Well, not quite that bad, but if I was still on TV, that would probably be the tease during prime time. It appears that solar influences are mostly at work here.
By Dr. Dr. Tony Phillips NASA
NASA-funded researchers are monitoring a big event in our planet’s atmosphere. High above Earth’s surface where the atmosphere meets space, a rarefied layer of gas called “the thermosphere” recently collapsed and now is rebounding again.
“This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,” says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). “It’s a Space Age record.”
The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.
“Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.
The thermosphere ranges in altitude from 90 km to 600+ km. It is a realm of meteors, auroras and satellites, which skim through the thermosphere as they circle Earth. It is also where solar radiation makes first contact with our planet. The thermosphere intercepts extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photons from the sun before they can reach the ground. When solar activity is high, solar EUV warms the thermosphere, causing it to puff up like a marshmallow held over a camp fire. (This heating can raise temperatures as high as 1400 K—hence the name thermosphere.) When solar activity is low, the opposite happens.
Lately, solar activity has been very low. In 2008 and 2009, the sun plunged into a century-class solar minimum. Sunspots were scarce, solar flares almost non-existent, and solar EUV radiation was at a low ebb. Researchers immediately turned their attention to the thermosphere to see what would happen.
How do you know what’s happening all the way up in the thermosphere?
Emmert uses a clever technique: Because satellites feel aerodynamic drag when they move through the thermosphere, it is possible to monitor conditions there by watching satellites decay. He analyzed the decay rates of more than 5000 satellites ranging in altitude between 200 and 600 km and ranging in time between 1967 and 2010. This provided a unique space-time sampling of thermospheric density, temperature, and pressure covering almost the entire Space Age. In this way he discovered that the thermospheric collapse of 2008-2009 was not only bigger than any previous collapse, but also bigger than the sun alone could explain.
One possible explanation is carbon dioxide (CO2).
When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation. It is widely-known that CO2 levels have been increasing in Earth’s atmosphere. Extra CO2 in the thermosphere could have magnified the cooling action of solar minimum.
“But the numbers don’t quite add up,” says Emmert. “Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere’s collapse.”
According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.
In their GRL paper, the authors acknowledge that the situation is complicated. There’s more to it than just solar EUV and terrestrial CO2. For instance, trends in global climate could alter the composition of the thermosphere, changing its thermal properties and the way it responds to external stimuli. The overall sensitivity of the thermosphere to solar radiation could actually be increasing.
“The density anomalies,” they wrote, “may signify that an as-yet-unidentified climatological tipping point involving energy balance and chemistry feedbacks has been reached.”
Or not.
Important clues may be found in the way the thermosphere rebounds. Solar minimum is now coming to an end, EUV radiation is on the rise, and the thermosphere is puffing up again. Exactly how the recovery proceeds could unravel the contributions of solar vs. terrestrial sources.
“We will continue to monitor the situation,” says Emmert.
For more information see Emmert, J. T., J. L. Lean, and J. M. Picone (2010), Record-low thermospheric density during the 2008 solar minimum, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L12102.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mooloo says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:04 pm
They aren’t having it both ways at all. CO2 doesn’t “heat” anything. At best it traps heat in (the greenhouse analogy) by absorbing and re-radiating. However that same action in the upper atmosphere could equally well prevent heat from getting to lower atmosphere.
An analogy you might understand is this. An electric heater inside warms your house. Yet placed outside your house, with the appropriate tubing, it can become an air conditioner and cool your house.
As contradictory as it sounds, a heating operation can give localised cooling.
I am not convinced that the CO2 effect is strong enough to give runaway global warming, but you need somewhat more than naked scepticism to rebut it. I would suggest that unless you have a great deal of the required physics and chemistry that you should leave rebuttal of these issues to people who have.
Oooooooooooh, arrogant much? Shall we suppose that YOU are a BRAINIAC?
WHOOP-TEE-DOOO!
[1] PLEASE DO exhibit a SIMPLE device which employs a SIMPLE ‘electrical heater’ and ‘some copper tubing’ which will ‘cool’ the interior of an enclosed structure.
You’ll be doing that, won’t you? Real soon now?
And don’t be getting snotty by resorting to a compressed gas in order to weasel out of your ‘simple’ contraption. You’ll be telling us all about that, won’t you?
[2] Next, IF CO2 receives energy, and transfers said energy to another place, then may it not be said that the CO2 was the SOURCE of the energy which was transferred to something else?
If I employ an electrical current to cause a wire having a resistance to become hot, and the hot wire (a heating element) manages to impart sufficient heat a pot of water, was it the electricity that heated the pot of water, or was the heating element?
That wasn’t tooooo very complicated for you to comprehend, was it?
[3] If CO2 causes WARMING on the face of the Earth, then DO TELL: Why does NOT that same warming take place higher in the atmosphere?
[4] Now, since you seem to twisted up with the idea that CO2 causes ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming,’ then you’ll PUH-LEEZE describe for the rest of us how it is that with all the CO2 locked in the ice matrices of the Earth’s polar ices caps and the glaciers, that the said ice isn’t melting as fast as it is formed?
And what about the oceans? Why, with all of that CO2 entrained therein, they should be ROILING whenever the Sunlight hits them!!
Oh, and hey: Why are the lot us being broiled when the Sunlight strikes us, what with all that thar CO2 being in the atmosphere?!!?!?
Now, taking this to a new level: IF CO2 causes heating at lower atmospheric levels, but SUPPOSEDLY causes cooling at upper atmospheric levels, then DO TELL: WHERE will a heating element cause cooling?
You’ll be telling us all about that too, won’t you … ?
Don’t forget to include that ‘arrogant’ part, as it really spices-up the whole!!!
Golly, I just LUV reading all about arrogant pseudoscience!!!
James says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:41 pm
At the earths surface the incoming light energy is absorbed by the crust/oceans and some of that energy is re-radiated in IR wavelengths, the CO2 in the atmosphere does not absorb light energy – only IR.
that is why CO2 can be cooling in upper atmosphere and warming in lower atmosphere.
Say, what?
What happens at all those OTHER altitudes?
And DO TELL: How does a gas act in an entirely contrary, i.e., reciprocal fashion, merely that it happens to find itself in a different location?
And again: WHAT ABOUT all those OTHER altitudes?
You’ll be explaining all that, won’t you?
jorgekafkazar says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:01 pm
wes george says: “…The Earth’s biosphere has been remarkabl(y) good at maintaining the temperature with in a relatively narrow range for hundreds of millions of years through all sorts of extremely rapid atmospheric changes. Perhaps we are witnessing just another one of Gaia’s homeostasis techniques for the first time.…”
I’m still wondering whether the ionosphere is acting like a grid in a vacuum tube, moderating the loss of heat to space. When it’s thick, dense, and hot, it holds heat in; when it’s thin and diffuse, it passes more heat.
Or the base of a bi-polar transistor, or the gate of a FET, or …
No thanks!
Say look: Instead of attempting complicate matters with allusions to entirely human devices, it might just help to drop the entire range of that kind of thinking and step back for a moment or three, and cogitate at length about all of the entirely natural processes which have been going on for far longer than humanity has been in existence.
This whole friggen argument has been framed in terms which define it in such a way as to exclude the entirety of natural aspects.
Jeez, man, according to CAGW cadre, just being alive is now a crime against nature!!
There’s an old saying in the debate circuit: When you want to defeat an opponent in an argument, DO BE SURE to reframe the argument IN YOUR OWN TERMS.
That way, the ‘opponent’ is forced to address matter on YOUR terms.
Ergo, all the neat weasel words and contrived terms such as ‘climate sensitivity,’ ‘positive feedback,’ ‘amplification,’ etc., etc., ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
Bottom: GET BACK TO BASICS!
899 says:
July 15, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Mooloo says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:04 pm
“Oooooooooooh, arrogant much? Shall we suppose that YOU are a BRAINIAC?
WHOOP-TEE-DOOO!”
————————————————————————————–
Judging from all 53 comments so far Moolo seems to me to be the reasoning brainiac, you most certainly are not.
————————————————————————————–
“Golly, I just LUV reading all about arrogant pseudoscience!!!”
————————————————————————————–
You’ve just provided me with a perfect example. In love with oneself?
————————————————————————————–
“If I employ an electrical current to cause a wire having a resistance to become hot, and the hot wire (a heating element) manages to impart sufficient heat a pot of water, was it the electricity that heated the pot of water, or was the heating element?”
————————————————————————————–
How far back do you want to take this rediculous argument? To the truck that carted the coal? The furnace that burned the coal? The heat that drove the turbine? The turbine that generated the electricity? The cable that carried it?
Don’t accuse people of bringing pseudo science, if you are a master yourself.
The role of CO2, in the context of this article, is best left to qualified scientists
————————————————————————————-
“Don’t forget to include that ‘arrogant’ part, as it really spices-up the whole!!!”
————————————————————————————-
If you feel the need to use exclamation marks, one suffices; more does not add to meaning and is, may I suggest arrogant?
gilbert says:
July 15, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Maybe the 60% got ate up in the calculations. Warmers can be very good at comparing reality with expectations and finding that reality wrong.
—————————————————————————————
Pot calling the Kettle?
Ray says:
July 15, 2010 at 4:19 pm
“Weird, they used to call it “Ionosphere”… I guessed the rename it thermosphere in order to, once again, make CO2 the evil one.”
————————————————————————————–
I guess it takes an evil mind to create evil where evil doe not exist.
The Thermosphere is not a new creation by the global warming conspiracy. It exists between the Exosphere (600Km) and the Mesosphere (95/120 Km), and has so for a long time. It is by far the thickest layer and is a combined name for the two layers.
Any reference to the ionosphere is a reference to both the exosphere and the thermosphere. The thermosphere starts at approx 90Km with a temperature of 300K to end at approx 300Km, temperature 1300K.
#
#
Alan Cheetham says:
July 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Since this reduced thermospheric density will reduce the drag on satellites, the satellite-based temperature data will require further adjustments.
————————————————————————————–
Utter nonsence.
jorgekafkazar says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:01 pm
“I’m still wondering whether the ionosphere is acting like a grid in a vacuum tube, moderating the loss of heat to space. When it’s thick, dense, and hot, it holds heat in; when it’s thin and diffuse, it passes more heat.”
Good point. Who knew that the Earth’s ionsphere had 30% (maybe more?) play in its contraction/expansion range? Far more interesting, it’s apparently forced by more than just the solar cycle. It’s got negative feedback loop written all over it. Too early to say, but it looks like decades of CO2 climate forcing calculation are due a radical update–downward. Sad, really, I was looking forward to warmer winters.
How silly do those who claimed “the science is settled” feel today?
Henry chance says:
July 15, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Any one have Algores phone number? His power point says the only variable that changes is CO2 and it is because of humans.
—————————————————————————————–
Out of context; should that read “only known variable”?
David says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:33 pm
*
*
Touched a nerve, didn’t I, David?!
Now, DO TELL: WHY isn’t the polar ice melting, what with all the entrained CO2?
And WHY are not the oceans roiling under the Sun, because of all the entrained CO2?
And WHY are we not broiling in the Sun, what with all that nasty CO2?
Got any ARROGANT answers?
tarpon says:
July 15, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Why does anybody think they know everything?
What we know about in science you could write a few books. What we don’t know would fill legions of libraries. When man thinks he is smarter than God……
————————————————————————————–
I don’t believe in God, okay if I change that to “When man thinks he is smarter than another man”?
“In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.”
No. the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than the way we measure and conceptualise low solar activity could explain.
TSI is inadequate to the task, we need better concepts and subtler measurements which take account of the greater variability of the different wavelengths lumped together in TSI.
David says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Pot calling the Kettle?
Talking to yourself, are you?
David says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:57 pm
I guess it takes an evil mind to create evil where evil doe not exist.
The Thermosphere is not a new creation by the global warming conspiracy. It exists between the Exosphere (600Km) and the Mesosphere (95/120 Km), and has so for a long time. It is by far the thickest layer and is a combined name for the two layers.
Any reference to the ionosphere is a reference to both the exosphere and the thermosphere. The thermosphere starts at approx 90Km with a temperature of 300K to end at approx 300Km, temperature 1300K.
My goodness! [snip]
From the latest version of the American Heritage English Dictionary:
~~~~~
i·on·o·sphere
n.
A region of the earth’s atmosphere where ionization caused by incoming solar radiation affects the transmission of radio waves. It extends from a height of 70 kilometers (43 miles) to 400 kilometers (250 miles) above the surface.
~~~~~
Oh my, you got your figures all twisted!
rbateman says:
July 15, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Lucy Skywalker says:
July 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm
They are targeting C02 as their ‘public enemy #1′.
So they can beat us out of what’s in our wallets, like a schoolyard bully does.
Elections cometh, Lucy.
It’s payback time.
————————————————————————————-
What’s the science in this nonsense?
latitude says:
July 15, 2010 at 6:13 pm
““Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.”
Life the universe and everything
but not understanding does not stop them from making a perfect hindcast of the future
————————————————————————————
A hindcast of the future? Why do I see a contradiction?
Translation: “We’re going to need a lot more funding between now and the time I retire in order to study this and improve our understanding. Otherwise our next press release will be even scarier.”
I do not think this one could be blamed on CO2 .
This part of atmosphere is commonly known as the ionosphere, it is packed with charged particles, ions – hence the name ionosphere. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Atmosphere_with_Ionosphere.svg/400px-
Density of the ionosphere is dependant on 2 factors
1. Intensity of solar activity – ions, protons and electrons
2. Intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field – retaining the above particles.
As well as decline in the solar activity there was also was a decline of the Earth’s southern hemisphere’s magnetic field (the northern hemisphere has undulating change).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/IonSph.htm
Decline in the solar activity meant fewer particles arriving.
Decline in the GMF means that particles are retained shorter rime in the ionosphere and the electric ring currents.
Both of these would result in a decline of the ionosphere’s density.
http://cache-media.britannica.com/eb-media/76/476-004-C32F1779.gif
http://cache-media.britannica.com/eb-media/78/478-004-A8BC3FA6.gif
@David says: July 16, 2010 at 12:28 am
“A hindcast of the future? Why do I see a contradiction?”
Maybe because the “NASA-funded researchers” and the warmist trolls seem happiest forecasting out of their behinds.
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:26 am
What’s the science in this nonsense?
We keep asking you just that question, every time you post it.
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:28 am
A hindcast of the future? Why do I see a contradiction?
Because, David, dear, you’re looking into a mirror at yourself …
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:09 am
I don’t believe in God, okay if I change that to “When man thinks he is smarter than another man”?
You don’t believe in a ‘God,’ but you evince every aspect that you’re such otherwise.
Demigod much?
That CO2 is like a thermos… A friend once said about the thermos “it keeps warm things warm and cold things cold. How does it know?”. It “knows” because there’s a vacuum, a lack of thermal conductivity at play. A single effect that explains both. This article makes it sound like CO2 is special in switching on heating and cooling effects.
I studied absorption of photons by small gaseous molecules for my PhD thesis. I don’t think CO2 is special in the way it absorbs and emits energy. Sure CO2 radiates energy, and in the thermosphere it heads out into space. Miles closer to the earth it still radiates energy, but this energy may be absorbed by other things around it.
Two things: how much CO2 could be in the thermosphere? It’s fairly dense and I would think it would not reside up there in great quantity. Second thing is the CO2 “cooling effect” is bad news for AGW because every amount of energy absorbed by CO2 in the thermosphere and radiated back into space is energy that won’t make it’s way to the surface and contribute to “AGW”.
899 says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:08 am
David says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:33 pm
*
*
“Touched a nerve, didn’t I, David?!”
———————————————————————————–
I wonder who touched whom’s nerve?
————————————————————————————
“Now, DO TELL: WHY isn’t the polar ice melting, what with all the entrained CO2?”
————————————————————————————
Don’t conclude from the recent slow-down in the Arctic ice extent, that it means less melting. After gobbling up all the thin ice until a couple of weeks ago, it is now attacking the thicker remaining ice. This means declining volume i.e. thinner ice, changing thickness but to a much lesser extent, the sea ice extent. I know that the sceptics don’t like ice volume to much and rest assured, I can understand. After all, it is an inconvenient truth.
————————————————————————————
“And WHY are not the oceans roiling under the Sun, because of all the entrained CO2?”
————————————————————————————-
Was that meant to be ‘rolling’or ‘broiling’, no matter both are ridicule. Just understand that the oceans are not as quick to respond as your electric kettle.
————————————————————————————–
And WHY are we not broiling in the Sun, what with all that nasty CO2?
————————————————————————————–
Just go out in the sun on a sunny day, more than an hour or so. Step under a hot shower later that day. This is not advice, just in case.
————————————————————————————–
Got any ARROGANT answers?
————————————————————————————–
Does the above qualify?