Solar UV linkage to earth's atmosphere confirmed

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…”

Large changes in the sun's energy output may drive fluctuations in Earth's outer atmosphere. Results of a study link a recent, temporary shrinking of a high atmospheric layer with a sharp drop in the sun's ultraviolet radiation levels. Credit: NASA

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.

###
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

104 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 27, 2010 8:27 pm

erlhapp says:
August 27, 2010 at 8:20 pm
The change in the pressure differential drives sea surface temperature in the tropics. It’s plainly a reversible process.
So? What has that to do with solar activity? If you have not changed your story since a year or two ago, then there is nothing new to dig into. So, explain what is new and exciting.

August 27, 2010 8:59 pm

Leif,
Have you an answer to 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?”
See the data for the all important mid latitudes at:
http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/2-30-50ns.jpg
The differential between the mid latitudes and the equator drives the trades. Slack trades means a warm ocean because there is less evaporation and less upwelling of cool waters, but you knew that.
The question is:
“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?”

August 27, 2010 9:07 pm

erlhapp says:
August 27, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Have you an answer to the question?
Of course not. Nobody has one that is believable. Including you. But why beat around the bush? Just explain in plain language [250 words is what you will be allotted in the abstract of your paper if you were to submit one.] what you think the mechanism is.

August 27, 2010 10:00 pm

Leif,
Thanks for that.
Let’s admit that the change is very likely externally modulated. So, let’s cross planetary waves off the list. What candidates do we have?
The atmosphere consists of electrically neutral particles that will not align to the Earths magnetic field. But there are sufficient non neutrals, including, it has been suggested, plain old water that will align themselves with the Earths magnetic field. Oxygen, ozone and nitrogen contribute a wealth of particles that owe their presence to the ionizing ability of short wave radiation. The location and movement of non neutrals and neutrals, via the force of collision and entrainment, depends upon the stability of that field. And, as we know, its very unstable. That field depends upon earthly and solar processes.
At: http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/6-80-90s-10n-10s.jpg
you see that episodic increases of sea level atmospheric pressure in the equatorial zone are associated with simultaneous depletion of atmospheric pressure in high latitudes, especially in the southern hemisphere.
Above, you made this comment:
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”
Your reply: “If anything that would be at high latitudes.”
Now, just exactly what did you have in mind?

August 27, 2010 10:19 pm

erlhapp says:
August 27, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Let’s admit that the change is very likely externally modulated. So, let’s cross planetary waves off the list. What candidates do we have?
I see no reason to think the change is external, planetary waves will do just fine.
depends upon the stability of that field. And, as we know, its very unstable. That field depends upon earthly and solar processes.
No, the Earth’s magnetic field is very stable, only very rarely varies more than 1% on relevant time scales. Your idea that water aligns it with the Earth’s magnetic field is silly.
you see that episodic increases of sea level atmospheric pressure in the equatorial zone are associated with simultaneous depletion of atmospheric pressure in high latitudes, especially in the southern hemisphere.
but what has that to do with the Sun? sounds like some interval variation to me.
Your reply: “If anything that would be at high latitudes.”
Now, just exactly what did you have in mind?

Here is a plot of the power input [in GigaWatt] to the hemispheres: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/

August 28, 2010 12:07 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:23 pm
There is no electricity coming from ‘space’.
———————————————
That’s a valid statement. Electricity does not come out of empty nothing.

August 28, 2010 12:45 am

Leif,
Re your comment. “I see no reason to think the change is external, planetary waves will do just fine.”
Well, please yourself but, based on observation, a pressure collapse at the poles is contemporaneous with an increase in the temperature of the polar stratosphere. The pressure collapse is responsible for vortex collapse (cuts off the sir supply from above) that ALLOWS the migration of the planetary wave towards the pole. It is the vortex collapse that is directly responsible for an increase in ozone content in the ‘surf zone’ and it is the increase in ozone that causes the temperature increase in the stratosphere that we know as a sudden stratospheric warming. That temperature increase is a top-down affair. The control of ozone via the vortex, and its dependence upon solar geomagnetic activity and transport phenomena (via the vortex) is described here: http://www.agci.org/dB/PPTs/10S1_0614_CRandall.pdf See slide 12.
It seems that the ozone concentration of the stratosphere is driven in large part by change in vortex strength (itself directly relating to surface pressure change) determining the transport of erosive compounds from the mesosphere.
It seems that the increase in ozone in the polar stratosphere propagates speedily throughout the stratosphere and is closely associated with an increase in sea surface temperature in the summer hemisphere. I know this to be controversial but the evidence is there, having covered it in my blog.
So, I think your explanation is unphysical. At the root of these phenomena is a change in transport dynamics. In other words, it is the strength of the vortex that matters. And vortex strength depends directly upon atmospheric pressure.
Are you really suggesting that planetary waves are causing the collapse in sea level atmospheric pressure? Pull the other leg.
I think you have a typo or a syntax problem in the following sentence because it doesn’t relate to what I wrote at all.
“Your idea that water aligns it with the Earth’s magnetic field is silly.”
Is the changing power input to the hemispheres that you diagrammatically illustrate capable of changing upper atmosphere winds? Will it slow the migration of air from the summer to the winter pole in the mesosphere? If it does, you have a reason for the change in surface pressure at the winter pole.
Google search yields plenty of evidence of the dependence of mesospheric wind upon geomagnetic activity suggesting that the meridional component of the winds becomes more equator-ward with geomagnetic activity. So, the chain of causation is there. The result, in terms of a change in atmospheric pressure at the poles and mid latitudes vis a vis the equator is there for all to see.
The mesosphere is the interaction zone between neutrals and non neutrals. The two move together. But the non neutrals are also present in the stratosphere. So, we are talking about 25% of the atmosphere that may be affected by solar activity in this way.
Much of the current thinking in climate science represents a determined effort to see the Earth and its atmosphere as a closed system. I reckon this represents a religious belief. No amount of argument or observation will change this.

August 28, 2010 1:43 am

Erl Happ said:
“So, increase the ozone content and the atmosphere will expand.”
Well yes but…
During the period of HIGH solar activity during the late 20th century ozone FELL and the stratosphere cooled whilst both thermosphere and troposphere warmed and the thermosphere expanded. Now all that has reversed if we look at the whole period since the late 90s and ignore shorter term chaotic variability. We now see recovering ozone, a cooling troposphere (El Nino events apart), a cooling and shrinking thermosphere and a warming stratosphere.
The only change would appear to be declining solar activity.
Now add in first the poleward (late 20th century) and now equatorward shifts in the jets and one can see that what we are looking at is the sort of shift (on a small scale) that led to the changes from MWP to LIA and then to date. So scrub CO2 and CFCs as a potential cause of the cooling stratosphere (when it should have been warming) and falling ozone while the sun was more active since CO2 emissions were insignificant and CFCs were non existent back then.
What we are left with is a wholly natural cycle whereby the stratospheric temperature trend somehow goes in the opposite direction to the thermosphere and troposphere when solar activity changes with a consequent effect on the latitudinal positioning of all the air circulation systems (hence climate changes) which has a knock on effect on albedo and the direction of trend of the entire global energy budget (especially the rate of energy input to the oceans).
Then referring to Leif’s position I note that he is content with an internal forcing but not an external forcing, a bottom up forcing but not a top down forcing.
So where does an external top down (solar) forcing translate into an internal bottom up forcing ?
In the oceans of course.
So that squares the circle. All the solar effects need to do is alter the relative energy fluxes between layers in the atmosphere in order for the surface pressure distribution to change so that the energy flux into the oceans changes and then we have an external solar forcing disguised as an internal oceanic forcing.
All that follows from the simple observations that:
i) The stratosphere cools when the sun is more active and warms when the sun is less active.
ii) The surface air pressure distribution shifts latitudinally to alter energy input to the oceans via a change in global albedo.
I see that as a perfectly adequate energy balancing mechanism but I know it will initially seem bizarre to many.

August 28, 2010 5:59 am

Geoff Sharp says:
“The last few weeks have been icy cold in Melbourne.”
So it should have been with the lower solar wind speed from mid August, it made it very wet here too, as predicted. ( As I am the only forecaster employing an empirical method of predicting short term temperature change, this forecast was unique to myself)
“The Northern Hemisphere winter could be big this year.”
Planetary Ordered Solar Theory suggests otherwise.

August 28, 2010 6:25 am

Stephen,
I said:
“It seems that the ozone concentration of the stratosphere is driven in large part by change in vortex strength”
There is another contributor and that is water vapour. As the Earth cools the flux of water vapour from the troposphere is diminished. Ozone is soluble in water. So, it is natural that as the Earth cools the stratosphere will dry, ozone will increase and its temperature will rise.

August 28, 2010 7:21 am

erlhapp said:
” a pressure collapse at the poles is contemporaneous with an increase in the temperature of the polar stratosphere. ”
Hi, Erl.
I would also say that when there is a pressure collapse AT the poles then simultaneously the polar high pressure cells grow, intensify and move equatorward across the mid latitudes.
The thing I am not sure about is whether it is the movement of the high pressure cells away from the poles that leaves room for low pressure to develop at the poles or whether the development of low pressure at the poles pushes the high pressure cells equatorward. Either way it seems to be induced from above as you say. The strength of the inversion at the tropopause dictates what happens to the pressure distribution beneath, all else being equal.
Any idea ?
I like your suggestion about the ozone mechanisms. We need an explanation though as to why this all happens when the sun is quiet rather than when it is active.
We shouldn’t be getting a warming stratosphere and more ozone when the sun is quiet. Instead we should be seeing a cooler stratosphere because supposedly there would be less solar input to warm the available ozone.
Likewise we shouldn’t have seen a cooling stratosphere and less ozone when the sun was more active. Instead we should have seen a warmer stratosphere because supposedly there would be more solar input to warm the available ozone.
If we can get the sequence of events right so as to fit those contrary observations then I would call that a result.
Although you are talking about ‘sudden stratospheric warming events’ I think we can extend that to longer term stratospheric temperature trends

August 28, 2010 7:39 am

Stephen Wilde
at 12:45 am
With regards to top down heating please see my following article: “The Diurnal Bulge and the Fallacies of the Greenhouse Effect.”
My contact email address is on this page, I would be very interested in discussing these points with you.

August 28, 2010 9:21 am

Ulric Lyons says:
August 28, 2010 at 5:59 am
So it should have been with the lower solar wind speed from mid August, it made it very wet here too, as predicted. ( As I am the only forecaster employing an empirical method of predicting short term temperature change, this forecast was unique to myself)
Planetary Ordered Solar Theory suggests otherwise.

1. The big weather was during 600 km/s plus solar wind. Other periods of cold during low solar wind. You have the data, both temp and solar wind speed. Plot it and show the correlation instead of making general statements. (second request)
2. Solar wind speed does not vary on a big scale over the cycle, can you provide the mechanism for solar wind induced short term weather patterns.
3. A mechanism/explanation of Planet Ordered Solar Theory would also be appreciated.

August 28, 2010 9:33 am

erlhapp says:
August 28, 2010 at 12:45 am
I think you have a typo or a syntax problem in the following sentence because it doesn’t relate to what I wrote at all.
“Your idea that water aligns it with the Earth’s magnetic field is silly.”

This is what you wrote:
erlhapp says:
August 27, 2010 at 10:00 pm
including […] plain old water that will align themselves with the Earths magnetic field.
Is the changing power input to the hemispheres that you diagrammatically illustrate capable of changing upper atmosphere winds?
Yes, the zonal winds, of course.
So, we are talking about 25% of the atmosphere that may be affected by solar activity in this way.
no, we are not. We are talking about 0.000,000…01 %.
Much of the current thinking in climate science represents a determined effort to see the Earth and its atmosphere as a closed system. I reckon this represents a religious belief. No amount of argument or observation will change this.
This is just nonsense, based on ignorance of basic climate science.

August 28, 2010 9:51 am

erlhapp said:
“There is another contributor and that is water vapour. As the Earth cools the flux of water vapour from the troposphere is diminished. Ozone is soluble in water. So, it is natural that as the Earth cools the stratosphere will dry, ozone will increase and its temperature will rise.”
Yes, Erl. That would equate to what I’ve been saying about the speed of the hydrological cycle.
However that could occur from bottom up by means of the oceans releasing energy more slowly to air or from the top down by means of the level of solar activity altering the upward energy flux differentially from layer to layer so as to alter the rate at which energy leaves the stratosphere upward.
I think that really one needs to change stratospheric temperatures first by one or both of those methods and then the rest falls into place. The strength of the inversion at the tropopause is the critical factor affecting pressure distribution from above and all the signs are that the solar effect on the stratosphere is opposite to what convention suggests and we have to find the mechanism that does that and at the same time affects ozone quantities in the right direction.

August 28, 2010 10:37 am

Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2010 at 9:21 am
“1. The big weather was during 600 km/s plus solar wind. Other periods of cold during low solar wind. You have the data, both temp and solar wind speed. Plot it and show the correlation instead of making general statements. (second request)”
Max/min (daily) anomalies, apart from the S.E corner of Australia on the 27th August have been lifting since the recent uplift in solar wind velocity;
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp
I assume you mean cold by `big weather`?
I am not sure what you mean by `general statements`?, I have given precise dates for falls and rises in solar activity, eg. down mid month and back up again around the 27th, it all looks good to me.
Solar data, use the archive for from mid month;
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/latest_events/
“2. Solar wind speed does not vary on a big scale over the cycle…”
Neither does temperature, but they move together in the short term.. Bingo!

August 28, 2010 11:20 am

erlhapp says:
August 28, 2010 at 12:45 am
Much of the current thinking in climate science represents a determined effort to see the Earth and its atmosphere as a closed system.
As I said, ignorance on your part. Check out session 4 from the recent SORCE meeting. The talks there represent current thinking in climate science:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/agendas.html#speakers

August 28, 2010 12:30 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2010 at 9:21 am
“2. …can you provide the mechanism for solar wind induced short term weather patterns.”
A change in temperature forces a change in weather patterns, the temperature change being driven by a change in the solar wind. The recent series of `Modern Winters` (N.H.) that have been re-branded as Global Warming, all have remarkably high solar wind velocities compared to colder winters, as does any particularly hot summer month, so I have no doubt the solar wind speed/density is instrumental in temperature variation. As to how this works, I would be interested in the possibility of increased IR from enhanced plasma heat at the Earth`s bowshock , as it it does get as hot as the corona of the Sun there at times. The correlation is sound, and it avoids all those nasty TSI variability problems.

August 28, 2010 6:36 pm

Leif,
Thanks for the SORCE papers. I appreciate the sharing. I will peruse with interest.
If I might make a suggestion, the perturbations of the Earths climate are on ENSO timescales and these perturbations are plainly linked to changes in the differential sea level atmospheric pressure between 30° to 50° of latitude and the near equatorial zone as can be seen here for the southern hemisphere:
http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/7-sst-30-50s-p.jpg
and here for the northern hemisphere:
http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/8.jpg
ENSO also changes on multi decadal and longer timescales as can be seen here:
http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/9.jpg
So, sea surface temperature in the tropics is plainly driven by changes in atmospheric pressure. I see no evidence that solar scientists are at all interested in explaining the short and long term change in sea level pressure. Rather, they seem to be engaged in a top down investigation that relates what they see coming from the sun to change in the chemical constituents of the upper atmosphere.
If they refuse to look at the Earths climate systems in the broad, understanding will be a long time coming.
Nowhere is the blindness more apparent than in discussion of the cause of ozone variations at the poles. One looks in vain for any mention of changes in atmospheric pressure in connection with change in the temperature of the stratosphere at the pole. The role of transport mechanisms (sometimes called dynamical mechanisms) is recognized by some, denied by most, and change in the vortex is almost universally ascribed to the influence of planetary waves rather than variations in air supply linked to changes in pressure.
My prescription: Solar scientists should abandon the shower and develop a bathing habit. They should sit in the bath and observe the water as it disappears down the plug hole. Then, simulate a planetary wave and see if the water suddenly heats up and stops going down the plug hole.

August 28, 2010 8:14 pm

erlhapp says:
August 28, 2010 at 6:36 pm
I see no evidence that solar scientists are at all interested in explaining the short and long term change in sea level pressure.
Perhaps it is that they see no evidence for these changes being caused by the Sun. Solar scientists also are not too interested in explaining the mating habits of the Giant Snow Frog.

August 28, 2010 9:34 pm

Leif,
Unlike the mating habits of the giant Snow Frog the short and long term change in sea level pressure is at the heart of the phenomena we call natural climate variation.

August 28, 2010 10:59 pm

erlhapp says:
August 28, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Unlike the mating habits of the giant Snow Frog the short and long term change in sea level pressure is at the heart of the phenomena we call natural climate variation.
And, again, this has as much to do with solar activity as the Giant Snow Frog.

August 28, 2010 11:06 pm

erlhapp says:
August 28, 2010 at 6:36 pm
ENSO also changes on multi decadal and longer timescales
You can learn more about what causes ENSO here:
http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/theory/index.html

August 29, 2010 3:28 am

Leif. You say:
“You can learn more about what causes ENSO here:
http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/theory/index.html
Unfortunately, the theory espoused at that link is quite inadequate.
Consider,
1. The warming of the tropical ocean is a global affair, not just the Pacific.
2. The Pacific (and ENSO 3.4) frequently lags behind the global tropics. The SOI frequently lags behind the change in the pressure band differential for the globe as a whole.
3. The motive force that determines the strength of the Trades (determining whether the ocean will warm up or cool down) depends upon surface atmospheric pressure differentials. This gets no mention in the ‘theory’ at all.
4. The ‘theory’ can not explain the swing from El Nino to La Nina dominance over decades.
Those who espouse this theory are either fools or knaves. If I am to be charitable, I must suggest it is the former. But I can not believe that they are that simple, so I will go with the latter.
The explanation is plainly driven by a political agenda of the sort where the ends are supposed to justify the means.

August 29, 2010 3:54 am

erlhapp says:
August 28, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Maybe the facetiousness of the Minotaur is a proxy for a pressure differential?

Verified by MonsterInsights