results form the solar magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and solar charged particles.
And why that is so blessed hard for climate scientists to grasp is quite beyond my ken.
I’m strictly limited to what I can distill out of other people’s data and papers, since I don’t work in this field; but If I can understanbd it, I don’t see why the people who call themselves climate scientists can’t see it.
I gotta go and eat before I become part of the methane producing decay matter; but tomorrow I will post a link to the paper that Fred Singer sent me.

pkatt (10:26:47) : “Warm things expand, Cool things contract.. hmmm dont suppose it could be explained that easily?”

Except that water expands when it turns to ice…

JP (12:35:35) :
MMmmm…I was wondering why Art Bell’s show was coming in clearer…

If Art Bell’s show is coming in with any kind of clarity you need to adjust your brain.

What about the effect of the reduced surface area of the atmospheric sphere?
If the amount of energy presented to the top of the earth is roughly 1,366 Watts per Square Meter, and you contract the total volume of the atmospheric sphere, this necessarily reduces the surface area irradiated by the sun.
Now obviously a square meter of the top atmosphere that is interpose between the sun and the surface of the earth holds more heating effect than a square meter that presents a straight line missing the earth (where the light would pass in though the atmosphere and go out into space having missed the earth but presumably partially heating up those molecules it comes in contact with).
But I’m not suggesting that this effect would huge, but I’m guessing that the effect might be non-zero. Given the fact that sun’s irradiance varies only 0.1% during the solar cycle, could this effect overtime be significant for the earth’s climate and represent a up-to-now hidden component of solar forcing? Or does the solar energy that misses the earth but hits the atmosphere largely irrelevant?
Of course I would think that the greater surface area may represent a greater opportunity for the earth’s atmosphere to radiate it’s heat out. I certainly don’t know how this would all wash out numerically, but if the models currently assume a larger (and less variable) surface area, might they need to be adjusted to account for this reduction?
Jim Thomas

tarpon (15:08:54) :
I think it is simple lack of enough ions in the ionosphere. Radio communications which rely on an active ionosphere are in the pits. Now anyone want to put forth why there are fewer ions in the ionosphere? Big yellow ball on vacation?

I think it’s because all the ions are being placed into Qray bracelets. Obviously this is a man made problem. /sarc