From the “you don’t know everything about the sun and earth yet so stop telling us the sun doesn’t matter” department and National Science Foundation: Shrinking atmospheric layer linked to low levels of solar radiation
Large changes in the sun’s energy output may drive unexpectedly dramatic fluctuations in Earth’s outer atmosphere.
“This research makes a compelling case for the need to study the coupled sun-Earth system…”
Results of a study published today link a recent, temporary shrinking of a high atmospheric layer with a sharp drop in the sun’s ultraviolet radiation levels.
The research, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., and the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU), indicates that the sun’s magnetic cycle, which produces differing numbers of sunspots over an approximately 11-year cycle, may vary more than previously thought.
The results, published this week in the American Geophysical Union journal Geophysical Research Letters, are funded by NASA and by the National Science Foundation (NSF), NCAR’s sponsor.
“This research makes a compelling case for the need to study the coupled sun-Earth system,” says Farzad Kamalabadi, program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, “and to illustrate the importance of solar influences on our terrestrial environment with both fundamental scientific implications and societal consequences.”
The findings may have implications for orbiting satellites, as well as for the International Space Station.
“Our work demonstrates that the solar cycle not only varies on the typical 11-year time scale, but also can vary from one solar minimum to another,” says lead author Stanley Solomon, a scientist at NCAR’s High Altitude Observatory. “All solar minima are not equal.”
The fact that the layer in the upper atmosphere known as the thermosphere is shrunken and dense means that satellites can more easily maintain their orbits.
But it also indicates that space debris and other objects that pose hazards may persist longer in the thermosphere.
“With lower thermospheric density, our satellites will have a longer life in orbit,” says CU professor Thomas Woods, a co-author.
“This is good news for those satellites that are actually operating, but it is also bad because of the thousands of non-operating objects remaining in space that could potentially have collisions with our working satellites.”
The sun’s energy output declined to unusually low levels from 2007 to 2009, a particularly prolonged solar minimum during which there were virtually no sunspots or solar storms.
During that same period of low solar activity, Earth’s thermosphere shrank more than at any time in the 43-year era of space exploration.
The thermosphere, which ranges in altitude from about 55 to more than 300 miles (90 to 500 kilometers), is a rarified layer of gas at the edge of space where the sun’s radiation first makes contact with Earth’s atmosphere.
It typically cools and becomes less dense during low solar activity.
But the magnitude of the density change during the recent solar minimum appeared to be about 30 percent greater than would have been expected by low solar activity.
The study team used computer modeling to analyze two possible factors implicated in the mystery of the shrinking thermosphere.
They simulated both the impacts of solar output and the role of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas that, according to past estimates, is reducing the density of the outer atmosphere by about 2 percent to 5 percent per decade.
Their work built on several recent studies.
Earlier this year, a team of scientists from the Naval Research Laboratory and George Mason University, measuring changes in satellite drag, estimated that the density of the thermosphere declined in 2007-09 to about 30 percent less than during the previous solar minimum in 1996.
Other studies by scientists at the University of Southern California and CU, using measurements from sub-orbital rocket flights and space-based instruments, have estimated that levels of extreme-ultraviolet radiation-a class of photons with extremely short wavelengths-dropped about 15 percent during the same period.
However, scientists remained uncertain whether the decline in extreme-ultraviolet radiation would be sufficient to have such a dramatic impact on the thermosphere, even when combined with the effects of carbon dioxide.
To answer this question, Solomon and his colleagues turned to an NCAR computer tool, known as the Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Electrodynamics General Circulation Model.
They used the model to simulate how the sun’s output during 1996 and 2008 would affect the temperature and density of the thermosphere.
They also created two simulations of thermospheric conditions in 2008-one with a level that approximated actual carbon dioxide emissions and one with a fixed, lower level.
The results showed the thermosphere cooling in 2008 by 41 kelvins, or K (about 74 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to 1996, with just 2 K attributable to the carbon dioxide increase.
The results also showed the thermosphere’s density decreasing by 31 percent, with just 3 percent attributable to carbon dioxide, and closely approximated the 30 percent reduction in density indicated by measurements of satellite drag.
“It is now clear that the record low temperature and density were primarily caused by unusually low levels of solar radiation at the extreme-ultraviolet level,” Solomon says.
Woods says the research indicates that the sun could be going through a period of relatively low activity, similar to periods in the early 19th and 20th centuries.
This could mean that solar output may remain at a low level for the near future.
“If it is indeed similar to certain patterns in the past, then we expect to have low solar cycles for the next 10 to 30 years,” Woods says.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But to use humans (an assumption I know) the thermosphere would feel very, very cold. At least for that fraction of a second that our fragile little bodies would survive. This tells us something about temperature. The way we humans sense the temperature of a gas (or mixture) depends very much on the pressure of the gas.
dT
rbateman says:
August 26, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Less distance for escaping IR, less density way up there.
It also means incoming gets in easier, provided there isn’t increased cloudiness to reflect it out.
Cloud albedo increased after the ’98 el nino. I don’t have a graph link to hand, but the outgoing IR at the equatorial latitudes fell dramatically during the ’98 el nino, due to a huge increase in humidity. Maybe this step change caused the reversal in stratospheric temperature trend noted by Stephen, because the solar activity level didn’t really drop off until 2002-3.
Yet OHC allegedly carried on rising quite steeply up to 2003 (Unless there is a big splice problem between XBT and ARGO, or an agenda driven determination on the part of certain oceanologists) . Did the big increase in water vapour caused by the ’98 el nino have a cleansing effect on the upper troposphere, allowing in more of the TSI from the top of the atmosphere despite increased cloud?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 26, 2010 at 9:14 pm
The thermosphere is so high up and so thin [a trillionth of the density at sea level] that it has nothing to do with the climate.
The atmosphere accounts for 0.0005% of the mass of the earth. So the atmosphere has nothing to do with the climate.
phlogiston says:
August 26, 2010 at 11:38 pm
The atmosphere accounts for 0.0005% of the mass of the earth. So the atmosphere has nothing to do with the climate.
More to the point, the thermosphere account for some 0.000,000,000,01% of the atmosphere, that is why it has nothing to do with the climate.
phlogiston says:
August 26, 2010 at 11:38 pm
The atmosphere accounts for 0.0005% of the mass of the earth. So the atmosphere has nothing to do with the climate.
—————————————————-
That’s right, and since the earth is so small it has nothing to do with the universe. Just common sense. I found an interesting article on a site hidden deep within the internets, which reads, an excerpt:
“Earth is an electrically charged body that interacts with ions permeating space. Electricity from space is also injected into the thermosphere from charged particles emitted by the Sun, speeding along massive Birkeland currents through a closed circuit. When solar winds are at a minimum, the electric currents decline in amperage, thereby decreasing the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere. As the magnetosphere declines in strength, it is less able to deflect energetic ions arriving from deep space known as cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are charge carriers, and those ions are able to reach the troposphere. Collisions between charged and neutral particles drag air molecules along with them influencing low level cloud cover. More clouds reflect more radiation from the Sun back to space—clouds are white because they are acting like mirrors to all forms of visible light. More reflection means less solar energy, more cloud cover, and so on.”
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100707timed.htm
Why did they call it the thermosphere?
Oh dear! They’ve been simulating something in their pooter models again! I seriously worry when these guys use computers & write programmes using parameters they do not fully understand, make assumpions about (I fully understand the assumption principle!) things they do not understand, make guesstimates about the behaviour of other elements & parameters, & conclude that the output is 100% correct give or take!
Every time a graduate tells me they ran the sum thro’ the puter I quiver with fear! I drum into them, “do a quick back of a fag packet hand calc first just to see of the numbers are in the right order!” (BTW Fag is UK slang for cigarrette). However I am sure they do something similar for climate studies, although how they believe their numbers are correct one wonders considering the amount they do not know!
They have a very low to low level scientific understanding of how element A affects element B, but they know element C overpowers element A! Gr8 science (sorry my daughter often texts me!!!)
Weird Naked Indian says:
August 27, 2010 at 12:16 am
I found an interesting article on a site hidden deep within the internets
The article is full of half-truths combined with outright nonsense.
“Temporary shrinkage”? Since the don’t know why it started, or how often it happens, or how long it lasts, how in heck can they say it’s “temporary”? It’s just as likely that the thicker air for the last few decades was the “temporary” part.
I’m beginning to think we need to start over and require a study of formal logic before anyone can re-new their degree.
BTW, I would point out that the vertical turbulence seems to be more like it was many decades ago (that is, there is more of it). There is a more ‘gusty’ character to the wind when it does blow. Also, after very few such reports in the late 1990s, we’ve had a significant uptick in folks injured by in-flight turbulence and had a few airlines crash after a couple of years without any commercial fatalities. (All anecdotal from observed news reports. It would be an interesting thing to get recorded data and plot). So the vertical transport of heat ought to be changed as well.
Perhaps this book might be of value
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l715013q5h5mh297/
So that’s why CO2 causes everything. It’s obvious!
After following the comments, which sent my mind flying off in many directions, envisioning all sorts of fascinating interactions and interrelationships, it could keep top notch scientists busy for decades exploring all the linkages. Much too messy for the third-rate mind; just ascribe everything to CO2 and tie it all up in a neat and simple (empasis on the simple) package. Then, no matter what happens, it’s all laid at CO2’s doorstep. And, more importantly, no thinking involved. Thinking is so much hard work.
+++++++++++++
John F. Hultquist says:
August 26, 2010 at 9:09 pm
E.M.Smith says:
August 27, 2010 at 1:16 am
Yes, a healthy dose of logic is called for as well as some serious writing skills.
OTOH, is this a mistake on the part of WUWT or did NSF revise their piece:
WUWT:
NSF:
The power of a simple four letter word.
And the dangers of trying to oversimplify a complex matter.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 26, 2010 at 9:14 pm
The thermosphere is so high up and so thin [a trillionth of the density at sea level] that it has nothing to do with the climate.
Can a statement like this be said with absolute certainty? Isn’t there just a tweeny weeny bit of uncertainty?
I have to ask this question to this group in light of this “revelation” on the thermoshere. There is a guy named Earl Happ and he has a web site called “climate science” http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/ where he discusses how the cyclic changes to the solar cycle can affect the polar vortexes and the weather. Considering that the upper atmospher at poles are subjecte to the solar wind continuously whereas its blocked by the earth at night at lower latitudes could he be onto a mechanism for solar influence on weather and climate that is not well recognized?
Anthony,
Thanks for the laugh!
There is so much science missing in this study!
I give Leif nightmares by just using the word rotation.
Steven Mosher says:
August 26, 2010 at 9:53 pm
[–snip–]
or, we discovered something we didnt know, therefore something we know (ghgs cause warming) cant be true.
Why do you persist in making patently false statements?
Since when do gasses –of whatever type– ’cause warming’ to happen?
Without the sun, the only energy that would warm this globe would be geothermal in nature.
If anything the various component gasses of the Earth’s atmosphere moderate the level of heat energy loss from –or transmission to– the Earth’s surfaces.
Otherwise, they are not the cause of any warming, period.
And during the hottest year on record our snow fields near Melbourne have the largest snow fall in 30 years according the the MSM. Also there have been many intense low pressure systems twisting the jet stream straight from the south as can be seen here:
http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_sohem_00.gif if you are quick enough.
The last few weeks have been icy cold in Melbourne.
The Northern Hemisphere winter could be big this year.
Leif Svalgaard said:
“And the Thermosphere is also warming up as solar activity is on the upswing:
http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png”
Sure it has, a bit.
But I’m looking at longer term trends than individual solar cycles.
It appears that when a run of solar cycles is more active than the long term average level of solar activity then the stratosphere cools gradually whilst the thermosphere heats up and the jets move poleward.
When a run of solar cycles is less active than the long term average level of solar activity then the stratosphere warms gradually whilst the thermosphere cools down and the jets move equatorward.
The thermosphere and the stratosphere are supposed to warm and cool in tandem in response to solar variability. The thermosphere from direct impact on the molecules present and the stratosphere from solar impacts on ozone mainly.
But they don’t.
It can’t be down to CFCs or CO2 as usually proposed because the shift in the jets tells us what happened in the past well before we put significant CO2 or CFCs out there.
The MWP would have had a cooler stratosphere and poleward jets in a response to a more active sun just as in the late 20th century.
The LIA would have had a warmer stratosphere and equatorward jets in a response to a less active sun. We see that effect on a much smaller scale now.
I can only be wrong if a cooler stratosphere can be accompanied by more equatorward jets or a warmer stratosphere accompanied by more poleward jets but that doesn’t happen.
Only a warmer stratosphere can intensify the inversion at the tropopause to send the jets equatorward via an enhanced set of polar high pressure cells. A weaker inversion from a cooling stratosphere can only ever send the jets poleward via a weaker set of polar high pressure cells.
Unfortunately for established climatology that observation does not fit the accepted nostrums.
The giveaway is that latitudinal movement of the jets. The stratosphere must always have cooled when the sun was more active and warmed when the sun was less active because the jets moved poleward in the MWP and equatorward in the LIA.
However it does fit my New Climate Model.
The shift of the jets moves the cloud bands accordingly for a change in global albedo and a change in solar input to the oceans.
“But the magnitude of the density change during the recent solar minimum appeared to be about 30 percent greater than would have been expected by low solar activity.
The study team used computer modeling to analyze two possible factors implicated in the mystery of the shrinking thermosphere.”
How about trying to adjust the models to match observation ??
Stephen Wilde says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:17 am
However it does fit my New Climate Model.
Good to see your new climate model includes the Sun Steve, the .1% TSI modulation not being the whole show getting through. Erl Happ has a new article on pressure differential that is well worth reading.
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/is-enso-rather-than-a-%E2%80%98greenhouse-effect%E2%80%99-the-origin-of-%E2%80%98climate-change%E2%80%99-by-erl-happ/
I liked the way the desperately tried to link it to CO2. Finally the Sun wun!
How about some more real research, guys, instead of playing with computer models.
899 says:
August 27, 2010 at 4:44 am
I just can’t figure it out: I lit the stove, left the door open so that the house filled with C02, and in the morning the place was still smoky but very cold.
E.M.Smith says:
August 27, 2010 at 1:16 am
I’m beginning to think we need to start over and require a study of formal logic before anyone can re-new their degree.
This goes right along with the lack of critical thinking capabilities that infect all forms of our education system. Kids have been taught how to memorize, not how to think. They have been taught to follow a process rather than understand the details of the subject at hand. As a result you get adults that cannot come close to thinking a problem through. All they can do is repeat what they read from others.
sandyinderby says:
August 27, 2010 at 3:07 am
Can a statement like this be said with absolute certainty? Isn’t there just a tweeny weeny bit of uncertainty?
There is almost always uncertainty [even in this statement], but if there is a relation it is likely to be of the nature: A causes B and A causes C, so it looks like B and C are connected and people might wrongly think that B causes C.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:17 am
It appears that when a run of solar cycles is more active than the long term average level of solar activity then the stratosphere cools gradually whilst the thermosphere heats up and the jets move poleward.
When a run of solar cycles is less active than the long term average level of solar activity then the stratosphere warms gradually whilst the thermosphere cools down and the jets move equatorward.
Some comment here.
As the climate changes my heating bill will change as well, but that does not mean that my bill is causing climate change.
Leif Svalgaard said;
“As the climate changes my heating bill will change as well, but that does not mean that my bill is causing climate change.”
Then it’s a good thing that I do NOT say that the bill (the thermosphere) causes climate change.
What do say is that the solar effect on different layers of the atmosphere cannot be as current theory asserts. The evidence of the shifting jets shows us that the stratosphere must cool when the sun is more active and warm when the sun is less active.
For whatever reason the stratosphere appears to go in the opposite direction to the thermosphere.
I have proposed two possibilities as follows;
i) The net effect of more solar activity is to enhance ozone destruction more than ozone creation. The observed ozone changes are consistent with that. Ozone declined whilst the sun was more active and is now recovering.
ii) The atmosphere being comprised of layers then more solar activity might disturb the layer boundaries to affect surface areas and so change the upward energy flux rather like the evaporative effect of wind across water.
It doesn’t really matter to me HOW the effect is achieved. What matters to me is the climate response.
The jets clearly go poleward when the sun is more active if one looks at the longer timescales. They could not do so if the stratosphere were warming because one needs to reduce the intensity of the inversion at the tropopause to see such an effect. Thus a cooler stratosphere is required during a time of active sun and that is just what we observe, contrary to current theory.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:32 am :
Hello Geoff,
I have a lot of time for Erl who is doing a lot of good work trying to sort out the plethora of detail as regards ozone, clouds and more recently pressure.
In conclusion he says this:
“it appears that the cause of recent warming and cooling relates to long-term swings in atmospheric pressure that changes the relations between mid and low latitudes thereby affecting the trade winds that in turn determine the temperature of the Earth’s solar array, its tropical ocean, and ultimately the globe as a whole.”
I think that is absolutely right (except that it’s ALL the winds not just the Trades) but I’m not sure that Erl has yet nailed the correct sequence of events and so has not yet put his findings into a coherent overall climate description.
I have tried to do just that and on the basis of continuing observations of the real world I think I’m pretty close but there are missing mechanisms needed to complete the picture.