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.
Maybe this is where all the missing tropospheric heat has gone to????
Missing mass derives from the rotational gradients of spiral galaxies.
You can find plenty of papers with rotational gradient data/diagrams at ADS http://adswww.harvard.edu/
Many theories have been put forward, but no takers as nothing concrete has been found to say aha, that’s it.
Missing heat derives from predictions that didn’t pan out.
So, instead of trying out and testing many theories, or examing for processes not yet known, the Missing Heat theorists see C02 fingerprints everywhere they look. In those minds, there is but one explanation: anthropogenic ; and one substance: C02.
Thier glasses are empty, and thier spectacles are opaque.
Paul Birch says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:24 pm
“…the ionosphere spans the thermosphere and the exosphere, both cause ionisation…”
———————————————————————————-
Paul, let me remind you of the post I reacted to initially below;
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.
———————————————————————————–
You quoted me July 16, 2010 at 12:24 pm when I said “…the ionosphere spans the thermosphere and the exosphere, both cause ionisation…”
You replied;
“No. The ionosphere is by definition the region between 50km and 400km, made up of the D region (50-90km), the E region or Heaviside Kennelly Layer (90km-150km) and F region or Appleton Layer (150km-400km). Even though there’s lots of ionisation and even radiation belts above 400km, the ionosphere does not include the exosphere, which is by definition the region above 400km. The thermosphere, by contrast, is defined as the region of the upper atmosphere, beyond the stratosphere, in which the temperature increases with altitude; it starts at about 80-100km and ends at ~500km where the temperature tails off again a bit; its boundaries are not fixed, but vary with latitude, time of year, and solar activity, the upper boundary especially so.”
————————————————————————————
I merely pointed out to (Ray says: July 15, 2010 at 4:19 pm) that the ionosphere was not renamed thermosphere with some evil intent on the part of the opposite side. That’s all.
I did not see any need of citing the subdivision into D, E and F layers, it wasn’t about the precise composition of spheres and layers within. Just making sure that the ionosphere had not been renamed for the gullible.
However, to respond to your description, Wikipedia says;
“The ionosphere is the uppermost part of the atmosphere, between the thermosphere and the exosphere, distinguished because it is ionized by solar radiation. It plays an important part in atmospheric electricity and forms the inner edge of the magnetosphere. It has practical importance because, among other functions, it influences radio propagation to distant places on the Earth.[1] ”
This is exactly what I quoted, no more no less. Below are the links to relevant graphs from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosphere_with_Ionosphere.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosphere
roger says:
July 16, 2010 at 2:24 pm
“The advent of David to this blog and his increasingly childish postings, is lowering the tone of the discussion to the levels found on the lesser climate blogsites, where childish retorts and na-na na na-na form the highlights of what they consider scientific analysis.”
————————————————————————————-
Where was the scientific analysis in the preposterous claim that the ionosphere had been re-named thermosphere for evil purposes? Who, may I ask was childish.
————————————————————————————–
“Why do trolls, with a few exceptions, always degenerate the thread in such an unseemly manner? Why do they not read first and then follow on the gentlemanly manners of WUWT posters? Are they totally unaware how assinine their postings appear to others as we read down a thread?”
———————————————————————————-
Why do the gentlemanly manners of WUWT refer to me as a troll? Surely, that is a prime example of unseemly manners. You can discuss contrary views without the labels of trolls, thermo-maniacs etc; if you did you’d gain more respect. I still think that Steven Goddard is wrong on many issues, but he has my respect for handling scientific arguments for right/wrong reasons. He is dedicated but so am I and many others. It may seem a strange thing to say, but I hope that there is no global warming, but I also recognise wishful thinking.
———————————————————————————-
“We are pleased to consider a contrary view that is honestly held and politely advanced, but the Davids of this world quite quickly become tiresome and their opinions skimmed over in the grownups world.”
————————————————————————————
My initial reply to (Ray says: July 15, 2010 at 4:19 pm) was as polite as I could be given the subsurdity of his comment. However, I do get the impression that many on this blog are not so pleased with contrary views. My views, although contrary are honest and to my best knowledge polite. However, when sarcasm is inferred/accused I am capable of returning it, but as such it is always reactive. On my recent ventures into any blog I have never accused anyone of sarcasm. I tend to ignore it, politely.
..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.
..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.”
~~~
Geoff Sharp says: July 16, 2010 at 6:36 am
.. 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..
~~~
Oooooo freaks me when those solar wind speeds drop to say 260 km/sec and below ooooooo.
Rob, no more Moon babies!!! Where you in a private discussion with Oort or something again, Rob?
Not the only contraction we are seeing within and without.
60% 60% 60% 60% 60% unaccounted for??? Huh
Good post VuksVuk etc. says:
July 16, 2010 at 2:00 am
@Carla says:
July 17, 2010 at 5:35 am
“.. 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..”
I can see a decline from Autumn 2008 on Geoff`s graph. Even levels around 400kms maximimum will give a colder winter, like 2008/9. Just look at the speeds in winters previous to the last two; http://www.solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
(I can see 1 winter month previous to 2008/9 with a lower speed, Jan 2006, the coldest Jan in that series).
The colder winters of 1996/7 and early 2001 are clearly visible lows in sw velocity on Geoff`s graph. The devil is in the detail!
GW in a nutshell
Leif,
what about the extended version of Svensmark’s theory? Is it possible that the cosmic rays have an influence (via solar moderation) on density in the thermosphere?
Casper says:
July 17, 2010 at 1:12 pm
>i>Is it possible that the cosmic rays have an influence (via solar moderation) on density in the thermosphere?
No, as there are no clouds there. As I recall, Svensmark’s hypothesis is about cosmic rays influencing the low clouds.
David says:
July 17, 2010 at 4:45 am
However, to respond to your description, Wikipedia says; …
___________________________________________________________________
And that’s your mistake – treating Wikipedia as if it were a reliable reference. Wikipedia is wrong. The ionosphere is not the “uppermost part of the atmosphere”. That’s the exosphere, which if it weren’t for the interplanetary and interstellar media and other heavenly bodies like the moon and sun, would extend to infinity, along with the earth’s gravitational field. The ionosphere is not “between the thermosphere and the exosphere”. It’s between the stratosphere and the exosphere. Oh, and the ionosphere is not “ionised”. It is only partly ionised – and rather weakly at that. Most of the gas is neutral. Parts of the exosphere, especially the radiation belts, are much more strongly ionised.
George E. Smith says:
July 16, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Well there is no way that the earth weighs 1400 pounds less; it doesn’t even weigh 1400 pounds to begin with, so no way it can lose 1400 pounds.
______________________________________________________________________
Oddly enough, the Earth actually weighs about 80,ooo tons. How come? The Earth is in orbit around the Sun. If it were in free-fall it would be weightless. But it’s not. Not quite. It’s actually moving at very slightly below orbital speed, supported by the pressure of sunlight. The momentum flow is about 1400W/m**2 * (pi*6.4E6m**2) /3E8m/s) = 6E8N. Since some of the incoming radiation is reflected or scattered back, and more is re-radiated from the day side than the night side, the net force will be ~30% higher. Call it 8E8N. Then variations in the solar “constant” through the solar cycle, and seasonal variations in Earth’s albedo through the year will cause the weight to fluctuate by ~1000 tons.
New Theory:
The rise in CO2 reached the global warming tipping point. When this happened in the Thermosphere, the pressure became so great that the CO2 boiled, and the “steam” is now being siphoned off by the Sun (like the mass movement from a larger to a smaller denser binary star pair) . The Sun, not acclimated to the extra CO2, has decided to do the opposite of the Earth->cool.
Two things are predicted:
1) Polar Bears will become “happier” (peer reviewed research to follow).
2) NASA will need a new satellite to monitor the “CO2 wind”.
Anthony: Do you think that correct placement of sensors will actually show that the Thermosphere is expanding??
[this is my humor… at the global scale]
The EUV records along with the Thermosphere measurements do not show a flat floor but instead show substantial modulation. EUV is a much better indicator of how the Sun can affect our climate, TSI is old hat.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session3/3.06_Woods_EUV_Min.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
July 28, 2010 at 5:40 pm
EUV is a much better indicator of how the Sun can affect our climate.
The solar cycle variation of EUV is ~0.001 W/m2 [a thousand times smaller than the TSI variation] and has no effect on the atmosphere below the thermosphere.
Geoff Sharp says:
July 28, 2010 at 5:40 pm
EUV is a much better indicator of how the Sun can affect our climate
The EUV creates and maintains the ionosphere in which the diurnal rotation of the Earth creates electrical currents by dynamo action. The magnetic effects of these currents have been measured for centuries and show no significant variation from minimum to minimum. The maxima show that activity the last three solar cycles has been similar to the cycles 1840-1880, while the climate definitely has been different, so the EUV does not seem to be important at all. See slide 12 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
Remember that F10.7 does not have any effect, but is just an [perhaps] imperfect proxy for EUV [which is what creates the current].
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 28, 2010 at 7:26 pm
I don’t think the wattage is important, but the upper atmosphere is certainly changed dramatically by EUV. Some research is suggesting this also contributes to changes to the Troposphere influencing some of our climate oscillators. Importantly EUV does not follow TSI and F10.7 Flux and is quite different on the minimum levels, there does not look to be a flat base floor which is significant.
What is becoming apparent is the EUV satellite data along with the Thermosphere readings might be more accurate than the diurnal needle.
Geoff Sharp says:
July 28, 2010 at 8:55 pm
but the upper atmosphere is certainly changed dramatically by EUV.
This is old hat, has been known for decades.
Some research is suggesting this also contributes to changes to the Troposphere influencing some of our climate oscillators.
There are claims of almost anything, but suggestions are not reality.
Importantly EUV does not follow TSI and F10.7 Flux and is quite different on the minimum levels, there does not look to be a flat base floor which is significant.
EUV does follow TSI, F10.7, and the sunspot number. There is an additional small rotational modulation that may not show up as clearly in these other indices, namely that of the solar sector structure which controls the polarity of the heliospheric magnetic field, divided into 2 or 4 sectors by the heliospheric current sheet. We showed long ago that EUV has a maximum near such boundaries on the sun, see: http://www.leif.org/research/UV-Sector-Boundaries.pdf so this is also old hat that EUV can show such even if no other solar indices do [as the sector structure is ever-present].
What is becoming apparent is the EUV satellite data along with the Thermosphere readings might be more accurate than the diurnal needle.
The diurnal needle shows the EUV clearly [direct cause and effect relationship], while the layman’s sunspot number [and related indices] miss some of the rotational modulation. BTW, during the interval 2008.4-2008.7 when EUV showed extra modulation [e.g. slide 7 of your link], TSI had a very clear modulation too, see http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png so if you look at the data [and the uncertainties also mentioned] you can see that your concerns are misplaced.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 29, 2010 at 3:07 am
EUV does follow TSI, F10.7, and the sunspot number. There is an additional small rotational modulation that may not show up as clearly in these other indices,
Yes they are all in the ballpark, EUV in particular following F10.7 very closely but the lower limits do look to diverge substantially. EUV has the thermosphere measurements that look to follow the same trend and the cause and effect relationship does look compelling.
Measuring EUV via the diurnal needle which introduces geomagnetic complications would not appear as accurate as direct satellite measurements that also measure the outcome on the upper atmosphere as a backup? The large drop in the thermosphere is telling us a big story that the diurnal needle cannot address, granted other factors could be involved but two sources are telling us the same result.