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.
Solar cycles even change the lenght of the day!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727754.000-sunspots-squeeze-and-stretch-the-day.html
899.
Ghgs, ( like water vapor) do cause the temperature to increase.
Yes, the sun is the source, Just ask yourself what the temperature on earth would be in the following two cases:
A. Current sun and no atmosphere
B. Current sun and an atmosphere of gases, say pick H02,
I suppose you are arguing that those two planets would have the same temperature.
Same sun, same earth, just add an atmosphere with water in it.
let me know when you show there is no difference, I’ll alert the nobel prize committee.
Abstract of the paper is as follows:
Anomalously low solar extreme‐ultraviolet irradiance
and thermospheric density during solar minimum
Stanley C. Solomon,1 Thomas N. Woods,2 Leonid V. Didkovsky,3 John T. Emmert,4
and Liying Qian1
Received 23 June 2010; accepted 1 July 2010; published 25 August 2010.
[1] Solar activity during 2007–2009 was very low, and during
this protracted solar minimum period, the terrestrial
thermosphere was cooler and lower in density than expected.
Measurements from instruments on the SOHO and TIMED
spacecraft, and by suborbital rocket flights, indicate that solar
extreme‐ultraviolet irradiance levels were lower than they
were during the previous solar minimum. Analysis of
atmospheric drag on satellite orbits indicate that the
thermosphere was lower in density, and therefore cooler, and
than at any time since the beginning of the space age.
However, secular change due to increasing levels of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which cool the upper
atmosphere, also plays a role in thermospheric climate.
Simulations by the NCAR Thermosphere‐Ionosphere‐
Electrodynamics General Circulation Model are compared to
thermospheric density measurements, yielding evidence that
the primary cause of the low thermospheric density was the
unusually low level of solar extreme‐ultraviolet irradiance.
Citation: Solomon, S. C., T. N. Woods, L. V. Didkovsky, J. T.
Emmert, and L. Qian (2010), Anomalously low solar extremeultraviolet
irradiance and thermospheric density during solar minimum,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L16103, doi:10.1029/2010GL044468.
I’m confused. The above posting and NASA statement are saying that a cooling thermosphere shrinks and becomes less dense. Did I read that right? I must be missing some vital piece of CO2-related info, because I was taught in school that if a gas cools and its volume decreases, the density increases. But if NASA says otherwise, well, I’ll have another slice of humble CO2 pie.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 26, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Of course, Leif is right about the height and thinness of the thermosphere, but….
The thermosphere cools and shrinks when the sun is less active and that has clearly been happening since the late 90s.
However over the same period the stratosphere has ceased cooling and is now warming a little:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
I suggest that you take a careful look at Fig 4.
I would be very interested to hear Leif’s explanation (if any) for the change in sea surface atmospheric pressure that I report at :http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/
The change in surface atmospheric pressure drives ENSO via its effect on the trade winds. There is a change in the base state from La Nina(pre1978) to El Nino dominance (1978-2007) and back again. And that is most definitely climate change.
But, what is it that changes the surface atmospheric pressure?
jorgekafkazar says:
August 26, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Effect of thermosphere on solar transmission: Good question! Feynman notes that with glass(analogous to atmospheric layers) linear thickness increase causes an oscillation in the percentage transmission(QED, Princeton, 1985).
Query, on average 20% of TSI UV, if this segment has suffered a 15% reduction in upper range why hasn’t SORCE uncovered the fact?
Well regardless of what goson in the thermosphere; or irregardless as the case may be; whether solar extreme UV caused, or solar core neutrinos; we can report; computer models notwithstanding, that as of today; the Physical and Chemical properties of the H2O molecule have survived unscathed, and still have their former values operatng at full functionality; so we can predict; excuse me; that’s project, that there’s nothing to worry about Mates. She’ll be right, and it will all come out in the wash (there’s that WATER again) !
So nothing more to see here folks; move along now.
Any chance I could get some of that grant money to study all this ?
Someone really thought this was an insignificant matter? Life on this planet has been assailed by myriad nasty and devestating events over the millenia, but the sun is the absolute precursor to EVERYTHING on this planet (which is about the most obvious statement ever), including THE planet. Really an incredible statement from the science community.
“This research makes a compelling case for the need to study the coupled sun-Earth system…”
erlhapp says:
August 27, 2010 at 9:07 am
But, what is it that changes the surface atmospheric pressure?
Pressure is the weight of the overlying molecules and therefore does not change. The distribution of pressure over the globe changes all the time.
Re: Steven Mosher says:
August 27, 2010 at 8:26 am
[…Yes, the sun is the source, Just ask yourself what the temperature on earth would be in the following two cases:
A. Current sun and no atmosphere
B. Current sun and an atmosphere of gases, say pick H02,…]
Mosher, you left out an option:
C. Current sun and an IR transparent atmosphere.
Which is the warmer planet?
Re: Phil says:
August 27, 2010 at 8:33 am
[I’m confused. The above posting and NASA statement are saying that a cooling thermosphere shrinks and becomes less dense. Did I read that right? I must be missing some vital piece of CO2-related info, because I was taught in school that if a gas cools and its volume decreases, the density increases. But if NASA says otherwise, well, I’ll have another slice of humble CO2 pie.]
They aren’t referring to the density of the entire thermosphere. What they are referring to is the density at a fixed altitude in the high thermosphere. The density there declined because the thermosphere contracted beneath that altitude.
Simply speaking,
An example of how this works
If you were to step into your kitchen.
Put a pot of water on the stove.
Put the oven up to 500 degrees.
Open or close the oven door.
Did the pot boil?
Probably close, but no cigar.
That is the Sun.
Turn on the burner under the pot to 1/4th. This is your sunspot activity. What happens? That is the present sunspot minimum.
Turn it up half.
This is a cool/warm sunspot cycle. This is about 400 total mean for a cycle.
What happens?
Turn it up to 3/4s. This is a cycle at 600 to 700 total mean for a cycle.
Now, raise it up to high and this is 900 plus sunspot cycle mean. How does it feel?
The oven at 500 degrees and the pot boiling. This is the accumulated affect of the Sun from 1996 to 2007.
You should feel a lot of humidity. How many hurricanes were there and how much ACE was there? In 11 years, 170 storms and 1600 ACE
Now turn down the heat to 3/4s.that small moment where boiling out of control to calm is 2003 to 2006. 2006 was 26 tropical storms and two major hurricanes.
Now turn it down to half; 2007 to 2009.
Now turn it to 1/4 th. 2010.
Did you notice the humidity drop off from the pot and the dry oven heat taking over.
What is missing?
Direct flare heat from sunspots and humidity. The probable missing ingredient in this hurricane season is the mechanism of sunspot activity that causes
HUMIDITY!
As I said to the good CSU and earlier in this blog, the missing formula for hurricane seasons (not El Ninos or La Ninas) is humidity. There is very little now.
This why I believe the season would be 4 to 7 named storms of 50/50 mix of tropical storms and hurricanes and several tropical depressions.
I think CSU and HTC were at 22 named storms and about 10 were major hurricanes.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Paul
“http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
I suggest that you take a careful look at Fig 4.”
Fig 4 indicates a rise in stratospheric temperatures since the 90s.
Were you supporting me or suggesting that I had missed something ?
This study seems to imply that the thermosphere is affected in a way independent of simple TSI. I wonder what else in the atmosphere is affected as well.
There’s bound to be some gravitational link between the sun and earth’s atmosphere too; it helps us keep our atmosphere because it is made to go around the sun in pretty much the same orbit as the earth; so that is a very useful linkage.
Direct flare heat from sunspots and humidity. The probable missing ingredient in this hurricane season is the mechanism of sunspot activity that causes HUMIDITY!
Problem is the relationship is inverse ie humidity decreases as solar forcing increases (and surface t) this is clearly seen in the annular cycle eg chatham station
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/chathamislandsolarrh.gif
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2010 at 12:58 am
The article is full of half-truths combined with outright nonsense.
———————————————
You’re not an electrical engineer, and thus not qualified, but thanks for your emotional opinion.
“The electromotive power is deposited mostly in the upper atmosphere at mid to low latitudes and gives rise to fast upper atmosphere winds and even “super rotation.” That is, the wind races around the planet faster than the planet turns. It is a phenomenon observed on Venus and Titan and remains unexplained by atmospheric physics, which relies on solar heating. It is the cause of the extraordinary winds on the gas giant planets in the outer solar system, where solar heating is weak. It has implications for the jet streams and weather patterns on Earth as well. Notably, the polar current streams take the form of twin Birkeland current filaments, which give rise to the enigmatic “double vortexes” seen at the poles of Venus. It is apparent that electrical energy from space doesn’t merely light up auroras. It has a profound influence on upper atmosphere winds and storms. An expert on the dynamics of planetary atmospheres, F. W. Taylor, has admitted, “the absence of viable theories which can be tested, or in this case [Venusian polar vortex] any theory at all, leaves us uncomfortably in doubt as to our basic ability to understand even gross features of planetary atmospheric circulations.” Meanwhile, electrical energy appears nowhere in any climate model.”
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=aapprbh6
The fact that the layer in the upper atmosphere known as the thermosphere is shrunken and dense means…
… that the sky is falling?
An old chum and friend from high school days saw another article about this topic and asked me how the sun could cause the atmosphere to expand and contract like that. This is the ‘back of the envelope’ explanation I came up with. There are a lot of inadequacies to this explanation but it paints a picture of the basic interactions that are understandable to folks struggling to remember their high school algebra and physical science.
Scientists recently noted that the radius of the earth’s atmosphere (thermosphere and every thing under it) has contracted over the last few years. The contraction correlates with our sun entering a relatively extended solar minimum, a period of reduced solar activity. When this happens, the earth is exposed to somewhat less total solar emissions. The lowered solar emissions (particularly about 6% lower UV radiation) apparently produce less heating effects in the thermosphere (the upper part of our atmosphere), causing it to contract.
Thermosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
Remember Boyles Natural Gas Law, from our high school Chemistry/Physics classes? PV=nrT where P = pressure, T = temperature, V = volume, and ‘n’ and ‘r’ are constants. It described the relationships of pressure, temperature, and volume for ‘natural gases’ such as those found in our atmosphere.
Initial Gas Condition: P1V1 = nrT1 or nr = P1V1/T1
Changed Gas Condition: P2V2 = nrT2 or nr = P2V2/T2
Canceling the constants (nr) and rearranging…
P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2
If we assume the total mass of the atmosphere is relatively constant, we can set P1 = P2 for Pressure (P) at the earths surface, but allow atmospheric Temperature (T) and Volume (V) to vary for the atmosphere. Since the vacuum of space presents no barrier to constrain volume and our heat source (old Sol..) is somewhat variable, these are reasonable 1st order assumptions. (Yes, gravity does provide a ‘soft’ constraint to the atmosphere maximum diameter, the surface (land and water) of the earth provides a ‘floor’ for the minimum atmosphere diameter, and atmospheric pressure varies from ‘zero’ to 1 standard atmosphere respectively. I chose to keep it a simple illustration, for folks struggling to remember their high school algebra and physics.)
Since P1 = P2, we can cancel and rearrange….
V1/T1 = V2/T2
If the atmospheric temperature T2 drops lower that some initial state T1, the atmospheric volume V2 must get proportionately smaller to maintain the same ratio as V1/T1.
Volume for a sphere is V = [4 Pi (r)exp3]/3 so the radius contracts as the cube root of the volume contraction. (Caveat: Although the earth’s atmosphere is not a full ‘sphere’, just a spherical shell of r2-r1, where r2 is the top of the thermosphere and r1 is the earth’s surface, it provides a general illustration.)
When our global atmosphere contracts, it presents less atmospheric drag on all of that space junk in low earth orbit. When it expands, the low orbit hardware sees more atmospheric drag, slowing the orbital speed and causing eventual re-entry into our atmosphere!
Sooooooo…. a ‘quiet’ sun means a cooler and smaller radius earth atmosphere which means space junk stays in orbit longer. And when the sun gets real active again, we will see the atmospheric volume expand again and cause a lot of low earth orbit space junk to make a “Viking Pyre” return to the planet!
It’s as natural as sunshine and as predictable as sunrise…..
Leif
“The distribution of pressure over the globe changes all the time.”
Well, I am enlightened.
And what causes the loss of the pressure differential between the poles and the equator and the mid latitudes and the equator then its recovery over a sixty year time period?
But, I sense the wall has gone up already and there will be little to be gained in pursuing the matter.
For anyone who wants to follow the argument, I have documented the change in the pressure differential here: http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/
Much can be achieved when men of goodwill bring their diverse talents to a problem solving activity. I like that sort of thing.
• Weird Naked Indian
That’s an excellent contribution. ‘Electromotive power’. I imagine that could have a lot to do with pressure differentials at the surface, especially if it tended to move the atmosphere away from the poles and towards the equator. And that, plainly, is what happens.
• Mac the Knife
Is it just the thermosphere that expands and contracts according to the energy input from the sun? It actually begins in the stratosphere, albeit the upper stratosphere with the splitting of the oxygen molecule. Then there is a knock on effect. Some atmospheric heating (in both stratosphere and troposphere) is due to the absorption of long wave infrared from the Earth by ozone. So, increase the ozone content and the atmosphere will expand. So, the heating is much more extensive than if it were confined to that which is called the ‘thermosphere’.
And the narrow mindedness of Leif’s position on the matter is apparent. His statement is not physical, it’s political.
Weird Naked Indian says:
August 27, 2010 at 2:31 pm
“The electromotive power is deposited mostly in the upper atmosphere at mid to low latitudes
If anything that would be at high latitudes.
Meanwhile, electrical energy appears nowhere in any climate model.
As it shouldn’t because it is not a driving force. There is no electricity coming from ‘space’. What happens is that plasma moves across magnetic field lines and induce electric currents in the upper atmosphere and inner magnetosphere.
erlhapp says:
August 27, 2010 at 4:25 pm
And what causes the loss of the pressure differential between the poles and the equator and the mid latitudes and the equator then its recovery over a sixty year time period?
No indications that that has anything to do with solar activity. The ‘mechanisms’ you have pushed are not viable, and are based on muddled physics.
erlhapp says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:22 pm
And the narrow mindedness of Leif’s position on the matter is apparent.
Yes, I’m very narrow-minded when it comes to making sense of something. And your stuff [as you know] does not pass the [science] filter. To think that it is political is unfounded and offensive.
Leif,
Once again I pose the question: “And what causes the loss of the pressure differential between the poles and the equator and the mid latitudes and the equator then its recovery over a sixty year time period?”
The change in the pressure differential drives sea surface temperature in the tropics. It’s plainly a reversible process.
I suggest you dig in hard and address the question. I have my own ‘science filter’, my own BS filter and I am not happy with your response. In this circumstance I am apt to be offensive. I am provoked.