It has been said that “the science is settled” regarding what we know about Earth’s atmosphere and climate. But recently scientists discovered that something we had accepted as a basic truth for a very long time is not true at all. One of the “basic truths” we all learned is that Earth’s atmosphere is “protected” from the solar wind by its magnetic field, unlike Mars which has lost most of its atmosphere due to the solar wind.
But when some space scientists compared notes recently, they discovered something startling:
“We said, ‘Oh my goodness — what we’ve been telling people about the magnetic shield is not correct.'”
And so what we thought to be true about our atmosphere, isn’t.
Earth Losing Atmosphere Faster than Venus, Mars
Irene Klotz, Discovery News
June 2, 2009 — Researchers were stunned to discover recently that Earth is losing more of its atmosphere than Venus and Mars, which have negligible magnetic fields.
This may mean our planet’s magnetic shield may not be as solid a protective screen as once believed when it comes to guarding the atmosphere from an assault from the sun.
“We often tell ourselves that we are very fortunate living on this planet because we have this strong magnetic shield that protects us from all sorts of things that the cosmos throws at us — cosmic rays, solar flares and the pesky solar wind,” said Christopher Russell, a professor of geophysics and space physics at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“It certainly does help in some of those areas but … in the case of the atmosphere, this may not be true,” he said.
Russel and others came to this realization while meeting at a comparative planetology conference last month.
“Three of us who work on Earth, Venus and Mars got together and compared notes,” Russell told Discovery News. “We said, ‘Oh my goodness — what we’ve been telling people about the magnetic shield is not correct.'”
The perpetrators are streams of charged particles blasting off the sun in what is known as the solar wind.
“The interaction of solar wind with Venus and Mars is pretty simple,” Russell said. “The wind comes in, carries a magnetic field, which wraps around the ionosphere of the planet. The ionosphere is basically dragged away.”
Complete article here at Discovery News
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wonder if these guys balanced their loss calculation with this?
B. The Images Presented. On May 28, 1997, (only three weeks after the broadcast of INFINITY #11), at the Spring meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in Baltimore, Maryland, Dr. Frank presented impressive images of small comets striking the Earth’s atmosphere. These images and related data were convincing to formerly skeptical scientists (Ref.1) ;Dr. Frank estimates that the average small comet has a mass of ten to twenty tons, and that about twenty small comets hit the atmosphere each minute. So, some 30,000 small comets hit the Earth each day.
http://www.drtruth.org/Infinity17.html
Might be one reason we still have air.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6468341.html
Global Warming is now causing the wind to slow down. Why are we building wind turbines? Maybe this reduction in atmosphere has something to do with this.
@ur momisugly AnonyMoose (11:34:37) :
Thanks and yes i did find what i think was the summary from one but not the study itself.
And while the rate of alteration at the upper atmosphere is only measurable in terms of millions of years, we are measuring/reporting PERCENTAGE CHANGES in the troposphere over very short periods of time. What about the COMPOSITION CHANGES during those periods of time? Has CO2 “density” increased? and by how much over – – x amount of time? or are we collectively (again) making the most common of errors in science and assuming it has?
and as i pose the question it sounds dumb to ask. But again it is NOT for the lack of trying to find the answer. AND if we really don’t know other than by a few attempts to find out, isn’t the whole of the AGW argument …….. even more ludicrous?
OT, possibly.
I just paid $90 for my daughter’s asthma inhaler, an item that used to cost $12 two years ago. The reason for the massive price inflation is the ban on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellant promulgated by the Montreal Protocol, a UN initiative to “solve” the ozone hole.
But the connection between CFC’s and the ozone hole is sheer science quackery, much like AGW.
The impact of the quackery is not only to my wallet, but to my daughter’s health, since the new propellants are not as effective as CFC, especially in rescue inhalers necessary to save lives during extreme asthma attacks.
[snip]
Take home lesson: science quackery is dangerous and can hurt you and your family, not to mention your neighbors and the entire world.
Just like the 1970 consensus
Earth Day 1970 Quotes.
Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….
• Life Magazine, January 1970
At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, its only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there wont be any more crude oil. Youll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy, and hell say, `I am very sorry, there isnt any.
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
Run, run, the sky is fleeing!
…but
More hydrocarbons used—>more CO2,
More CO2—>more plant life,
More plant life—>more O2,
More O2—>atmosphere depletion [at least partially] solved
So lets all sit around campfires every evening and make smores.
Cold Englishman,
The BBC article proves Democritus and Velikovksy were correct and that Newtonian astrologers and uniformitarian scientologists are crackpots like Al Gore.
Latest hype from the Fear Factory …
“It would seem a fruitful scientific endeavor to observe & measure the variance in ALL electromagnetic energy received from the Sun that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere.”
A person could ask: “Why hasn’t this been done already?”
Well, in part because historically astronomy has been reluctant to acknowledge electromagnetic energy in the form of plasma, charge particles, had been received by the Earth from the Sun.
Astronomy by consensus had long declared space to be “charge neutral”.
Of course, it has now been scientifcally confirmed that the aurora is caused by the electromagnetic energy (electric currents) received from the Sun by the Earth.
But since astronomy was reluctant to acknowledge this even though it was first proposed over a century ago by Kristian Birkeland (hence the name Birkeland currents), the measurement of the total electromagnetic energy received by the Earth from the Sun was not a high priority for astronomy.
(Every time it comes up, it should be noted that astronomy denied the Sun — Earth electromagnetic connection for roughly 70 years.)
It also should be stated that it’s technically difficult to measure all the electromagnetic energy received by the Earth from the Sun.
Even today, after numerous examples of electromagnetic energy, plasma, have been detected by in situ observation via satellite probes in the solar system, astronomy is still reluctant to acknowledge that electromagnetism, plasma, is an important aspect of astronomical dynamics.
And, yes, this has played into the failure of climate models to account for the TOTAL electromagnetic energy budget that the Earth receives from the Sun.
The small comets are estimated to be adding about as much water to the Earth every year as subduction removes from the oceans. They may actually be responsible for Earth having oceans.
While the small comet hypotheses is still controversial, it does predict that Mars would not be dry (Mars would get about one tenth as many small comets as the Earth), so the Mars research so far is consistent with the hypotheses.
How are they going to work CO2 and Cow farts into this one?
Solar wind…..Sun farts!
I can’t understand why 21st century astronomers don’t do more investigation about the electrical interactions between sun and planets and between galaxies. After all plasma is the most abundant form of matter in the galaxy and electric field have much more potential for strong interaction compared to gravity.
At the moment all we can do is theorise – work needs to be done to get more facts on this topic.
So the atmosphere as several more billion years left in it… Is that more or less than the time the sun will exit main sequence?
Luke (13:37:08) :
So the atmosphere as several more billion years left in it… Is that more or less than the time the sun will exit main sequence?
Oxygen (alone) will be lost in the deep space in ~ 50000 years and the water in ~ 4 billion years. So from mammals’ viewpoint, it’s less than the time the Sun will take for going out from the main sequence.
The best part of the BBC article was the adverts at page bottom:
Survival kits for Kiwis
Build your own emergency kit online Or buy our ready made quality kits
St John New Zealand
NZ preferred facility for First Aid Kits and Supplies. Order online.
The more CO2 we can put into the atmosphere, the faster we can get rid of it into space courtesy of the solar wind. 🙂
We had to worry about the coming ice age. Then we had to worry about the earth heating. Next we have to worry about the atmosphere bleeding off into space.
I really worry that someday there will be nothing for us to worry about.
Peter (09:21:16) :
mind-boggling rate at which Earth is losing atmosphere — 5×1025 molecules per second
is a mind-boggling rate of about 1 kilogram [~2 pounds] per second… at which rate the atmosphere will be gone in 200 billion years…
I suddenly have an overwhelming desire to watch Spaceballs. Can of PeriAir anyone?
Leif Svalgaard (14:32:13) :
Peter (09:21:16) :
mind-boggling rate at which Earth is losing atmosphere — 5×1025 molecules per second
is a mind-boggling rate of about 1 kilogram [~2 pounds] per second… at which rate the atmosphere will be gone in 200 billion years…
Heh! I think there won’t be Sun in 200 billion years. 🙂
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard:
In a prior posts’s comment thread, you mentioned the variance of irradiance was only .01% from solar maximum to solar minimum, did I get that correct?
And if so, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, that does not include the entire electromagnetic budget that the Earth receives from the Sun.
Shouldn’t the entire electromagnetic emittance of the Sun that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere be observed & measured and included in any climate models?
And isn’t it true that it is technically difficult to measure and determine the entire extent of electromagnetic energy emitted by the Sun and impinging on Earth’s atmosphere?
Anaconda (15:01:40) :
In a prior posts’s comment thread, you mentioned the variance of irradiance was only .01% from solar maximum to solar minimum, did I get that correct?
No, it is 0.1%, then times as high
And if so, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, that does not include the entire electromagnetic budget that the Earth receives from the Sun.
It does
Shouldn’t the entire electromagnetic emittance of the Sun that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere be observed & measured and included in any climate models?
Moot, because of above
And isn’t it true that it is technically difficult to measure and determine the entire extent of electromagnetic energy emitted by the Sun and impinging on Earth’s atmosphere?
It was true, but anot any more. We can measure the entire electromagnetic radiation with very high precision. Right now [actually a week ago] the amount was 1360.8404 W/m2, with an accuracy of 0.4763 W/m2, but a precision of 0.0068 W/m2 or one part in 200,000 of the whole. It is that latter precision that is important for the day-to-day, year-to-year variation, so we can measure this very precisely.
“ak (11:36:55) :
there have been about 400 magnetic reversals in the earth’s history, some while humans have been trotting around the planet. the discovery of this reversal record in oceanic basalt was one of the first clues that continental drift was real. anyone who has taken geology 101 should know this.
not sure why the magnetic field would be assumed to be “normal” during these periods. it’s postulated that during these times, the effects of the solar wind on the atmosphere is similar to that of venus and mars. ”
—-
Thanks I have been wondering about magnetic reversals and their effect. Especially in relation to Svensmark’s theory, it would prove it one way or another. Perhaps it’s just as well for me (us) we won’t be here to find out.
I also wondered it anyone had correlated magnetic field reversals to climate?
Thanks to all regular contributors as I find it all totally fascinating
.
Leif Svalgaard @ur momisugly 14:32:18
“(…)is a mind-boggling rate of about 1 kilogram [~2 pounds] per second… at which rate the atmosphere will be gone in 200 billion years…”
Rather interesting that due to the mind bogglingly high budget numbers being bandied about by the current administration, most Americans are now able to actually conceive of such numbers. There are some advantages to profligate spending.
On a more personal note; I plan to be away that weekend, so I hope to miss the event.
From the Discovery article linked to the post:
“In addition to triggering aurorae, the process causes Earth’s atmosphere to heat up to the point where atmospheric gases can escape along the field lines, where they are then picked up by the solar wind.”
This definitely sounds like some extra heat energy from the sun. It would appear that a sizable proportion is plain old heat of friction (ever had a wind burn? – I have) and not necessarily electromagnetically formed. Eventhough some of the heated atmosphere is drawn off into space, if the friction of the solar wind can generate extra heat energy on the top of the entire atmosphere, part of the radiant energy from this phenomenon should be added to the total. Is this totally wrong? Leif, what do you say?
Secondly, if this turned out to be a more alarming volume loss, perhaps heavier carbon dioxide from burning fuels might be welcome: we put the CO2 out there, plants generate new oxygen down where it is needed and keeps a proportion of it well away from the “dangerous” upper atmosphere.