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.
899 says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:18 am
David says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:57 pm
“Oh my, you got your figures all twisted!”
————————————————————————————–
Sorry, untwist yourself, you need to consult more than the latest version of the American Heritage English Dictionary. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere and look at the diagram top right corner. You will notice that the ionosphere spans the thermosphere and the exosphere, both cause ionisation. Just to repeat, the thermosphere was not created by the illusionary global warming conspiracy. Then again it is consistent with the label thermo-maniacs.
Martin Brumby says:
July 16, 2010 at 2:03 am
@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.
————————————————————————————–
Well, at least I know where the term hindcasting comes from. Why are people from the other side of the argument called “warmist trolls” Is this an open blog or a mutual admiration society?
[Reply: This is an open blog, unlike the censorship-prone RealClimate and other alarmist blogs. That is a major difference, just so you know. ~dbs, mod.]
David: July 16, 2010 at 12:28 am
A hindcast of the future? Why do I see a contradiction?
Because you can’t see the sarcasm.
Vuk etc. says:
July 16, 2010 at 2:00 am
A nice collection of graphs.
@David says: July 16, 2010 at 3:10 am
Before you start getting smart about typos, you might like to consider:-
“no matter both are ridicule”
Ridiculous?
Earth’s thermosphere collapses – film at 11 gave promise of an interesting discussion here, then via a couple of uncalled for and capricious comments (if I were Leif I would have moved on — and perhaps he did) slipped further from science into petty taunts way off subject of no value as to why a rarefied layer of gas called “the thermosphere” recently collapsed and now is rebounding again.
I will hang about, hoping… because I really would like to read some opinion on this.
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:10 am
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:30 am
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:49 am
So then –and in other words– you have no valid replies.
Understood.
Thanks for playing …
Roger Carr says:
July 16, 2010 at 4:05 am
Have you ever sat on a high bluff above a shore somewhere, and studied the ocean’s rhythmic wave patterns?
This sounds like Stephen Wilde territory – quiet sun = contracting outer atmosphere = more stratified atmosphere layers (less tubulence at boundaries) = reduced rate of heat escape from atmosphere.
How significant is the thermosphere to heat budget? – Leif Svalgaard says not at all. Does the stratification – heat transfer effect go down to the troposphere – stratosphere boundary, or the stratosphere upper boundary? That might have a more substantial effect.
Lucy Skywalker says:
July 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm
I’m still not good on solar material but wasn’t there a solar factor recently that went realllllly low
This may be it
“WUWT: Solar geomagnetic activity is at an all time low – what does this mean for climate?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/solar-geomagnetic-activity-is-at-an-all-time-low-what-does-this-mean-for-climate/
I think it would be interesting to talk with Faraday about electricity/magnetism from the sun and how it affects climate on earth. Maybe in the next life. 🙂
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:30 am
Martin Brumby says:
July 16, 2010 at 2:03 am
@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.
————————————————————————————–
Well, at least I know where the term hindcasting comes from. Why are people from the other side of the argument called “warmist trolls” Is this an open blog or a mutual admiration society?
[Reply: This is an open blog, unlike the censorship-prone RealClimate and other alarmist blogs. That is a major difference, just so you know. ~dbs, mod.]
————————————————————————————–
Thank you for the affirmation, I’ll check the site mentioned.
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:26 am
rbateman says:
July 15, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Lucy Skywalker says:
July 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm
What’s the science in this nonsense?
You are probably new to this issue and haven’t heard of ClimateGate.
I was watching ABC the other night, and the tagline was, ‘Earth loses gravitational pull. Details at 11.”
Of course at 11pm you found out that some scientist claimed that the Earth weighed 1,400 pounds less than previous estimates, which made its gravitational pull slightly lower…
rbateman says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Speaking of ramps, here’s a new look at solar cycle in their ‘takeoff’ mode:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin10.htm
Do keep in mind that the very early data (especially SC11/12 1877-1880) suffer from lack of coverage.
You can see why I am want to call SC23/24 diffuse.
Interesting. The caveat (about SC11/12) notwithstanding, a couple of things jump out at me in looking at this. First and foremost, I have to wonder if all the blue we see with SC23/24 possibly implies that we’ve been counting sunspots in the latest transition that would not have been counted in earlier transitions. Second, and more iffy, if I look hard enough, I see less activity in the NH in the older cycles, than in the more recent ones, at least in the earlier parts of the transition (say the first half). And if I look only at the red in SC23/24, I see that also. Coincidence? Is there any evidence or investigation into hemispheric differences in sunspot activity, that you are aware of?
Bill Tuttle says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:39 am
David: July 16, 2010 at 12:28 am
A hindcast of the future? Why do I see a contradiction?
Because you can’t see the sarcasm.
————————————————————————————–
It was sarcasm was it? Thanks for telling me.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
July 15, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Solar wind velocity was very low through 2008/9 till this spring, total numbers of coronal holes per year were also down
—————————————————
Actually not quite. During the first half of 2008, solar wind speed was very high [500 km/sec]. It was only really low [356 km/sec] during the last half of 2009.
The solar wind lost it’s mojo late 2008, Leif is right.
A graph from 1996 here:
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Sc23wind_rz.png
The wind speed still continues at low levels on average…not unlike the previous ramp up. The wind speed looks to be divorced from solar activity.
#
899 says:
July 16, 2010 at 2:18 am
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:26 am
“What’s the science in this nonsense?”
899 says; We keep asking you just that question, every time you post it.
————————————————————————————
This is what I commented on:
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.”
Again I ask, was this nonsense science? Then 899 says: July 16, 2010 at 2:21 am
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 …
———————————————————————————–
Please, let’s swap mirrors and have real fun.
Basil @ur momisugly 6:24 AM
You may be aware of this but it is my understanding that the sunspots during the Maunder Minimum were large, sparse, and primarily southern hemispheric.
I think a differential hemispheric distribution of the sunspots may be a clue to the sun’s climate effect, but, sadly, lack a mechanism.
=============
@Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
July 15, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Solar wind velocity was very low through 2008/9 till this spring, total numbers of coronal holes per year were also down
Actually not quite. During the first half of 2008, solar wind speed was very high [500 km/sec]. It was only really low [356 km/sec] during the last half of 2009.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Fair enough, it was still higher through most of 2008, but as a trend, it did generally stay lower from late 2008 to early this year, with a good correlation of lower speeds or lack of C.holes around the coldest weeks of the last two winters.
http://www.solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
Kevin says:
July 16, 2010 at 5:27 am
I was watching ABC the other night, and the tagline was, ‘Earth loses gravitational pull. Details at 11.”
Of course at 11pm you found out that some scientist claimed that the Earth weighed 1,400 pounds less than previous estimates, which made its gravitational pull slightly lower…
————————————————————————————-
The earth’s mass is about 6x(10 to the 24th power) kilograms. How many zero’s (after the decimal point) will be required to express the ‘slightly’ reduced gravity? Interesting thought though, he must have calculated the weight of all objects launched into space and escaping the earth’s gravity.
Since “[s]omething is going on that we do not understand,” it would be prudent to not issue any hyperbolic proclamations until such time as understanding is achieved, don’t you think? (that hasn’t stopped anyone trolling for a grant in the past, why change?)
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
July 16, 2010 at 5:24 am
David says: July 16, 2010 at 12:26 am
rbateman says: July 15, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Lucy Skywalker says: July 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm
What’s the science in this nonsense?
You are probably new to this issue and haven’t heard of ClimateGate.
New here, yes, to the issue, no. Have I heard of ClimateGate? Yes, from both sides of the issue. One thing I noticed from the sceptical side, looking at several blogs (Yes, I follow both sides) is that they are prolific gate producers. ClimateGate-HollandGate-GlacierGate-Amazon-Gate etc. countless gates and I see it for what it is, hyperbole. The truth is always somewhere in between, and not always centre. There are some good comments here, from people ready to engage the science, some clearly with and some without understanding it. I don’t have much time for hacked e-mails, they tend to be cited out of context but that is a general observation on my part.
However, my question to you is the same, where is the science in the comment(s) I commented on. The subject is the ‘collapsed thermosphere’, veracity, cause and effect.
899 says:
July 16, 2010 at 4:32 am
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:10 am
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:30 am
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:49 am
So then –and in other words– you have no valid replies.
Understood.
Thanks for playing …
———————————————————————————–
My original reply got lost, so here’s an abbreviated one.
No valid replies? Please point out which of the points I made were not valid.
No game intended, I’m not the playing type.
Heat used for cooling? See http://www.rvmobile.com/Tech/Trouble/cooldoc.htm
That’s for a propane refrigerater usedin RVs.
“Greenhouse gasses” (mostly water vapor) prevent daytime heating. Desert daytime temps. are 30F to 40F warmer than humid jungle temps. (same latitude). I know, been there. So I can believe that CO2 could prevent some heating in the thermosphere.
Geoff Sharp says:
July 16, 2010 at 6:36 am
The wind speed looks to be divorced from solar activity.
Solar wind speed maximizes in the years just preceding solar minimum. See slides 17-18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf